Science, Evolution, and Creationism is not about evidence, but rather about a philosophy of science, a limited pattern of thinking with roots in the ancient philosophy of Plato.
Who, specifically, is responsible for the NAS book? Eighteen committee members, under the direction of a committee chairman were charged with producing it, all credentialed academics. Where did academia itself originate? It began in ancient Athens, in about 387 BC, with the Academy of Plato. All of Plato’s Dialogues survive, and are taught throughout our colleges and universities.
An overlooked warning about Platonic philosophy appears in the Scriptures. In Matthew 7:13, Jesus said, “Enter through the cramped gate, for broad is the gate and spacious is the way which is leading away into destruction, and many are those entering through it” (my emphasis). The word “broad” in Greek is platu or plato. Plato’s real name was Aristokles which means “the glory of the best.” People called him Plato because of his broad shoulders or because of his broad forehead. “Plato is the gate . . . leading away into destruction . . .”
Plato’s mouthpiece was Sokrates. Plato’s Academy, and of course Sokrates himself, excluded the idea of a Creator, as do their “intellectual” spawn, modern academia. For Plato and Sokrates, it is all about the exaltation of the human mind above all. In Plato’s Dialogue, Crito, Sokrates affirms that he must be guided by reason only (46b). The Greek word for mind is nous. In Plato’s Dialogue, Cratylus, Sokrates refers to “The nous, the mind . . . the pure nous” as “the divine in us” (396b). In Plato’s Dialogue, Philebus, Sokrates said, “. . . since all philosophers assert with one voice that mind is the king of heaven and earth—in reality they are magnifying themselves. And perhaps they are right” (28c). Remember Zimmerman and Mr. X, in the last chapter, exalting the mind as the ultimate arbiter of all, above even the pronouncements of God in the Scriptures? They are simply harmonizing their own man-centered philosophies with the ancient Sokratic chorus.
Some people think of Platonic philosophy as an objective search for truth. It is no such thing. It involves presenting one’s soul to be charmed by the reigning philosophical authority. Sokrates’ adoring student, Charmides, says to his master, “I am certain that I greatly need the charm (Greek = epode) and nothing on my part will stand in the way of my being charmed by you every day until you say that it is enough” (Charmides, 176b). In order to become part of the great intellectual elite, Charmides offers himself “to be enchanted” by the words and authority of Sokrates.
Sokrates, the man who places human reason above all, becomes the savior of Charmides. The name, Sokrates, is a contraction of Soter, meaning “Savior,” and Krates, meaning “Mighty.” Sokrates is the mighty savior of all who submit to him and the primacy of autonomous human reason above all. The word “autonomous” has an interesting derivation. It comes from two Greek words meaning “self” and “law.” Sokrates, and all who follow his way, become laws unto themselves. The NAS hierarchy has become a law unto itself, answerable to no one. Their rule in the science classroom is a rule of self-proclaimed “experts.” That “the wisdom of this world is stupidity with God” (I Corinthians 3:19) eludes them.
THE NAS’ PHILOSOPHICAL SPELL
Just as Sokrates enchanted the youth, the NAS casts a spell to entrap the minds of its devotees. How does it work? It is not all that complicated, consisting as it does of three parts: a false promise, a taboo, and a threat. Let’s look at them one at a time.
THE FALSE PROMISE: If you submit to our philosophical paradigm, then, along with us, relying on your mind, and your mind only, you can figure out all things, and solve the riddle of existence, including the origins of all life.
The promise is a philosophical appeal to human pride. Evo-atheist Michael Ruse says essentially the same thing in his book, Darwinism Defended: A Guide to the Evolution Controversies:
Darwinism, especially as it extends into human sociobiology, reflects a strong ideology. Moreover, this is one to be proud of. 1
Just as becharmed philosophical apprenticeship under Sokrates supposedly is the cause of intellectual progress, so is submission to the NAS philosophers and their promise. The NAS hierarchy seeks those special people who are willing to submit:
This booklet is also directed to the broader audience of high-quality school and college students as well as adults who wish to become more familiar with the many strands of evidence supporting evolution and to understand why evolution is both a fact and a process that accounts for the diversity of life on Earth. (p. xii).
