Thanks for visiting my blog, you can join me by subscribing

Saturday, May 3, 2014

A Call to Defend Honest Inquiry By David M. Hayes

It would seem small-minded to call it a conspiracy, but there is clear-cut evidence that numerous agencies are working in unison to prevent the dissemination of what are considered “dangerous” alternate interpretations of the available evidence (Gould 950). By definition, inquiry is the seeking after truth and knowledge and is a derivative of the word “inquire,” which means, “to question.” All throughout history man has been asking questions, and the scientific method has become the accepted means whereby answers to these questions can be uncovered. However, a gradual takeover of the scientific community by ultra-evolutionists (Darwinians) has guaranteed that only certain types of questions are allowed, and all others must be silenced. Despite the arrogance of this small camp of theorists, there are other voices which must be heard. It is time the public (which is not absolutely convinced of the legitimacy of origins-evolution) rise up and demand that in all quarters, including universities, journals, and even public school classrooms there be an open forum for sound, empirically based alternate views of intelligent-design by qualified young-earth scientists.
The University of California System, for instance, was sued because it refused to admit students who had been previously taught via Christian science textbooks, even though these texts were found to be scientifically sound (it was suggested these tomes might be acceptable if the Bible verses they contained were removed) (DeWitt). Scientists with PH.D.s such as Richard Sternberg (DeWitt), Martin Gaskell (Luskey, Evidence), and Guillermo Gonzalez (Luskey, Design) have all faced discrimination in one form or another, and some have brought suits in which the underlying prejudices have been clearly exposed when interoffice communications were examined.

The Privileged Planet
 Scientists the world over rely on peer-reviewed journals as a means to publish their findings and share them with the scientific community. However, these periodicals have become bigoted and quite closed-minded. Andrew Kulikovsky, writing in the Journal of Creation, laments the rejection of creation-based scientific papers by evolution-controlled journals in his own paper, “Creationism, Science and Peer Review,” stating that:
A. S. Kulikovsky
…creationist scientists generally do not bother submitting papers that directly support a creationist interpretation of the natural world. Any such papers would be dismissed out of hand as being unworthy simply on the basis that they advocate a creationist interpretation. The quality of the research, the soundness of the arguments presented, and the validity of the logical conclusions would not even be considered (Kulokovsky, 49).
According to Kulikovsky, creation scientists are regularly criticized for their lack of published articles in the evolution-controlled journals by Darwinian scientists who suggest that if young-earth research papers were really sound they would be able to pass muster by old-earth scientists, however, young-earth scientists have had no hope of having their papers even considered for publication by such periodicals. Kulikovsky considers this type of thinking to be filled with “glaring inconsistencies,” and quips:
…if young-earth research should only be taken seriously if it passes the peer-review of non-young-earth scientists, then shouldn’t old-earth research only be taken seriously if it passes the peer-review of young-earth scientists? Are the ‘peers’ of old-earth scientists not also proponents of an old earth? Would this not cast serious doubt on the validity of their research (44)?
The Garden of Eden
Of course, pro-evolutionists claim to have real reasons for the rejection of scientists who are pro-creation. They claim first that creation science is not true “science”; that it is sloppy and is not empirical (Gould, 950). They also claim that abiogenesis (the idea of a spontaneous origin of life), homology (the idea that all living things are similar and so they must have originated from a single source), and the geologic column (upon which the geologic ages are based) are all tenets that cannot be refuted, and, since creationism rejects these tenets, it cannot be valid. Creationists, meanwhile, assert that facts and proofs are neutral until interpreted in accordance with the observer’s premise. One thing is for certain; no one alive today witnessed the dawn of the universe or the advent of life. Although some Darwinians confidently demand that their theories be unquestionably treated as “fact” by creation “dissenters,” (Gould 949), honest evolutionists concede that the evidence does not always support their assumptions:
Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori [relating to what can be known through an understanding of how certain things work rather than by observation] adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door (Lewontin, 39).

