The thief is not coming except that he should be stealing and sacrificing and destroying.
Here is my definition of science:
Science is the systematic, unbiased examination of nature and the cosmos, the formulation of the truths found thereby into general laws, and their application for humanitarian, political, and economic purposes.
The “unbiased examination of nature and the cosmos” is, in effect, the search for truth. Our attitude towards science should ever be one of inquiry. A scientist’s task is to ascertain what a thing does mean. He or she must not presume to dictate what it must mean. Such a predisposition demonstrates bias. A scientific teaching must rest on positive, unquestioned statement of fact, not on gratuitous assumptions or specious arguments.
In accord with my definition of science, we try to the best of our ability to let nature and the cosmos speak for themselves. In regard to what is happening on this earth, we try to let the structure and events of nature lead us where they will.
Neither belief in creationism nor evolution is necessary to the actual examination of nature itself. Creationists look at the Grand Canyon and see the result of the upheavals caused by Noah’s Flood. The evo-atheists look at the Grand Canyon and see millions of years of erosion. The evidence for both interpretations is exactly the same. On page 26 of their book, the NAS authors write, “The bones in the forelimbs of terrestrial and some aquatic vertebrates are remarkably similar because they have all evolved from the forelimbs of a common ancestor.” A creationist, examining the same evidence would say that the similarity is a result of the fact that all these vertebrates were made by the same Creator. To the ones examining the vertebrates, what difference does it make? None.
Evidence is not the problem: it is the interpretation that causes the controversy. Creationism and evolution both interpret the structure and events of nature, representing opposite hypotheses with different assumptions. The creation hypothesis, or the God hypothesis, looks at the apparent design in nature, and says that this points to a Creator. The evolutionary hypothesis also sees the apparent design in nature, but says that this is illusory, and that all life can be explained chemically and materialistically (methodological materialism) without reference to a Creator.
An honest scientist cannot exclude either explanation of nature without presenting evidence for that exclusion. Is it possible that there is a Creator God? Is it possible that there is not a Creator God? The answer to both questions is “Yes.” When we muster as much “objectivity” as we humans are able, we have to answer both of these questions in the affirmative. Unbiased science accepts the reality of both of these possible explanations for existence. Arbitrarily excluding one of these explanations in our search for truth is fundamentally unscientific; that is, it is the abandonment of the “open-ended search for-truth” frame of mind in favor of something else.
A scientist ought to behave like a detective in that they both have to search for clues and further information leading to a conclusion. Just about half the shows on evening television concern police investigations. From Miss Marple to Joe Friday to Horatio Kane, we’re all familiar with the logic of the investigative process. In a murder investigation, would detective Eddie Green of Law and Order exclude a possible suspect without grounds for that exclusion? Of course not. If he did, the whole police investigative process would not make sense to us, and it would suggest some degree of prejudice on his part. That’s why fictional detectives and real detectives always insist upon evidence (e.g., an alibi which proves non-involvement) before they exclude a person as a suspect.
A bad situation only gets worse if, in addition to arbitrarily excluding one suspect, detectives railroad someone else out of a predisposed desire to see them punished, regardless of the evidence.
In the same way, the investigative procedures of true science do not make sense if they arbitrarily exclude one possible explanation for phenomena in favor of another. There is a genuine possibility that there is a Creator God, and that therefore, nature is designed. Absent any proof otherwise, the God hypothesis remains a valid scientific hypothesis.
ARBITRARILY EXCLUDING THE GOD HYPOTHESIS
We saw in Chapter 1 that, in 1964, Julian Huxley urged his fellow evo-atheists to construct something to replace the intellectually and morally burdensome (to them) God hypothesis.
Science, Evolution, and Creationism, the book published by the atheistic hierarchy at the NAS, has given us a summary of that “something” which, in response to Huxley’s order, they have fabricated—not only to take the place of the God hypothesis, but to obliterate its mention from America’s public school science classrooms. The NAS’s arbitrary exclusion of the God hypothesis leaves only one possible explanation for our existence—their atheistic evolutionary one. There is now only one brand of science available, a brand they insist that everyone—from kindergarten children to laboratory researchers—must be satisfied with.
Their arbitrary exclusion of the valid God hypothesis is based entirely on their atheistic prejudices, the world-view they favor, and not upon sound scientific principles. All investigations of nature ought to be unbranded, or generic, in the sense of being nonspecific insofar as the God hypothesis and the evolution hypothesis are concerned. Ideally, let unbiased researchers present their findings from their systematic examinations of nature, and let the creationists and atheists interpret the findings in terms of their respective assumptions, or hypotheses. The interpretation of the findings (the evidence) that makes the most sense is the one more qualified to a “theory” status.
