Biblical Relevance in Modern Culture: Bill Nye – The Unscientific Guy

Last week several friends e-mailed me about a YouTube video-release featuring public television personality, Bill Nye. Many of you may remember his PBS spots known as “Bill Nye – The Science Guy.” His science lessons were brilliantly laced with wit and humor disarming the unsuspecting, after-school audience into embracing one more academic session for the day. The programs always left me fascinated with science and more inquisitive about the world around me.

You might imagine how disappointed I was viewing his recent video entitled “Creationism Is Not Appropriate for Children.” It was difficult to watch for two reasons. First, he was no longer the jovial, master of timing that I came to appreciate as a teenager. In fact, his quasi-coherent rant portrayed a very annoyed and even, to a degree, agitated man.

And secondly, there was nothing scientific about his claim. Dr. Nye used his iconic status of champion of the scientific method as a warrantable basis for a philosophical diatribe against creationism. As is often the case with such attempts, he exposed the weaknesses of his very best objections.

Speaking of the long-term, national dangers that creationism poses, “The Science Guy” said, “The United Sates is where most of the innovation still happens. People still move to the United States. And that’s largely because of the intellectual capital we have, the general understanding of science. When you have a portion of the population that doesn’t believe that, it holds everybody back…really.”

He must be referencing the way Johann Kepler held back the field of astronomy, or Isaac Newton held back physics, or Carolus Linnaeus held back biology, or Louis Pasteur held back organic chemistry, or Gregory Mendel held back genetics.

In a follow-up radio interview with Scott Paulsen, a popular morning personality on WDVE in Pittsburgh, Bill reiterated his belief that “creationism stifles innovation and ingenuity.”

“Without innovation you’re not going to have jobs,” he explained. “Without science, you’re not going to have innovation – engineers and scientists. Creationism is not going to be able to help you with that. There is no information there.”

In the course of his lament, he mentioned several inventors and scientists from America’s strong, innovative past, failing to realize that half of them acknowledged God as the Creator of all things.

In the YouTube video he warns, “Your world just becomes fantastically complicated when you don’t believe in evolution. The idea of deep time, of this [sic] billions of years, explains so much of the world around us. If you try to ignore that, your world view just becomes crazy, just untenable, itself inconsistent.”

Skeptics love to accuse creationists of not believing in evolution and then cite evidences of horizontal change (based on genetic predisposition for adaptability) within organisms. This type of change is what Darwin observed on the Galapagos Islands and is scientifically verifiable. The problem comes at the point of the philosophical leap that proposes vertical change (based on the belief that anything is possible with enough time) from one organism into a distinct, new creature on the conceptual Tree of Life.

Those who regard the Genesis account as historical, embrace adaptation and speciation within the established boundaries of Creation’s Orchard of Life, with each trunk representing a distinct “kind.” So, in that sense, we do “believe in evolution,” but the opposition is certainly not inclined to debate within the frame of a clear definition of terms.

I’m glad that Bill Nye refers to “deep time” as an idea, because that is the extent of its legitimacy. According to Harvard professor, Stephen J. Gould (Time’s Arrow, Time’s Cycle), “When we finally discard the empiricist myth that turned (James) Hutton into his opposite (a field-work fraud), we can properly seek the discovery of deep time in those a priori concepts that Hutton viewed as the rational basis for his or any theory of the earth. He did not find deep time or cyclicity in rocks…deep time is the essential ingredient of unbounded cycles, established by logical necessity prior to confirmation in the field.”

So while (Charles) Lyell expanded on Hutton’s work under the assumption that it was genuinely empirical, Charles Darwin discovered in Lyell’s work (Principles of Geology) the deep time that would be required to lend credibility to his theory of the transmutation of species and his phylogenic “tree of life.”

In each case, observation was preceded by theory. Data was contextualized by assumptions. Science has not proven “deep time”; but proponents of evolution still embrace this notion as an indisputable, doctrinal authority (see Scripturosity articles “Deep Time Warp” Part 1 & Part 2).

The gulf between evolutionism and creationism is not over data or discovery. The great chasm is conceptual. Creationists approach the evidence on display around the world from the philosophical axiom of the ancient, Sacred Text. What most evolutionists don’t acknowledge is that they, similarly, have a contextual starting point – deep time. Any forensic summation of the evidence is inevitably filtered through the philosophical bias of the observer. The truth is representatives from both worldviews can advance good science. One’s origins paradigm does not influence their work in the science lab or the inventor’s bench.

Rather than “untenable” or “inconsistent,” the biblical worldview draws tremendous clarity to our observations and reveals unequivocal purpose for our existence (see Scripturosity article “The Gospel Message”). Perhaps Bill Nye’s vexation with creationism is more about the validity that any physical compatibility might convey on the spiritual lessons and prophetic claims of its documented source than anything else. From the standpoint of implied, personal vulnerability, his sense of alarm makes perfect sense.

Read Full Post »

Divine Origin and Sacred History: Carbon Dating – The Biblical Model (Part 2)

In one of Job’s introspective rebuttals (12:8-9) he expresses his confidence that the message of the earth itself absolutely corroborates Scripture’s account of a creative and judgmental sovereign “hand” in her past.

If the geologic column is a true schematic of earth’s ancient timescale, as scientific consensus promotes, then there should be no measureable carbon in any formations assigned ages beyond 100,000 years. The problem is radiocarbon is found to be present in petrified or fossilized wood embedded in rock layers given supposed age-classifications ranging from 32 million up to 250 million years old (see “Carbon-14 Dating – An Evolution Dilemma” written by Andrew Snelling for Answers Magazine). Likewise, coal sampled from seams separated by hundreds of millions of years and assigned ages up to 320 million years, not only contained Carbon-14, but were measured at virtually the same age (48,000-50,000 years) radiometrically. How does 50,000 year-old coal come to be sandwiched between rocks aged at hundreds of millions of years? Uniformitarian geology predictably claims “contamination” foul, but labs would not maintain credibility if samples were continually compromised – particularly if the results regularly bristled the mainstream.

While the measurement data represents enormous flaws in the assumed ages of the rocks and the uniformitarian model, those familiar with the biblical timeline recognize that the Carbon-14 dating numbers are still as much as 10 times higher than the chronogenealogies of Scripture allow. Is there a logical explanation?