In fact, young-earth scientists who believe in a literal creation by an intelligent God have different interpretations of the data evolutionists use to substantiate their claims. First and foremost, according to creationism, there is very little actual, provable evidence to support abiogenesis, since no one was around billions of years ago, and the exact culmination of all the elements necessary for the spontaneous advent of life is impossible to recreate. They further counter that homology is not the evidence of evolutionary theory, but evidence of a single Creator who stamped all of His creation with His own personality. They are also quick to point out the irregularities in the geologic column and offer an alternate theory of a global flood as an explanation (including sudden burials of living organisms, which would account for the plentiful amounts of fossil remains available today) (Creationist).
While Darwinians are busy maligning their contemporary creationist peers, they fail to realize that the very foundations of modern scientific discovery are replete with the contributions of creation
Sir Isaac Newton
. In fact, if there was a banquet to be held in honor these benefactors and only the pro-evolution originators of all of the major scientific branches were to be invited, the hall would almost be empty! Invitations could not be sent to Sir Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday, James Clerk Maxwell, and Lord Kelvin, all of which developed and advanced the field of physics. The 17th century chemist Robert Boyle would not warrant a place card, nor would his colleagues John Dalton and William Ramsay. Biologists Ray, Linnaeus, Mendel, Pasteur, Virchow, and Aggasiz would not be allowed to join in the festivities, and even Copernicus, Galileo, and Kepler would have to dine elsewhere (Creationist). Even today, the list of serious scientists, most of them Ph.D.s, who have contributed heavily to scientific understanding and yet who reject Darwinism, is vast. The website entitled “A Scientific Dissent from Darwin” includes a petition signed by approximately 840 distinguished individuals! The heading of the petition reads:
We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged (Scientific Dissent).
Dr. Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis
Even in the face of such overwhelming support by active, contributing scientists, others, such as Bill Nye in his recent debate with Ken Ham (president and founder of Answers in Genesis-U.S.) have expressed the concern that giving credence to young-earth science will lead to the cessation of scientific discovery (Nye). However, creationists assert the opposite opinion; that belief in the Biblical narrative has accounted for increases in understanding. It could actually be said that one of the greatest physicists of all times, Johannes Kepler, best known for discovering the three mathematical laws of planetary motion, received the inspiration for his discoveries directly from God, since he often is eminently quoted as saying, “O God, I am thinking Thy thoughts after Thee.” Even recent discoveries in the areas of geology, astrophysics, and medicine can be directly attributed to a belief in the authority of Christian Biblical scriptures. For instance, Dr. Russell Humphreys believed that the earth was young in accordance with the Genesis account and based his theory of the strength of magnetic fields surrounding the earth and other planets on this assumption. His hypothesis based on the Biblical narrative was later corroborated by empirical data that was transmitted back to earth by Voyager 2. Accordingly, Physicist John Baumgardner’s predictions of the state of plate tectonics, which he based on the Bible account of Noah’s flood and formulated in the early 1980s, has recently been proved to be exactly as he had theorized (Successful). Regrettably, given the antagonistic stance taken by the conventional science of today, even the beneficent research of such great scientists as Louis Pasteur, a devout Christian who disproved the evolutionary theory of spontaneous generation, would have been rejected, which would have had disastrous results (Lamont)! Who can say what other discoveries are currently being suppressed by such short-sighted discrimination?

Johannes Kepler
Given the substantial amounts of unfavorable data, as well as the overwhelming criticism of absolute Darwinism, how is it possible that this body should rule the scientific community? Kulikovsky asserts it is due to a “coercive consensus.” He explains that current science is built on the suppositions of previously accepted theories, many of which have been questioned or disproved (Kulikovsky). Take the account of the peppered moth, for instance. Every public school uses biology textbooks which include this story of moths which changed color in response to environmental changes as convincing proof of evolution. However, it has been brought to light that the moths remained moths throughout the entire incident, and that the original data contained in the moths’ DNA never changed; new information was never introduced, so “evolution” never occurred (Mitchell, Much Ado). 

Another inaccuracy that is widely distributed and accepted is the chart created by German biologist Ernst Haeckel in 1868. Haeckel, in keeping with his Darwinian beliefs, wanted to demonstrate that, “the human embryo supposedly goes through a fish stage, an amphibian stage, a reptile stage, and so on.” Even though reputable scientists almost immediately began refuting this assertion and it has been verified that Haeckel’s drawings were falsified, students are still being taught that, “Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny” (Mitchell, Something).
No matter that many of the tenets of evolution have been disproved, students are required to continue to operate as if they are true, even building their own theories on such flawed foundations and giving the heavy-handed impression that evolutionary theories are proven fact, when they are actually unproven hypotheses.
Kulikovsky further explains that, besides the continuous propagation of what is essentially misinformation or downright myth, most scientists capitulate and feign a support of evolutionary ideas because they want to be employed.
Whether we want to admit it or not, there is a remarkably comprehensive scientific orthodoxy to which scientists must subscribe if they want to get a job, get a promotion, get a research grant, get tenured, or get published. If they resist they get forgotten (Bauman).
All of this coercion gives the impression that there is a consensus among scientists, but this is merely unsubstantiated fiction.