Students who, out of a combination of innocence and vanity, see themselves as part of humanity’s elite—young princes and princesses of philosophy—yield their souls to the wisdom of the evo-atheist hierarchy, a prerequisite for the operation of the philosophical charm, or spell. The spirit behind the enchantment is beseeching, magical, and irrational. The entire NAS book is a rationalization of the enchantment, evoking the philosophical (seductive) power of the evo-atheist paradigm, making it seem so logical and so sensible that submissive scientists of imagined worm-descent will be able to unravel the mysteries of the universe. Thus, the NAS authorities successfully project their mere philosophical opinions into the minds of the enchanted as “facts.” If that’s not magic, what is it? Please don’t forget that, ultimately, they target our children in the public schools through their multi-faceted seductions.
The NAS’s false promise to its charmed ones is a variation of the ancient serpent’s promise, “You shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.” Genesis 3:6 tells us specifically what lured Eve:
And seeing is the woman that the tree is good for food, and that it brings a yearning to the eyes, and is to be coveted as the tree to make one intelligent (Genesis 3:6).
Remember in Chapter 1, we quoted NAS book committee member Neil deGrasse Tyson referring to the members of the NAS as “the most brilliant minds the nation has.” That’s what it is all about for them, taking the serpent’s bait, and presuming themselves to be among the brilliant philosopher kings of science. Within their ivory towers, above their secluded and moated castles, they dispense the “wisdom” of human reptile-descent to the ignorant masses.
A voice from behind the idol-image of Apollo at Delphi called Sokrates “the wisest of men” (Apology 21a). Apollo took over Delphi from a python, and, as a result, Apollo’s prophetess was called the Pythia. From within the Pythia emanated a “python spirit” (Acts 16:16). Thus it was the voice of a serpent that proclaimed Sokrates “the wisest of men.” Whose idolatrous voice, I wonder, proclaims the NAS hierarchy to be the most brilliant of humans?
The Hebrew word for the serpent of Genesis comes from the primitive root, nâchash, meaning to hiss or whisper a magic spell. If you were to ask the evo-atheists if it is possible that they have been enchanted by the ancient serpent of Genesis, they would reply with a resounding “Never!” all the while insisting that they are descended from serpents.
The NAS writers use the word “overwhelming” over and over to support their empty presentation. It is my turn to use it: The overwhelming majority of today’s evo-scientists, in truth pseudoscientists, have fallen hook, line, and sinker for NAS’s false promise—a false promise that is not all that unfamiliar to those of us who take the Book of Genesis seriously and literally.
THE TABOO: You are forbidden to think of, or mention, a Supreme Creator; likewise, you are forbidden to consider any involvement by such a Being in any aspect of the world.
The NAS writers express the taboo in their book thus:
. . . arguments that attempt to confuse students by suggesting that there are fundamental weaknesses in the science of evolution are unwarranted . . . (p. 52).
If we take out the dependent clauses, leaving just the subject and predicate, we have “arguments are unwarranted.” The arguments to which they refer are coming from the creationists and those who espouse intelligent design. The NAS writers mean that creationist and intelligent design arguments are forbidden. That’s the taboo.
Consider this sentence: “Because the evidence supporting it is so strong, scientists no longer question whether biological evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur.” The key phrase: “scientists no longer question.” The taboo again.
Consider this sentence also: “Others have argued that science teachers should ‘teach the controversy’ surrounding evolution. But there is no controversy in the scientific community about whether evolution has occurred.” There can be no controversy so long as the taboo is not violated. Through this captivating taboo, the NAS hierarchy engraves its evo-atheistic viewpoint on the minds of the young and the eager, remaining immune to any criticism or debate. Submission to the philosophy of evo-atheism must be exclusive; thus the importance of blocking out the valid God hypothesis. The NAS hierarchy must be protected.