In a follow-up to his previously mentioned contribution to Answers Magazine, geologist Dr. Andrew Snelling offers that there are 3 basic assumptions used in the carbon dating exercise in an article entitled “50,000-Year-Old Fossils – A Creationist Puzzle.”

Assumption #1 – The production of Carbon-14 has always been the same in the past as now.

Assumption #2 – The atmosphere has had the same Carbon-14 concentration in the past as now.

Assumption #3 – The biosphere has always had the same overall Carbon-14 concentration as the atmosphere, due to the rapid transfer from the atmosphere to the biosphere.

It is well known that levels of atmospheric Carbon-14 can vary based on divers factors including latitude, cycles in sunspot activity, and the measurable diminution of earth’s magnetic field.

Snelling says, “A stronger magnetic field in the past would have reduced the influx of cosmic rays. This in turn would have reduced the amount of radiocarbon produced in the atmosphere. If this were the case, the biosphere in the past would have had a lower Carbon-14 concentration than it does today.”

Based on the present decay rate of earth’s magnetic field, protection from destructive cosmic energies could have been 8 times stronger at the time of the great Flood than it is today signaling far lower levels of C-14 when an entire biosphere became covered in sedimentary mud-flows and encapsulated in rock. This would reduce the original ratio of radiocarbon to non-radioactive carbon and correspondingly lessen the representative age allocation.

Another critical consideration is the current inventory of organic material trapped in rock layers below the surface of the earth. Skeptics of the biblical model of earth history boast that earth’s current plant covering is only a fraction of the necessary biomass needed to produce the coal seams that we see today. This is a true observation. A similar geological phenomenon is the massive deposits of natural gas and oil that carry a biogenic signature intimating a past source of organics beyond modern comprehension (see Scripturosity article “Oil, Oil, Everywhere – Part 3). This evidence suggests that the pre-Flood atmosphere was far different than today – one having the carbon-capacity necessary to generate a biosphere that would support earth’s enormous fossil-fuel reserves (see Scripturosity article “The Longevity of the Ancients – Part 2).

If earth’s fossil-fuel inventory intimates higher carbon content in the past and the decaying magnetic field suggests lower production of radiocarbon previously, then the ratio of today’s radioactive carbon to its stable isotope is a flawed starting point for reliable dating. If there was a way to synchronize the radiocarbon “clock” with the apparent conditions of the pre-Flood atmosphere, carbon dating would likely reflect ages more compatible with the timeline represented in the book of Genesis.

In summary, let’s review what we know about carbon dating.

• Carbon dating is based upon the natural atomic response of an unstable isotope to seek nuclear equilibrium.
• Both radioactive carbon (Carbon-14) and non-radioactive carbon (Carbon-12) enter earth’s biosphere and the food chain through photosynthesis after they combine with oxygen to form CO².
• As long as an organism is engaged with earth’s ecosystem, it will maintain its 1-to-1 trillion radioactive to stable carbon ratio.
• Once a creature dies or plant fades it can no longer add molecular carbon to its structure initiating the radiocarbon “clock.”
• This “clock” is a function of the natural nuclear decay process that takes place with all unstable isotopes and is expressed in units called “half-lives.”
• A half-life is the amount of time needed to reduce the number of unstable atoms by half in a given sample.
• The consensus half-life of Carbon-14 is 5,730 years.
• The effective measurement range of Carbon Dating is around 60,000 years since there should be virtually no radioactive carbon left in a sample after 10 half-lives.
• Radiocarbon dating presents profound inconsistencies within the evolutionary paradigm of earth history.
• Two factors suggest a reduced original ratio of unstable to stable carbon in earth’s early atmosphere – the decay rate of earth’s magnetic field (lower production of radiocarbon in the past) and earth’s enormous fossil-fuel inventory (higher total carbon in the past).
• Such conditions would lessen the representative age-allocation of carbon dating producing results that are far more compatible with the history of earth and humanity as detailed in the eyewitness account of Scripture.

“For ever. O Lord, Thy Word is settled in heaven. Thy faithfulness is unto all generations: Thou hast established the earth, and it abideth. They (speaking of the settled Word and the established earth) continue this day (in harmonious compatibility) according to Thine ordinances: for all are Thy servants (Psalm 119:89-91).”

Read Full Post »

Divine Origin and Sacred History: Carbon Dating – The Basic Measurement (Part 1)

Carbon dating is a form of measurement classified as radiometric. Radiometric dating is a scientific technique used to estimate the ages of rocks and fossils. The reason that this method of measurement is important to the believer is because most lab results reflect ages that are in profound contrast to the history of earth and humanity established in the biblical timeline. Conversely, carbon dating also raises serious suspicion regarding the accuracy of the assigned epochs of the geologic column. Let’s see if we can add some clarity to the measurement muddle.

All matter is made up of atoms – the basic building blocks of all things. Atoms are constructed of smaller particles known as protons, neutrons, and electrons. The nucleus of each atom is made up of the protons and neutrons at the center, while its outer layers consist of the electrons.

It is the number of protons in the nucleus that gives the atomic signature to each element. As an example, all carbon atoms have 6 protons, all nitrogen atoms have 7 protons, and each oxygen atom has 8. However, within the nucleus of a given isotope (established proton signature) can be a variant number of neutrons. It is the combination of both the protons and the neutrons that determines the mass of each atom.

An atom is considered “stable” when the number of its nuclear protons and neutrons are equal. Since there are 6 protons in a carbon atom, its stable form has 6 neutrons giving it a mass of 12 and the common reference of Carbon-12. Carbon-14 is an unstable isotope because it has 8 neutrons to its 6 protons. Unstable isotopes, such as Carbon-14 (also known as radiocarbon), are always seeking nuclear equilibrium (that is an equal proton/neutron count) and this is accomplished by a process known as “radioactive decay.” Radioactive decay demands that the original element upon which the action takes place will become a different element. In the case of Carbon-14, the “beta decay” process (signified by an ejected electron) essentially causes it to lose a neutron and gain a proton changing it to the stable element Nitrogen-14.

If this is the case, then wouldn’t all the Carbon-14 atoms be stabilized into Nitrogen-14? Earth’s biosphere is never without Carbon-14 because it is continuously being added to the atmosphere through high-impact, atomic collisions with cosmic rays. The most prominent element in our atmosphere is nitrogen making it the most likely to be impacted by these violent intrusions. These high energy bombardments separate some of the nitrogen atoms from one of their protons and replace them with a neutron creating a new Carbon-14 atom.

