Today I’ll address two points that Rob makes. He says:
“I would suggest that the scientific method has been carefully constructed over the last five or more centuries by many of the greatest thinkers of our generations. Approximately 95% of the members of the Academy of Scientists believe in evolution and not in 'creation from the dust' by God. I am suspect of the other 5%. The scientific method has led directly to virtually all of our technological advancements as well as those theories we hold as truths.”
I couldn’t agree more with Rob’s first point. The scientific method has indeed been carefully constructed over the last five or more centuries by many of the greatest thinkers of our generations, and that this has led to all our scientific advances. But what Robert fails to acknowledge is that this scientific method was worked out by Christians who would be more in line with today’s creationists than with evolutionists. In fact, I would suggest that if not for the Christian worldview held almost universally in the West during most of the last five centuries, the scientific method could never have arisen at all. It is no mere coincidence that science had its greatest advancement in the West, where the Christian worldview ruled. Christians viewed the world as orderly and designed, ruled by inviolable laws and principles created by a personal Designer God. The Bible testified to an orderly, law-governed creation, and these laws and principles could therefore be studied and examined and worked out. This gave rise to the scientific method.
That the vast majority of the greatest scientific thinkers have been creationists is indisputable. Many publications and websites have provided long (though not exhaustive) lists of these “greatest thinkers” who have held a Christian worldview and belief in the Bible. For a few examples, visit:
http://www.rae.org/influsci.html
http://www.geocities.com/davidjayjordan/FamousChristianScientists.html
http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/v5i10f.htm
Galileo, Copernicus, and Isaac Newton are probably the three men most responsible for the scientific method, and all three were creationists (their beef was with the Roman Catholic Church, not the Bible). Copernicus viewed the universe as "built for us by the Best and Most Orderly Workman of all.” Galileo insisted that the Bible cannot err. In his Principia Newton stated, "The most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion on an intelligent and powerful Being." Sounds a lot like ID today. We could add Kepler, Boyle, Linnaeus, Euler, Faraday, Babbage, Joule, Pasteur, Kelvin, Maxwell, Werner von Braun and many others.
But, what about today’s scientists? Are creationists or those who believe in Intelligent Design so few and suspect as Evolutionists like to claim? While clearly in the minority, there are thousands of highly credentialed and accomplished scientists who reject Darwinism, and the number is increasing yearly.
A little research on the web will confirm this, not to mention the increasing number of books being published by highly respected scientists. Secular researcher Richard Milton, says, "Darwinism has never had much appeal for science outside of the English-speaking world, and has never appealed much to the American public (although popular with the U.S. scientific establishment in the past). However, its ascendancy in science, in both Britain and America, has been waning for several decades as its grip has weakened in successive areas: geology; paleontology; embryology; comparative anatomy. Now even geneticists are beginning to have doubts. It is only in mainstream molecular biology and zoology that Darwinism retains serious enthusiastic supporters. As growing numbers of scientists begin to drift away from neo-Darwinist ideas, the revision of Darwinism at the public level is long overdue, and is a process that I believe has already started." (Richard Milton, Shattering the Myths of Darwinism , Rochester, Vermont: Park Street Press, 1992, 1997, p. 277.)
In a recent article Dr. Russell Humphreys, physicist at Sandia National Laboratories, New Mexico, estimates that there are around 10,000 practicing professional scientists in the USA alone who openly believe in a six-day creation.” (In Six Days: Why 50 scientists choose to believe in creation, edited by John F. Ashton. (1999) Page 284
Several years ago, U.S. News & World Report (June 16, 1997) devoted a respectful four-page article to the work of Dr John Baumgardner, calling him "the world's pre-eminent expert in the design of computer models for geophysical convection." Dr. Baumgardner, a creationist, earned degrees from Texas Tech University (B.S., electrical engineering), and Princeton University (M.S., electrical engineering), and earned a Ph.D. in geophysics and space physics from UCLA.
More recently, perhaps the most eminent scientist of our time is Dr. Francis S. Collins, the director of the National Human Genome Project that cracked the DNA code, something which is considered by many to be the greatest scientific achievement of all time. Collins began his career as an atheist, but is now a creationist. His most recent book is "The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief." See interview by CNN at http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/03/collins.commentary/index.html
There’s also the Physicians and Surgeons for Scientific Integrity (PSSI) – An organization of about 1000 members who have signed on to publicly declare: “As medical doctors we are skeptical of the claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the origination and complexity of life and we therefore dissent from Darwinian macroevolution as a viable theory. This does not imply the endorsement of any alternative theory.”
I have a number of books on my shelf written by extremely accomplished and credentialed scientists from every major field who reject evolution. I could list dozens, if not hundreds, more if I had the time and inclination. Despite their overwhelming credentials, however, evolutionists will deny all these as being real scientists simply because these men believe in creation. As Robert suggests, that fact alone makes them “suspect” as scientists. This is typical circular reasoning that is so common among Darwinists. They say, “You can’t name any real scientists who are not evolutionists,” and then when you do, they say, “Oh, those are not real scientists because they reject evolution.” Of course, by their own criteria we would have to write off such men as Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Kepler, Faraday, Pasteur, Collins, Baumgardner, etc. as not being real scientists.
Evolutionists cannot argue their case based on the facts, so they appeal to majority rule. So if we wish to play their game, let them acknowledge that only 10% of the American public believes in evolution, so if we want to put it to a vote as Rob suggests, then evolution loses. But since most of those rejecting evolution do not have “science degrees” they are automatically discounted as incapable of thinking critically about the evidence or drawing conclusions. This is nothing more than intellectual arrogance and elitism. This arrogance, coupled with the authoritarianism that forbids any questioning of the majority position, stifles open criticism. Most scientists who reject Darwinism are simply afraid to speak up. Hmm, seems vaguely reminiscent of the Medieval persecution of men who dared to question the majority view of their day, men like Copernicus and Galileo.
No comments:
Post a Comment