Last November, my friends, Mark Wadsworth, Mike Thompson, and I manned a booth at the Greek festival in Baltimore, Maryland. What a great time! On the third and final day, an evo-atheist from a college Classics department approached our display. He saw my books Athena and Eden, Athena and Kain, The Parthenon Code: Mankind’s History in Marble (with “A Startling Testament to the Validity of Scripture” on the cover), and Noah in Ancient Greek Art with six Greek images of Noah on the cover. We also had a 950-slide PowerPoint show running, along with computer-reconstructed sculptures from the Parthenon and the temple of Zeus at Olympia. I tried to engage him as he looked over our display. He would have none of it. He raised his hands, palms toward us, cried out, “No! No! No!,” backed up, turned, and walked away. It was the taboo in operation.
If he had been rational, he’d have approached us and asked more about the evidence supporting our interpretation of ancient art, but the taboo is irrational, demanding denial instead of further investigation.
In 2003, the Institute for Creation Research published a 104-page “coffee table book” compiled by Tom Vail, a veteran tour guide, entitled Grand Canyon: A Different View. Vail’s different view was a creationist one. The presidents of seven evo-science organizations cried in unison, “No! No! No!” urging the park superintendent to remove the book from Canyon bookstores because of its “religious” content. No one forced any gift shop visitors to buy Vail’s book. In the United States of America, it is not rational to demand that non-obscene, nondefamatory books be removed from bookstores. The taboo made these evo-atheists express such an irrational demand.
THE THREAT: Unless you accept the taboo against postulating a Creator, and believe that you are capable of solving the riddle of existence, along with us, without reference to such a Being, you cannot be a scientist.
The threat completes the spell and magnifies the coercion inherent in the taboo. Both evince contempt for open-minded thinking. The threat is necessary to overcome the inability of the evo-atheists to make their case logically. They must revert to force. Because of their intellectual insecurity, they must take refuge in the irrational. Their spell is an essential aspect of their “scientific method.”
Much of Ben Stein’s new movie, Expelled, is about honest scientists who have followed evidence where it leads, and as a result, have found themselves fired and ostracized by the ruling evo-atheist hierarchy. Veiled threats abound: “You’ll stay away from creationism and intelligent design if you know what’s good for you.” “Tenure is something we’re happy to see happen for our evolutionary biologists.” “Don’t forget who pays your salary.”
The spell has proven to be psychologically effective, destroying the spirit of discernment within those under it, and disabling their ability to independently and objectively evaluate evidence. Any objective scientist should be able to say without fear, “I can’t prove that life evolved by chance through natural selection; therefore, there may be a Creator,” but the evo-atheists cannot do this because of the philosophical enchantment which dominates their thinking.
The NAS’s entire book is nothing more than the narration of an enchanting myth designed to persuade readers to favorably accept what the authors of it (the NAS hierarchy) say should be believed. Their evo-atheism is their philosophy of life first, and their philosophy of science second.
SOKRATES AND THE NAS: ENEMIES OF THE FAMILY AND THE STATE
Let’s get back to Sokrates. Did he have anything of value to teach anyone? This is what Sarah Kofman, author of Socrates: Fictions of a Philosopher, has to say about him:
. . . [I]n fact Socrates did not teach seriously. He did not adopt an edifying manner, he did not take the place of fathers or take over their responsibilities out of concern for their sons’ welfare. With his disciples, his relationship was strictly negative: he did not communicate anything at all, nor did he satisfy, nor did he enrich. The corrupter of youth was a seducer, not only in the etymological sense of turning young people away from their families, but also in the modern sense which would make him first and foremost a tease . . . He gets young people excited when they are in contact with him, but he does not give them any strong, substantive nourishment. He abuses them, fascinates them, awakens nostalgic desires in them without satisfying them . . . 2
A jury of Sokrates’ peers convicted him of the charge of being “a doer of evil and corrupter of youth,” and condemned him to death by drinking hemlock. The charge lay essentially in his encouragement of young people to disobey their parents. Today, this is exactly what the NAS hierarchy encourages within our public school science classrooms.