The logical question becomes, “How does Carbon-14 become relevant in dating measurements?” These newly transformed radiocarbon atoms now behave similarly to the stable carbon isotopes (Carbon-12) and combine with oxygen (the second most plentiful element in the atmosphere) to form Carbon Dioxide (CO2). Because of this, atmospheric carbon dioxide has a proportionate distribution of radioactive and non-radioactive carbon atoms that indiscriminately enter earth’s biosphere (regions occupied by living organisms) through photosynthesis (a process critical to the existence of earth’s plant covering). With radiocarbon in the food chain, all creatures (including humans) have trace levels of Carbon-14 within their physical composition. As long as an organism is alive, it will maintain its 1-to-1 trillion radioactive carbon ratio with its stable (Carbon-12) counterpart. But once a creature dies or a plant fades (see Scripturosity article “Planting Seeds of Doubt”) it no longer can add molecular carbon to its structure. This is point at which the measurement starts.

Scientists are able to measure the ratio of Carbon-14 to Carbon-12 in an organic subject by using an Accelerator Mass Spectrometer. As time goes by and as the natural process of radioactive decay takes place, less of the radio-carbon will exist reducing the ratio with its stable counterpart. The standard expression used to communicate the rate of radioactive decay is “half-life.” This is the amount of time needed to reduce the number of unstable atoms by half in a given sample. While the decay is not simultaneous, half of the radioactive atoms will be reduced within a specific and consistent timeframe. Scientific consensus places the half-life of Carbon-14 at 5,730 years. So this means after 5,730 years, a given sample of ancient organic matter will only have half of the Carbon-14 atoms that it had at the moment it ceased to interact with earth’s biosphere. In 11,460 years those remaining will be halved again. When you halve the percentage of radiocarbon 10 times (57,300 years), there are virtually no unstable atoms left to decay.

This places the effective measurement range of Carbon-14 (or Radiocarbon) Dating at around 60,000 years (though some would argue a maximum effectiveness around 100,000 years) creating quite the dilemma for those whose worldview posits ancient earth strata separated by hundreds of millions of years. Carbon dating discovery of not-so-ancient organics within assigned deep-time sediment layers is ever giving heartburn to the hardcore zealots of naturalism.

But the obvious quandary for the Biblicist is that much of the carbon dating data still bears out ages which are radically conflicted with the history presented in our Premier Text. Part 2 of this short article series will address this informational impasse and offer a rational reconciliation scenario for the believer’s apologetics toolbox.

Read Full Post »

Divine Origin and Sacred History: Innocent Suffering and a Loving God (Part 1)

One of life’s most profound paradoxes and faith’s most obtrusive stumbling blocks is the reality of innocent suffering. How is the rational seeker to intellectually reconcile the cruel injustices of this world with the loving, just, merciful God of the Bible?

Charles Darwin candidly revealed in his autobiography the pivotal role that this inquiry played in the development of his worlview (p. 75).

“A being so powerful and so full of knowledge as a God who could create the universe, is to our finite minds omnipotent and omniscient, and it revolts our understanding to suppose that his benevolence is not unbounded, for what advantage can there be in the sufferings of millions of lower animals throughout almost endless time? This very old argument from the existence of suffering against the existence of an intelligent first cause seems to me a strong one; whereas, as just remarked, the presence of much suffering agrees well with the view that all organic beings have been developed through variation and natural selection.”

Daily, from the various news outlets, we are reminded of the pain and misery that is inherent to living. We see children from African nations with obvious signs of starvation. We see families changed forever in the blink of an eye when an impaired or distracted driver crosses the center-line. We see entire third-world villages slaughtered because of racial or religious bigotry.

Both in sincerity and skepticism the question has been asked, “How could a loving God allow such suffering?”

In order to rightly assimilate such a delicate inquiry, there are a few acknowledgements that are crucial.

1) The conditions under which earth’s inhabitants currently live do not reflect the original design and intent of the Creator.

Following His creative finale on Day 6, the Record says that God took inventory of all that He had made and concluded that it was “very good (Gen.1:31).”

The word translated “good” in English is literally defined by Hebrew scholars (Brown, Driver, and Briggs) to mean excellent. They assign a literal definition of the word translated “very” to be exceedingly.

Omniscient, omnipotent, Perfection qualified the 6 day expression of His eternal genius as “exceedingly excellent.” The most natural and logical conclusion based on this summary is that death and suffering had not yet been permitted access.

“And God saw everything that He had made, and, behold, it was very good…”

Henry Morris writes in his book Many Infallible Truths, “The best way to understand God’s original purpose in creation is to study the final consummation of that purpose when all things have been reconciled.”

We understand from Peter’s letters and John’s revelation that the present earth will be destroyed (2 Peter 3:7) and a new earth with a restored, Day 2 atmosphere (Revelation 21:1) will be introduced.

Isaiah offers some prophetic hindsight into the “very good” original creation with a look ahead to the ecosystem of the new earth (11:6-9).

“The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them. And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice den. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea.”

God’s original and eternal favor toward man above the rest of creation is amplified in the recorded vision of the Apostle John. “And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and He will dwell with them, and they shall be His people, and God Himself shall be with them, and be their God (Rev. 21:3).”

This prophetic telescope gives us a good view of the natural harmony and the unimpeded fellowship that characterized the original creation.

This is what God intended. This was His original design.

When Adam sinned, everything changed. God was forced, by His character, to disassociate with this debase intrusion that defined humanity’s new reality. God’s response to sin testified further of his favor toward mankind with an ingenious plan of restoration that would preserve every detailed facet of and satisfy every intricate demand of His glorious character. We are currently living in a sovereign detour necessitated by the Creator’s intolerance of sin, but initiated because of His desire to bring Eden’s fellowship full circle.

The purpose of Scripture is to draw mankind back into the fellowship for which he was created. The theme is redemption. The details are neither comprehensive nor peripheral. Every fact, feature, and philosophy carries reclamation relevance.

Beginning with the Promise put forth at the Serpent’s garden sentencing (3:15), the Bible remarkably stays on point – the product of human birth would defeat the Deceiver and diffuse the Curse. The Old Testament is the forecast; the New Testament is the fruition.