The atheists at the NAS cannot allow the open competition of the two hypotheses, because based on what we actually see in nature, the God hypothesis always makes more sense. To get around that severe problem, the NAS must, by atheistic fiat, brand all science as exclusively evolutionary. Science becomes “evolutionary science.” Biology becomes “evolutionary biology.” Anthropology becomes “evolutionary anthropology.” Their goal is to force-feed you and your children their atheistic brand, and their atheistic brand only. Are your kids hungry for information on the origins and purpose of humanity? Do they wonder how they got here? Fix them another bowl of evo-atheism. That’s all that’s left on the shelf.
STAINING NATURE THE COLOR OF ATHEISM
Let me give you a more vivid explanation of what has happened in our public school science classrooms. The evo-atheists of the NAS see nature only through their gray atheist goggles. These dogmatists see all living flora and fauna, all microscopic cells, and all fossils the same way—as saturated with that drab color. They don’t want our children to see the glorious yellows, oranges, greens, purples, and blues of nature, but they cannot force them to put on their gray atheist goggles as they enter the classroom. Instead, to achieve the same effect, they stain all of nature dark gray, so that the kids see only what the evo-atheists do. The evo-atheists insist that all students accept the dark gray stain as normal when, in fact, it is artificial, and philosophically and religiously generated.
How do they stain all of nature with their dark gray atheist color? We’ll see in the beginning of Chapter 4 that the NAS book writers repeat the idea that “evolution is true, and all scientists believe it” in slightly different words over 80 times in their book, a book with only 55 pages of text. With each repetition, the gray gets darker and darker.
The NAS writers also say, without providing the evidence for it, that “evolution is science,” and they insist throughout that evolution is not only a valid theory but a “fact” as well. They claim that scientists no longer question whether evolution occurred but only how (dark gray) evolution occurred.
At the direction of the NAS, the National Association of Biology Teachers dons the gray goggles and, on behalf of the NAS, stains nature the dark gray atheist color. Here is their explanation of life’s origins that they adopted in 1995:
The diversity of life on earth is the outcome of evolution: an unsupervised, impersonal, unpredictable and natural process of temporal descent with genetic modification that is affected by natural selection, chance, historical contingencies and changing environments.
The pseudo-scientists of the NAS do not investigate to determine what a particular thing in nature is. Their gray stain on all of nature tells them what a particular thing must be—always “evidence” for evolution, and by extension, for atheism. Science is no longer “the systematic, unbiased examination of nature and the cosmos.” It has become “the interpretation of nature through the gray lens of atheism, and the tainting of all natural phenomena with that gray stain.”
THE GOD HYPOTHESIS IS SCIENCE, NOT RELIGION
The atheistic hierarchy at the NAS denies the God hypothesis. It threatens their world-view—it is the only threat to their world-view—so they must keep it out of the science classroom. The question is, how, without producing any evidence for its exclusion, do they convince others to dismiss the God hypothesis? They call it religion, and say religion has no place in science. The God hypothesis is no more a religion than is our national motto, “In God We Trust.” Thomas Jefferson wrote in our Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
The unadorned acknowledgement of the Creator God is not religion, and never has been. If the recognition of our Creator in our founding political document is not religion, then merely hypothesizing the existence of a Creator in science cannot possibly be religion. Again, the God hypothesis is a valid explanation for the structure and events of nature—an explanation detested by the atheists who rule the National Academy of Sciences.
Creationists do not want to bring religion into the classroom. With all the different sects of Christianity, some of them very strange, and all the other Creator-acknowledging religions, that would lead to chaos. Creationists simply want the God hypothesis brought back into the science classroom, and recognized for what it is—a scientifically valid hypothesis. We’ll see in Chapter 7 that, beyond question, it is the hierarchy of NAS which is forcing religion—its brand of atheistic religion—into the science classroom.
EVOLUTION ACCORDING TO THE NAS
What, exactly, according to the National Academy of Sciences, is evolution? Its book does not contain a quotable definition of it, but given what is avowed throughout, it defines evolution in this way:
Evolution is a proven theory and a fact, which explains how, from a single-celled, chemically generated, life form, the diversity of life, including humanity, came into being over several billion years through an undirected process of random mutations acted upon by natural selection.
What is a random mutation? Random means “unpredictable,” while a mutation is a variation from the norm—the very definition of “aberration.” Check your own dictionaries. Thus, random mutations are unpredictable aberrations. The NAS book equates these unpredictable aberrations with genetic copying mistakes.
