We won't spam, rent, sell, or share
your information in any way.
When Christians hold on to their Christian beliefs in spite of any “evidence” to the contrary, they are labeled “dogmatic” and “intolerant.” However, when evolutionists hold on to their beliefs in spite of the “evidence,” they are lauded as being “scientific.” Such is the world of double standards that we live in today.
A current example of this double standard appeared in an editorial from the May 17 New York Times. The editorial spends 8 paragraphs lamenting the situations in Kansas and Pennsylvania, where evolutionary dogma is being put to the test. The school boards in these states are simply asking that evolutionism be subject to the same level of scrutiny that other scientific theories are afforded. Instead of blindly accepting a hypothesis about the origin and proliferation of life that abounds on the planet, why not question the ruling paradigm and see if the “facts” fit the “story.” This is what forensic scientists must do. They are given particular “interpretations” from the defendant and plaintiff and they must determine whose story makes the most sense of the “facts.” In other words, they start with a presupposition and they take that to the “facts” and see if everything “adds up.”
Evolutionists and creationists alike are religious people. They both believe what they believe by faith. Evolution has never been observed, just as creation ex nihilo has never been observed. True science must be observable, repeatable, and testable. It’s rather difficult to repeat and test something that has never been observed. Hence, on this basis, evolution and creation are equals. While both shape and frame your beliefs and assumptions about the present and future, neither one can be proved by scientific means. Even the NYT editorial staff acknowledge this: “The minority [in the Kansas debate] even seeks to change the definition of science in a way that appears to leave room for supernatural explanations of the origin and evolution of life, not just natural explanations, the usual domain of science.” By defining science as being purely naturalistic, they rule creationism out a priori. By definition, however, this should also rule out evolutionism.
“But,” you may be asking, “isn’t evolution naturalistic and therefore within the realm of natural explanations?” Good question, the answer is no. Evolution is a belief. Hence, I refer to it as evolutionism. Will Provine from Cornell University speaks to this, “the evidence for the big transformations in evolution are not there in the fossil record—it’s always good to point this out. It’s difficult to explore a billion-year-old fossil record. Be patient!” The reporter then goes on to say, “Provine’s faith, if one may call it that, rests on Darwinism, which he describes as the greatest engine of atheism devised by man.” The reporter sees the problem. Provine must describe his naturalism in terms of faith, i.e. “be patient.” Even though the fossil record doesn’t show what he wants it to, just be patient, it will. Hardly naturalistic. He also describes Darwinism as an “engine of atheism.” Atheism is merely the religion of naturalism. The assumption is that God doesn’t exist until proven otherwise. When this assumption is your starting point, nothing can prove it wrong. This is the approach of the legendary Ebenezer Scrooge. Remember how Scrooge replied to Jacob Marley when he asked him why he doubts his senses?
Because a little thing can affect them. A slight disorder of the stomach can make them cheat. You may be a bit of undigested beef, a blob of mustard, a crumb of cheese. Yes. There's more gravy than of grave about you.
In other words, Scrooge made up his mind without any regard to what his senses told him. He ignored the “facts” that didn’t square with his theory. Stuart Kauffman echoes Provine’s statements. “To question whether patterns and complexity, at the level of the cell or the universe, bespeak intelligent design is not stupid in the least. I simply believe they’ve come up with the wrong answers.” Ultimately it comes down to belief and faith, on both sides of the argument. “Some biologists still argue that you can get to high evolutionary forms purely through natural selection. That involves more faith in chance than religious people have in the Bible.”
Nevertheless, the NYT editorial ends this way:
The Kansas board, which held one-sided hearings this month that were boycotted by mainstream scientists on the grounds that the outcome was preordained, is expected to vote on the standards this summer. One can only hope that the members will come to their senses first.
Several comments are in order for this stream of ignorance. First, one-sided hearings are what got evolution into the classrooms in the first place. At the Scopes Trial, Clarence Darrow argued that this was the height of ignorance—teaching only one side of the story. Of course, he was arguing for evolution to be taught, but not to the exclusion of what was ALREADY being taught—the Bible. Today we have that very situation—naturalism masquerading as science and being taught exclusively. Second, the editorial uses the word “pre-ordained.” There’s no doubt, in a purely mechanistic world of natural cause and effect, that everything IS pre-ordained. “[Richard] Dawkins argued that life was governed by blind physics, that free will was illusion, that religion was a virus.” Dawkins understands the implications of his religion—nature becomes sovereign. And since this is the case, it is rather irrational to try to predict the future. When a capricious “nature” is in charge of all that transpires, who are we—as mere subjects of nature, to put ourselves in the mind of the “creator?” “Hope” is an illusion also, because they “hope the members will come to their senses.” Hope, just as Scrooge’s senses, deceives us “because a little thing can affect them.” If the NYT wants evolutionism to be taught in the science classrooms, let them also teach its implications. If they truly believe that “a lot of the DNA in there is not needed—it’s junk,” then let them have their DNA removed. They may mock and laugh at the “narrow-minded creationists,” but when the social implications of consistent Darwinism get exposed, however, they will back pedal to their test tubes extremely fast. Ideas have consequences. If creationism cannot be taught in the science classroom, then neither should evolutionism. This is a philosophical debate of foundational worldviews and to make it a science question is to completely oversimplify and understate the case. We all serve a sovereign. The question is, which one? Where does your sovereignty reside…God or nature?
 http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/17/opinion/17tues2.html?th&emc=th (emphasis mine).
 Dickens, Charles. A Christmas Carol. Ch.1.