Since the Curse, many have suffered and all have died. The ancients may have lived nearly 1,000 years, but they all died. In the context of purpose as represented in the Genesis record, death is only the passage through which Adam and the Sethite line necessarily crossed to realize the fellowship that was forfeited in the flesh. One day Adam and the whole of his race, who valued the promise of the Creator, will realize the terrestrial perfection of the original creation in what the book of the Revelation calls the “new earth.” “Oh death, where is thy sting?” A belief in a literal, historical Genesis will liberate the believer to a life of bold purpose. Though death and suffering is our history and our heritage, it is certainly not our end.

Read Full Post »

Biblical Relevance in Modern Culture: Answering Skeptics (Part 11)

This article is one of a series designed to offer a reasoned defense of the true creationist position in response to representations, claims and rebuttals published by “America’s skeptic,” Dr. Michael Shermer.

 

A college professor for 20 years, teaching psychology, evolution, and the history of science, Dr. Shermer has emerged as one of the most respected voices of reason in this generation. He is the Founding Publisher of “Skeptic” magazine, is a monthly columnist for “Scientific American,” and is currently the Executive Director of the Skeptics Society. He has authored more than 10 books primarily focused on science and reason with multiple appearances on various television shows and documentaries over the years.

 

In his book, “Why People Believe Weird Things,” Dr. Shermer commits a full chapter to “Confronting Creationists” trying his best to represent (or not) various planks of the “creation” platform and then offering a philosophical, naturalistic rebuttal to each claim. These articles will focus on Dr. Shermer’s representation of the creationist position and respond to his instruction on how to answer their assertions.

 

The purpose of this short series is not to encourage confrontation with skeptics, but to give answers to those seekers who may be at the same reflective crossroads that Michael Shermer found himself when his faith was challenged by the intellectual flair of naturalistic belief during his graduate training at California State University.

Alleged creationist claim #12 – Something cannot be created out of nothing, say scientists. Therefore, from where did the material for the Big Bang come? From where did the first life forms that provided the raw materials for evolution originate? Stanley Miller’s creation of amino acids out of an inorganic “soup” and other biogenic molecules is not the creation of life.

 

As part of his elaboration, Dr. Shermer admits, “Science may not be equipped to answer certain “ultimate”-type questions, such as what there was before the beginning of the universe or what time it was before time began or where the matter for the Big Bang came from. So far these have been philosophical or religious questions, not scientific ones and therefore have not been a part of science.”

Rationally speaking then, naturalism – the belief that all things find context in natural causation – is contradictory and illogical. At some point in the inescapable retrospection the question must be asked, “But where did that come from?” Eventually, there comes a point where every answer is religious.

The problem with using Stanley Miller’s experiment as a model for biogenesis is that he started with various material elements under controlled, laboratory conditions and manipulated the application of energy with calculated precision. How does that represent the evolutionary mantra of life’s random, spontaneous appearance from abiotic elements?

Dr. Shermer does offer the disclaimer that, “Stanley Miller never claimed to have created life, just some of its building blocks.” Let’s go ahead and concede that point to Shermer for the moment (even though intelligence was applied to generate the “blocks”). This proposition is like requiring a random, mountain of bricks to somehow become the Biltmore Estate!

The truth is such contemplations are extremely frustrating for naturalists. A typical example of the high-brow evasion at this point in the discussion can be found in Philip Whitfield’s book, Life: Evolution Explained where he assures the readers that “the precise details are not crucial.”

Seriously? That is the foundation of the dogmatic assertions of evolutionary origins? And my axiomatic adherence to a preserved, ancient document full of precise details that find harmonious context within all the scientific disciplines is considered ludicrous?

Another interesting observation is that while Dr. Shermer recognizes that these are “philosophical or religious questions…and therefore have not been a part of science,” the scientific community has not done a very good job of discouraging the promotion of ideological speculation (see Scripturosity article “Intellectual Invention”). From the classroom to the newsstand, science is endorsed as the only rational approach to our existence. In November of 2006, NewScientist magazine published a 50^th Anniversary Special Edition with the following message boldly positioned in the center of the cover in large print – “THE BIG QUESTIONS-Life, Death, Reality, Free Will, and the Theory of Everything.” I wonder if anyone other than biblical creationists reads Shermer’s books.

My question to Dr. Shermer would be, “If absolute origins are beyond the capacity of observational science to root out, then why the desperate opposition to specific claims of a supernatural Agent?” Why not, likewise, oppose the message of his “shamans of scientism” who are faithfully “proffering naturalistic answers…providing spiritual sustenance” and meeting the philosophical needs of those rejecting the Sacred Record (see Scripturosity article “Answering Skeptics – Part 7”)? That’s not scientific either.

Perhaps the issue is not about being scientific or even being religious. We say “God” and they say “matter.” Creationists can be scientific and naturalists can be religious. The real objection is highlighted in a prophetic dictation of David found in the opening stanza of Psalm 2.

“Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?

The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord, and against His anointed, saying,

Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.”

David asked the same question that is under the breath of so many Christians today. The zealous defiance is to the point of absurdity prompting the sincere inquiry, “Why is the opposition so fierce, even to the extent of plotting against sound reason?”

The passage reveals the crux of the resistance in a contrast between Earth’s culture and Earth’s Creator. “His anointed” is a reference to the deliverer who would redeem creation from its Curse (see Scripturosity article “The Gospel Message”). The prophecy unveils the exception of the creature to the notion of accountability or the need to be rescued. “Let us break their bands…and cast away their cords.”

Oh the twisted thinking that turns our Redeemer into our rival.

Read Full Post »

Biblical Relevance in Modern Culture: Answering Skeptics (Part 10)

This article is one of a series designed to offer a reasoned defense of the true creationist position in response to representations, claims and rebuttals published by “America’s skeptic,” Dr. Michael Shermer.

 

A college professor for 20 years, teaching psychology, evolution, and the history of science, Dr. Shermer has emerged as one of the most respected voices of reason in this generation. He is the Founding Publisher of “Skeptic” magazine, is a monthly columnist for “Scientific American,” and is currently the Executive Director of the Skeptics Society. He has authored more than 10 books primarily focused on science and reason with multiple appearances on various television shows and documentaries over the years.

 

In his book, “Why People Believe Weird Things,” Dr. Shermer commits a full chapter to “Confronting Creationists” trying his best to represent (or not) various planks of the “creation” platform and then offering a philosophical, naturalistic rebuttal to each claim. These articles will focus on Dr. Shermer’s representation of the creationist position and respond to his instruction on how to answer their assertions.