Amazingly, given all of this maneuvering on the part of Darwinians, the American public is not convinced of the absolute integrity of evolutionary theory. In recent Gallup polls the numbers show that the majority of Americans (70%) would not be upset if creationism was taught in public schools (Carlson). Even more amazingly, the majority of Americans (46%) stated they were convinced that human beings were directly created by God without evolution (only 15% of respondents believed in a Godless evolution of man) (Newport), which begs the question, “Why is a minority of Americans dictating what is disseminated to the majority of Americans”(Bell, 48)? Christian evangelists would certainly be castigated for attempting to coerce the public and control information so that it was slanted to their bias, but evolutionists do this with impunity, claiming they have the “right” to be the “thought police” for a populace of uninitiated simpletons (Bell, 48).
In conclusion, should Americans, should any people for that matter, accept such patronization? Why is it considered tolerable to replace closely held beliefs that have stood the test of time with the babblings of priests in white lab coats? If evolutionists are as honest as they claim to be, they should welcome examination by those with whom they do not agree, instead of silencing opposition while hiding behind their supposed adherence to “empiricism.” It is time the majority stand up and demand candid transparency of the minority; it is past time the free-thinking public demand of the scientific community what the scientific community demands of the rest of the world.

Works Cited
“A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism.” Discovery Institute’s Center for Science & Culture. n.d. 2009. Web. 25 Apr. 2014.
Bauman, M. “Between Jerusalem and the Laboratory.” Journal of Creation 11.1 (1997): 20. Web. 25 Apr. 2014.
Bell, Philip B., “The Portrayal of Creationists by Their Evolutionist Detractors.” Journal of Creation 16.2 (2002): 46-53. Web. 25 Apr. 2014.
Carlson, Darren K. “Americans Weigh In on Evolution vs. Creationism in Schools.”, May, 2005. Web. 25 Apr. 2014.
DeWitt, David A. “Do Creationists ‘Need Remediation’ in Science?”, February 2007. Web. 25 April 2014.
“Get Answers: Evolution.” n.d. Web. 25 Apr. 2014.
Gould, Stephen Jay. ”Evolution as Fact and Theory.” From Inquiry to Academic Writing. 2nd ed. Boston/New York: Bedford/St. Martin, 2012. 947-954. Print.
Kulikovsky, Andrew. “Creationism, Science and Peer Review.” Journal of Creation 22.1 (2008):  25 Apr. 2014.
Lamont, Ann. “Great Creation Scientists: Louis Pasteur.” Outstanding Scientist and Opponent of Evolution. Dec. 1991. Web. 25 Apr. 2014.
Lewontin, Richard. “Billions and Billions of Demons.” Rev. of The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark, by Carl Sagan. New York Review of Books (1997): 31. Print.
Luskin, Casey. “Design Was the Issue After All: ISU's official explanation in Gonzalez case exposed as a sham (Updated).” Evolution News and Views. December 2007. Web. 25 April 2014.
Luskin, Casey. “Evidence of Discrimination against Martin Gaskell Due to His Views on Evolution.” Evolution News and Views. December 2010. Web. 25 April 2014.
Mitchell, Tommy. “Much Ado about Moths.” Apr. 2008. Web. 25 Apr. 2014.
Mitchell, Tommy. “Something Fishy about Gill Slits!”, Mar. 2007. Web. 25 Apr. 2014.
Newport, Frank. “On Darwin’s Birthday, Only 4 in 10 Believe in Evolution.”, Feb. 2009. Web. 25 Apr. 2014.
Nye, Bill, and Ken Ham. “Bill Nye Debates Ken Ham.” YouTube. 4 Feb. 2014. Web. 25 Apr. 2014.
“Successful Predictions by Creation Scientists.” Web. 25 Apr. 2014.
“The Creationist Basis for Modern Science.” Jan. 1998. Web. 25 April 2014.


Post a Comment