The NAS book also identifies natural selection as “the driving force behind evolution” (p. 23), but it does not specify what kind of “force” it is. For example, is it measured as genuine forces would be, in dynes or newtons? A force is a push or a pull upon an object which results from its interaction with another object. What exactly are the objects which are interacting? Are they being pushed or pulled? Is the driving force mechanical, gravitational, electrical, or magnetic? The NAS book remains silent on these points. Newton’s Third Law, formally stated, is “For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.” What is the equal and opposite reaction to natural selection, “the driving force behind evolution”? Again, the NAS book is silent.
Another section of the NAS book says something quite different about natural selection:
The differential reproductive success of organisms with advantageous traits is known as natural selection, because nature “selects” traits that enhance the ability of organisms to survive and reproduce (emphasis in original). (p. 5).
In this passage, it is not a force at all, but an outcome or result (“reproductive success”) of some kind of ill-defined actions. On page 50, they also define natural selection as a “process.” Is natural selection, the key concept of Darwinian evolution, a force, a process, or an outcome? In reality, it is none of the three. And so, what is it then? We find the essential clue in the above-cited sentence.
Note that the NAS writers have put the word “selects” in quotes. They do this because they know there is no actual selecting going on. Nature is not a conscious being with a will. Nature cannot and does not literally “select” anything. The term “natural selection” is not literal at all; it is figurative. Natural selection is not a real force, a real process, or a real result of anything. It is nothing more than a figure of speech. Natural “selection” falls under the category of metaphor in that it is an implied comparison of two unlike things (a human and what he or she can do, and all of nature), and it falls more specifically under the category of personification in that it applies human qualities to natural phenomena—nature itself in this case. Unable to describe the evolutionary origin of the species in scientific terms, the members of the NAS, as Darwin before them, resort to an elusive literary device. In a letter to a friend, Darwin referred to natural selection as a “she.”1
Darwin also referred to natural selection as “survival of the fittest,” another extremely problematic phrase for today’s evo-atheists. The NAS writers don’t use the phrase at all in their book. One reason is that racists like Hitler used the term to justify their evil. Another reason they don’t use the phrase is that it is a tautology.
Tautology comes from a Greek word which means “redundant.” An obvious tautology is “bachelors are unmarried.” This statement conveys no real information because, by definition, a bachelor is someone who is unmarried. Those who are unfit to survive do not survive. Survival of the fittest is thus nothing more than the survival of those who survive. The Darwinian term “survival of the fittest” conveys no useful information to us. We already know that the survivors survived.
So how did we humans, according to the NAS book, come into being here, on planet earth? All living things, including us, can be traced back approximately two billion years to a first single-celled organism. (As we shall see in the next chapter, the evolutionists have no explanation whatever for how this first cell came into being). Nevertheless, this cell supposedly reproduced and eventually formed a population of similar cells. Then genetic mistakes began to occur, due to radiation or some other unknown cause. Some of these genetic mistakes (unpredictable aberrations or random mutations) had a negative effect on the organisms’ reproductive fitness, some had no effect, but yet some “enhanced” the ability of these organisms to survive and reproduce.
Then, natural “selection,” an unquantifiable “force” and/or very sketchy “process” or “result,” that meets the definition of a figure of speech, got involved, causing a new, more complex population of organisms—a different species—to appear. This same figure of speech, known as natural “selection,” continued to operate in some way upon ever greater numbers of genetic copying errors (unpredictable aberrations), and more and more species came into being until life reached the stage of complexity that plants and animals emerged. Eventually, over a period of about 250 million years (that’s 250 million earth-trips around the sun), we humans evolved from reptiles, by the same process—a figure of speech operating upon the genetic copying errors of reproductive cells.
The evo-atheists of the NAS claim this above-described evolution of theirs is a “fact,” yet they have been unable to formulate a “law of evolution,” or a “law of natural selection,” or a “law of random mutations.” I sympathize with their inabilities. How does one formulate into a law something that’s really nothing more than a dark gray atheistic stain upon nature?
We’ve seen now what evolution means to the evo-atheists at the NAS. What to them is science? We will see in the next six chapters that what they write in their own book demonstrates that their “understanding” of science turns out to be nothing more than the manipulation of language and atheistically-stained evidence to prove that evolution is true, and thus that God does not exist. Their arbitrary staining, or tainting, of all nature with their atheism is an important part of their “scientific method.” The hierarchy of the NAS has stolen true science; they are sacrificing our children to their atheism, and at the same time, destroying our children’s faith in God.