 

The purpose of this short series is not to encourage confrontation with skeptics, but to give answers to those seekers who may be at the same reflective crossroads that Michael Shermer found himself when his faith was challenged by the intellectual flair of naturalistic belief during his graduate training at California State University.

Alleged creationist claim #11 – All causes have effects. The cause of “X” must be “X-like.” The cause of intelligence must be intelligent – God. Because all things are in motion, there must have been a prime mover, a mover who needs no other mover to be moved – God. All things in the universe have a purpose, therefore there must be a purposeful designer – God.

 

Once again, Dr. Shermer needs a little help representing the true claims of creationists. Most creationists would frame this premise by first stating, “All effects have causes.” The point being that anything bearing the signature of design must logically have a designer. As I look around my study, it is easy to recognize design in the simplest of items from some archery equipment in the corner to the lamp post or the hundreds of books on the shelf. To classify these items as the result of a random, purposeless inception would constitute irrationality of the highest order. Such a conclusion would discredit further rationale and place strong suspicion on any claimant’s intellectual capacity or mental soundness.

So it is with the natural world and a rational approach to its many wonders. From the dynamic motion and order of the heavens (Job 38:31-33) to the remarkable intricacies of the human body (Psalm 139:13-16), our observable landscape is replete with the autograph of innovation.

Dr. Shermer addresses the “prime-mover argument” with a simple question: “Who or what caused or moved God?” What he chooses to ignore is that his theory of origins requires a first cause as well rationalizing the quizzical rebuttal: “Who or what provided the matter and energy that preceded the Big Bang?” The truth is both cosmogonies require a first cause and neither advocacy is scientific. Biblicists unreservedly point to the opening words of history’s premier text, and evolutionists faithfully maintain an adherence to natural causes whose precedence has never been repeated since.

I like the way author John Phillips introduces the Record of beginnings in his commentary Exploring Genesis. “There it stands (In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth; Genesis 1:1) in all its naked force – the opening statement of Scripture. No attempt is made to water it down, to apologize to a skeptical age, even to prove that God is. The Holy Spirit simply deems certain truths to be self-evident, the first and foremost, that God is. In one sublime statement He sweeps aside atheism by asserting His existence, polytheism by declaring Himself to be one, and pantheism (God and nature are one) by separating Himself from matter.”

While this very first sentence is the introduction to time (beginning), space (heaven), and matter (earth), deduction requires that the eye-witness to this moment in history was before.

The initiator and communicator of history’s first effect transcended all that became.

Shermer continues with his objection by stating, “Not everything is so purposeful and beautifully designed. In addition to problems like evil, disease, deformities, and human stupidity which creationists conveniently overlook, nature is filled with the bizarre and seemingly unpurposeful.”

There is no disputing this observation. Today’s world is full of these unpalatable realities.

One of the admitted stumbling blocks for Charles Darwin was his inability to intellectually reconcile the reality of innocent suffering with the benevolent God of the Bible. He transparently noted in a letter to Harvard botanist Asa Gray that “there seems to be too much misery in the world.”

The difficulty that so many have reconciling these painful observations with a biblical cosmogony is because of a contextual deficit. While Genesis chapters 1 and 2 conclude with a creation orchestrated in complete harmony with itself and its Creator, chapter 3 records a turning point in this paradise.

The eloquent Matthew Henry prefaces his commentary of Genesis 3 with this appraisal.

“The story of this chapter is perhaps as sad a story (all things considered) as any we have in the whole Bible. In the foregoing chapters we have had the pleasant view of the holiness and happiness of our first parents, the grace and favour of God, and the peace and beauty of the whole creation, all good, very good; but here the scene is altered. We have here an account of the sin and misery of our first parents, the wrath and curse of God against them, the peace of the creation disturbed, and its beauty stained and sullied, all bad, very bad. ‘How has the gold become dim, and the most fine gold changed!’ O that our hearts were deeply affected with this record! For we are all nearly concerned in it; let it not be to us as a tale that is told.”

The “problems” that Dr. Shermer references as inconsistent with purpose and design are markers of nature’s Curse and point to the need of humanity to be rescued. The dominant theme of the Sacred Record is restoration – reclamation of forfeited fellowship. Genesis 1 and 2 tell us how and why we are here. Genesis 3 explains what went wrong and elucidates the solution.

“Let it not be to us as a tale that is told for we are all nearly concerned in it (see Scripturosity article “The Gospel Message”).”

Read Full Post »

Biblical Relevance in Modern Culture: Answering Skeptics (Part 9)

This article is one of a series designed to offer a reasoned defense of the true creationist position in response to representations, claims and rebuttals published by “America’s skeptic,” Dr. Michael Shermer.

 

A college professor for 20 years, teaching psychology, evolution, and the history of science, Dr. Shermer has emerged as one of the most respected voices of reason in this generation. He is the Founding Publisher of “Skeptic” magazine, is a monthly columnist for “Scientific American,” and is currently the Executive Director of the Skeptics Society. He has authored more than 10 books primarily focused on science and reason with multiple appearances on various television shows and documentaries over the years.

 

In his book, “Why People Believe Weird Things,” Dr. Shermer commits a full chapter to “Confronting Creationists” trying his best to represent (or not) various planks of the “creation” platform and then offering a philosophical, naturalistic rebuttal to each claim. These articles will focus on Dr. Shermer’s representation of the creationist position and respond to his instruction on how to answer their assertions.

 

The purpose of this short series is not to encourage confrontation with skeptics, but to give answers to those seekers who may be at the same reflective crossroads that Michael Shermer found himself when his faith was challenged by the intellectual flair of naturalistic belief during his graduate training at California State University.

Alleged creationist claim #10 – “The Bible is the written Word of God…all of its assertions are historically and scientifically true. The great Flood described in Genesis was an historical event, worldwide in its extent and effect. We are an organization of Christian men of science, who accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. The account of the special creation of Adam and Eve as one man and one woman, and their subsequent Fall into sin, is the basis for our belief in the necessity of a Savior for all mankind” (in Eve and Harrold 1991, p.55).

 

Obviously, Dr. Shermer is quoting a Christian scientist here rather than fabricating one of his own “straw-man” assertions. His objection is that “such a statement of belief is clearly religious.” He then contradicts several of his previous arguments by saying, “This does not make it wrong.” This is what I like to call a high-brow bone toss. High profile naturalists realize the importance of maintaining a measure of credibility and civility with the faithful masses. In this attempt, they often back themselves into an irrational corner. The logical law of contradiction requires that an assertion of this content and magnitude be either true or false. It cannot be both.

He continues by protesting, “One cannot make the events in any text historically and scientifically true by fiat, only by testing the evidence.” The intimation is that creationists are impaired by a devout bias thereby tainting any subsequent interpretation of plain evidence. As pointed out earlier in this series, neither of the competing paradigms are without faithful, leading assumptions (see Scripturosity articles “Answering Skeptics – Parts 1 & Part 2”).

An unapologetic witness to this fact are the remarkably candid words of evolutionary biologist, geneticist, and author Richard Lewontin as quoted from a 1997 article in The New York Review entitled “Billions and Billions of Demons.”

“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 adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine foot in the door.”

While it is not my intention to imply that Richard Lewontin speaks for all scientists, it is does appear that he is attempting to present his position as consensus within the scientific community. He is positing a zealous, blind-faith guardianship of naturalism despite its “patent absurdity” even to the point of shamelessly engineering the investigation.

Lewontin understands that there are only two possibilities when it comes to origins. Either the cause is completely natural or the cause is beyond natural explanation. If the forces of nature are insufficient, then explanation must logically default to possibilities that are beyond the observation of current processes. This is the unacceptable foot of the Divine that must be prevented access to the door of human intellect. And they say that we are the religious ones (for a clear definition of religion see Scripturosity article “Answering Skeptics – Part 7”)?

It is quite clear that the root issue in the debate over origins is and has always been the Word of God and the compulsion of the natural man to distance himself from it. If the opening record documenting the history of the world can be discredited, then subsequent passages teaching a personal accountability to a sovereign Creator are marginalized. No special creation…no accountability…no accountability…no judgment…no judgment…no vulnerability.

Note the following quotes directed at the world’s premier text and those that faithfully regard it.

“The overturning of the catastrophist, Biblical view has been one of the major achievements of modern science (1984 American Association for the Advancement of Science annual meeting).”

“Anything that we scientists can do to weaken the hold of religion should be done and may, in the end, be our greatest contribution to civilization (Dr. Steven Weinburg, Nobel Laureate in Physics, quoted in the New York Times, 11/21/06).”

The crusade must be directed at the Word of God. If the history recorded in Genesis is true, then the moral and spiritual lessons that follow carry significant weight. If God could judge the world once, he could do it again.

“For this they (scoffers) are willingly ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, the earth standing out of the water and in the water (Day 3 of Creation; Genesis 1:9,10). Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water (Genesis Flood; 7:11, 19) perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are now (contrasted with the world than then was), by the same word (the Word that created and judged in Genesis) are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day judgment and perdition of ungodly men (2 Peter 3:5-7).”

For further inquiry into our purpose and divine expectation, see Scripturosity article “The Gospel Message.”

Read Full Post »

Biblical Relevance in Modern Culture: Answering Skeptics (Part 8)

This article is one of a series designed to offer a reasoned defense of the true creationist position in response to representations, claims and rebuttals published by “America’s skeptic,” Dr. Michael Shermer.

 

A college professor for 20 years, teaching psychology, evolution, and the history of science, Dr. Shermer has emerged as one of the most respected voices of reason in this generation. He is the Founding Publisher of “Skeptic” magazine, is a monthly columnist for “Scientific American,” and is currently the Executive Director of the Skeptics Society. He has authored more than 10 books primarily focused on science and reason with multiple appearances on various television shows and documentaries over the years.

 

In his book, “Why People Believe Weird Things,” Dr. Shermer commits a full chapter to “Confronting Creationists” trying his best to represent (or not) various planks of the “creation” platform and then offering a philosophical, naturalistic rebuttal to each claim. These articles will focus on Dr. Shermer’s representation of the creationist position and respond to his instruction on how to answer their assertions.

 

The purpose of this short series is not to encourage confrontation with skeptics, but to give answers to those seekers who may be at the same reflective crossroads that Michael Shermer found himself when his faith was challenged by the intellectual flair of naturalistic belief during his graduate training at California State University.

Alleged creationist claim #9 – Many leading evolutionists are skeptical of the theory and find it problematic. For example, Eldridge and Gould’s theory of punctuated equilibrium proves Darwin wrong. If the world’s leading evolutionists cannot agree on the theory, the whole thing must be a wash.

 

Creationists do not need to lean on the “in-fighting” of evolution’s leading proponents to expose its flaws. It is quite interesting, though, to realize that many of the iconic figures within the popular scientific community represent some of the best arguments against the core of evolution and its necessary mechanisms. While Eldridge and Gould may have denounced the use of their scholarly musings as support for the competing paradigm, professors of a biblical cosmogony hold their work in high regard for their personal courage and intellectual honesty.

One of the best examples of this ethical spunk is a work authored by Stephen J. Gould entitled Time’s Arrow, Time’s Cycle. In this enlightened stroll down the dingy corridors that led to the grand ballroom of the Heroic Age of Geology, Dr. Gould completely discredits and dismantles the notion upon which every evolutionary conception hangs – deep time.

In his book, Dr. Gould confirms the philosophical power-play that was taking place at the turn of the 19^th century. “I know no better way to illustrate this ecumenicism of creative thought than the debunking (in a positive mode) of remaining cardboard myths about science as pure observation and applied logic, divorced from realities of human creativity and social content. The geological myth surrounding the discovery of deep time may be the most persistent of remaining legends.”

Prominent British geologist and avowed anti-creationist, Derek Ager acknowledged the formative cultural influences that directed the developmental years of geology in his book The Nature of the Stratigraphical Record. “My excuse for this lengthy and amateur digression into history is that I have been trying to show how I think geology got into the hands of the theoreticians (contextual reference to uniformitarians) who were conditioned by the social and political history of their day more than by observations in the field.”

In his critique of geologic, deep-time inception, Dr. Gould reveals, “The reality of history is so much more complex and interesting; the irony of history is that Lyell won (a reference to the idea of historically uniform geological processes promoted in his famous book Principles of Geology). His version became a semi-official hagiography (reference to Hebrew Scriptures) of geology, preached in textbooks to the present day. Professional historians know better, of course, but their message has rarely reached working geologists, who seem to crave these simple and heroic stories…Lyell was not the white knight of truth and fieldwork, but a purveyor of a fascinating and particular theory rooted in the steady state of time’s cycle. He tried by rhetoric – perhaps the neatest rick of rhetoric in the history of science – to equate his theory with rationality and rectitude – and he largely triumphed.”

Note the remarkable candor of his conclusion. “We shall probably never know whether Lyell perpetrated this ruse consciously…In any case, Lyell’s rhetorical success must rank among the most important events in nineteenth-century geology – for it established an ‘official’ history that enshrined, as the earth’s own way, a restrictive view about the nature of change. If any scientist ever tries to convince you that history is irrelevant, only a repository for past errors, tell him the story of Lyell’s rhetorical triumph and its role in directing more than a century of research in geology.”

What Stephen J. failed to recognize was the “directing” impact of Lyell’s work on every other discipline of science as the context of all observation. Without the foundational axiom of “deep time,” evolution (geological, biological, anthropological, cosmological, etc.) has no footing.

Michael Shermer uses the example of “punctuated equilibrium” (the idea promoting indeterminate periods of evolutionary stasis followed by a virtual explosion of radical, developmental change – also known as the “hopeful monster” theory) as a healthy debate spark among evolutionists insisting that such disagreement is good for the integrity of science. “They (creationists) apparently take this normal exchange of ideas and the self-correcting nature of science as evidence that the field is coming apart at the seams and about to implode. Of the many things evolutionists argue and debate within the field, one thing they are certain of and all agree upon is that evolution has occurred. Exactly how it happened…continue(s) to be discussed.”

Creationists do not dispute that evolution has occurred if we are talking about adaptation and variation within the barriers established by genetics (see Scripturosity article “After Their Kinds”). The disingenuous representation by the zealots of evolutionism is that Christian biologists deny this scientific reality discrediting their ability to construct a viable model apart from claims of the miraculous.

Speaking of the miraculous – wouldn’t that be the appropriate qualification for a theory of radical, evolutionary change that just exploded onto the primeval scene leaving no evidential trace in the fossil record?

Read Full Post »

Biblical Relevance in Modern Culture: Answering Skeptics (Part 7)

This article is one of a series designed to offer a reasoned defense of the true creationist position in response to representations, claims and rebuttals published by “America’s skeptic,” Dr. Michael Shermer.

 

A college professor for 20 years, teaching psychology, evolution, and the history of science, Dr. Shermer has emerged as one of the most respected voices of reason in this generation. He is the Founding Publisher of “Skeptic” magazine, is a monthly columnist for “Scientific American,” and is currently the Executive Director of the Skeptics Society. He has authored more than 10 books primarily focused on science and reason with multiple appearances on various television shows and documentaries over the years.

 

In his book, “Why People Believe Weird Things,” Dr. Shermer commits a full chapter to “Confronting Creationists” trying his best to represent (or not) various planks of the “creation” platform and then offering a philosophical, naturalistic rebuttal to each claim. These articles will focus on Dr. Shermer’s representation of the creationist position and respond to his instruction on how to answer their assertions.

 

The purpose of this short series is not to encourage confrontation with skeptics, but to give answers to those seekers who may be at the same reflective crossroads that Michael Shermer found himself when his faith was challenged by the intellectual flair of naturalistic belief during his graduate training at California State University.

Alleged creationist claim #8 – Evolutionary theory, along with its bedfellow, secular humanism, is really a religion, so it is not appropriate to teach it in public schools.

 

Once again the allegation is constructed to make those embracing a biblical worldview to appear narrow-minded and uninformed. Obviously, world culture (including defining religions) is part of every public school curriculum. The objection of the Biblicist is to the philosophical inconsistency of mainstream academia. If creation cannot be presented as a theory of origins, then why is evolutionism given a pass to the science classroom – particularly when the theory of evolution is maintained only in an un-falsifiable vacuum? I think the point of the common objection that Dr. Shermer is trying (or not) to represent is that either both conceptual paradigms should be taught side-by-side in a philosophy or world culture class setting or both should be excluded altogether.

Dr. Shermer answers his “straw man” allegation with a “straw man” response saying, “To call the science of evolutionary biology a religion is to so broaden the definition of religion as to make it totally meaningless.”

I agree that evolutionary biology is not rightly classified as a religion and no informed creationist is making that assertion. Evolutionary biology is a conceptual accommodation, within a scientific field of study, for the notion of “deep time” imposed on all the disciplines since the “Heroic Age of Geology (see Scripturosity articles “Deep Time Warp” – Parts  1   &    2).”

It is not surprising, but quite interesting, that Dr. Shermer seems to be concerned about his reader’s perception of religion and the defense of its true meaning since he admits to being quite religious himself.

In a May 2002 Scientific American article entitled “The Shamans of Scientism,” Dr. Shermer presents his favored religious alternative. “Scientism (defined be the author as a scientific worldview that embraces only natural explanations for all phenomena) is courageously proffering naturalistic answers that supplant supernaturalistic ones and in the process is providing spiritual sustenance for those whose needs are not being met by these ancient cultural traditions (veiled reference to the historic impact of the book of Genesis).”

Shermer elaborates further on his representative creationist claim by trying to establish a necessary dichotomy. “Religion has to do with faith and the unseen, science focuses on empirical evidence and testable knowledge.”

A man of his intellect and comprehension should recognize that while some science is purely operational, empirical, testable; cosmogonical science constructs paradigmatic visions from “the unseen.”

Paleoanthropological researcher and author, Marvin Lubenow writes (Bones of Contention, p.111), “To say you can start with observations but without theory is absurd. Scientists simply don’t go around collecting observations and data indiscriminately and then try to fit them into theories. They must start with some theory or concept. This then gives them the direction in collecting of data…In theory, facts determine theory; but in fact, theory determines facts. Ultimately, everything is philosophy – or theology.”

In his book The Mythology of Science, Rousas Rushdoony in reference to Richard Dawkin’s thought processes and methodologies muses, “All thinking rests on pre-theoretical presuppositions, religious commitments in essence, which condition the nature of thinking.”

In a May 2000 article for the National Post entitled “How Evolution Became a Religion,” evolutionist university professor and author Michael Ruse admits, “Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion – a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality…Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.”

Considering these quotes along with various resource definitions, I believe that a most accurate definition of religion is this – “Man’s intellectual accommodation for and reasoned response to the claim of a governing Sovereign and the ancient writings that chronicle such accountability.”

The truth is we are all quite religious. The ranks of “the faithful” go beyond the confines of the churches, temples, and mosques to the sanctums of the laboratory, the classroom, and even the weekend campsite.

When the Apostle Paul approached the religious philosophers of Athens with declaration of the true God (Acts 17), he began by reconciling the world around them to a Creator – this acknowledged yet “UNKNOWN GOD.” Following his presentation, the passage reflects three responses from this religious gathering. Some mocked, others sought, but “certain men…believed.”

Dr. Shermer might contend that only those who believed were religious, but the truth is they all were faithful in one way or another to the claim of a Creator (see Scripturosity article “The Gospel Message“).

Read Full Post »

Biblical Relevance in Modern Culture: Answering Skeptics (Part 6)

This article is one of a series designed to offer a reasoned defense of the true creationist position in response to representations, claims and rebuttals published by “America’s skeptic,” Dr. Michael Shermer.

 

A college professor for 20 years, teaching psychology, evolution, and the history of science, Dr. Shermer has emerged as one of the most respected voices of reason in this generation. He is the Founding Publisher of “Skeptic” magazine, is a monthly columnist for “Scientific American,” and is currently the Executive Director of the Skeptics Society. He has authored more than 10 books primarily focused on science and reason with multiple appearances on various television shows and documentaries over the years.

 

In his book, “Why People Believe Weird Things,” Dr. Shermer commits a full chapter to “Confronting Creationists” trying his best to represent (or not) various planks of the “creation” platform and then offering a philosophical, naturalistic rebuttal to each claim. These articles will focus on Dr. Shermer’s representation of the creationist position and respond to his instruction on how to answer their assertions.

 

The purpose of this short series is not to encourage confrontation with skeptics, but to give answers to those seekers who may be at the same reflective crossroads that Michael Shermer found himself when his faith was challenged by the intellectual flair of naturalistic belief during his graduate training at California State University.

Alleged creationist claim #7 – Evolutionary theory is the basis of Marxism, communism, atheism, immorality, and the general decline of the morals and culture of America, and therefore is bad for our children.

Having not studied the history of political philosophies such as Marxism or communism, I would hesitate to make such a specific claim. What can be said with certainty is that ideas have consequences. While it might not be accurate to state that evolutionary theory is the basis of culturally and morally destructive “isms,” it is easy to recognize that there do exist philosophical compatibilities.

The writings and manifestos representing the socio-political ideologies of Marxism, communism, or Nazism clearly reveal the intellectual rejection of a creating, governing Sovereign, the notion of assigned supremacy to human life, and especially any sacred writings that relate such ideas.

It was Darwinian evolution that gave credibility to a cosmogony without a Creator.

Julian Huxley was quoted in Issues in Evolution (p. 45) representing the philosophical importance of Darwin’s contribution. “Darwinism removed the whole idea of God as the creator of organisms from the sphere of rational discussion. Darwin pointed out that no supernatural designer was needed; since natural selection could account for any known form of life, there was no room for a supernatural agency…”

C.D. Darlington of Oxford University wrote the following in an article entitled “Origin of Darwinism” for the 1959 May issue of Scientific American. “We owe it to [Darwin] that the world was brought to believe in evolution;…Here is a theory that released thinking men from the spell of superstition, one of the most overpowering that has ever enslaved mankind.”

Without a Creator there is neither the nagging notion of accountability nor the fear of vulnerability tweaking at our souls or interfering with our schemes. To suggest that there is no correlation between the model of nature’s selections and the vision of Hitler’s politics requires innocent naïveté, brutal ignorance, or deliberate chicanery.

Michael Shermer instructs his readers with the following reasoning. “Neither the theory of evolution in particular nor science in general is no more the basis of these “isms” and Americas’ so-called declining morals and culture than the printing press is responsible for Hitler’s Mein Kampf or Mein Kampf is responsible for what people did with Hitler’s ideology. The fact that the atomic bomb, the hydrogen bomb, and many even more destructive weapons have been invented does not mean that we should abandon the study of the atom.”

Do you see how important it is to their argument to blur the lines between operational science and reconstructive (historical) science? In order to defend evolution, its proponents must make it appear that “science in general” is under suspicion or attack. There is no intelligible connection between the study of the atom and a theory that liberates the mind of mankind from any accountability to a Creator.

It is also incredibly remarkable the irrational depths to which evolutionists will stoop in its defense (see Scripturosity article “Fertilizing the Roots of Racism“). Dr. Shermer defends Hitler’s socio-political manifesto (My Struggle) as being unfairly linked to the actions of those who executed it.

George J. Stein wrote the following in an article entitled “Biological Science and the Roots of Racism” for American Scientist magazine in 1988. “A brief overview of the fundamental ideas of national socialist bio-policy can be seen in Hitler’s Mein Kampf. As early as 1925, in chapter 4 of volume 1 of Mein Kampf, Hitler discussed the relationship between politics and natural selection as the basis for a successful German national policy.”

Stein continues with this translated interpretation of a 1943 edition of the Führer’s writings (p.132). “A people that interferes with natural selection through permitting anyone to breed merely introduces even larger numbers of the less fit into the population pool. This mockery of Nature and her will must lead to disaster. A nation which has not followed natural selection in developing its population will someday be deprived of existence on this earth for man can defy the eternal laws of will to conservation for a certain time, but sooner or later vengeance comes…A stronger race will drive out the weak, for the vital urge in its ultimate form will, time and time again, burst all the absurd fetters of the so-called humanity of individuals, in order to replace it by the humanity of Nature which destroys the weak to give his place to the strong.”

Dr. Shermer rejects as irrational any connection of evolutionism to the murderous, 20^th century, political bio-policies on grounds similar to a comparative link between the message of Mein Kampf and the zealots who carried it out. Not exactly the shining endorsement of evolution that he must have intended.

Again, ideas have consequences. If evolutionary theory was not the basis of harmful, societal “isms” and the general decline of culture, then it can certainly be regarded as the fuel (see Scripturosity article “Jackie Robinson – Breaking the Color Barrier”).  

Read Full Post »