Sane and responsible parents do not teach their children that they are descended from reptiles. Nor do they tell their children not to look to the heavens for their Maker, but rather to look down at the slimy, creeping things of the earth to discern their origins. And they do not desire that their children be tutored by atheists like Neil Tyson who proclaim that life has no meaning or purpose. Sokrates, 2400 years ago, was an alien and uninvited third party who presumed greater competence in the teaching of youth than the parents and everyone else. The hierarchy of the NAS, today, right now, is an uninvited third party in our public school science classrooms, presuming greater competence in teaching our children than we, the parents, and everyone else.
Sokrates was also convicted of impiety against the gods, a charge which pertained to his contempt for the average man and his love for dictatorship. Sokrates’ jurors knew he didn’t believe in free speech or democracy, but they did believe in those things. In his book, The Trial of Socrates, I. F. Stone argued that Sokrates was a coldhearted elitist snob, who favored totalitarian rule by an intellectual elite which he referred to as the “philosopher kings.” Those who are a part of the hierarchy of the NAS imagine themselves as part of just such an elite. Like Sokrates, they lack respect for the family and the state.
THE CHIEF NAS PHILOSOPHER
The chilling enchantment of evo-atheist philosophy permeates the NAS to such a disturbing degree that you’d think the committee chair of the book project, Francisco J. Ayala, was a philosophy professor at a major university. He is, indeed, just such a professor.
Francisco Jose Ayala (born 1934) is Professor of Philosophy, (School of Humanities), and Professor of Logic and the Philosophy of Science (School of Social Sciences) at the University of California, Irvine. He is also Professor of Biological Sciences, Ecology and Evolutionary Biology (School of Biological Sciences). Ayala moved to the United States in 1961 from his home-city of Madrid to attend Columbia University, where he studied for his doctorate under Theodosius Dobzhansky, graduating in 1964.
Ayala’s studies under Dobzhansky shed much light on the core philosophical problem at the National Academy of Sciences. Dobzhansky is the one who wrote “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.” This is not an objective scientific statement, but rather a philosophical one. It defines Dobzhansky’s and Ayala’s philosophy of science—the same fallacious philosophy of science Ayala and the NAS are foisting on every public school student in America. You most likely had never heard of Dobzhansky or Ayala before reading this book, and yet your children must go along with their bogus philosophical presumptions or fail in science class.
The truth is that “Nothing in biology makes sense except in light of the evidence, the data, the facts!” Let me re-emphasize: “the evidence, the data, the facts!” That is what true science is based upon. And the facts do not point to humanity’s descent from reptiles.
Note that Ayala is a professor of logic. Fundamental errors in logic abound in the NAS book, the writing of which was overseen by Ayala. And did you read the previous chapter about the Clergy Letter Project? There are enough logical errors in that letter alone to fill a month of days in your diary, and yet Ayala touts it as something reasonable and good! Ayala and his 18-member committee that oversaw the writing of the NAS book are completely out of hand, their thinking disconnected from reality. The inmates are running the asylum. The following quotes are from Ayala’s book Darwin and Intelligent Design:
There is probably no other notion in any field of science that has been as extensively tested and as thoroughly corroborated as the evolutionary origin of living organisms. (p. 40).
It is now possible to assert that gaps of knowledge in the evolutionary history of living organisms no longer exist . . . The virtually unlimited evolutionary information encoded in the DNA sequence of living organisms allows evolutionists to reconstruct all evolutionary
relationships leading to present-day organisms, with as much detail as desired. (p. 41).The missing link is no longer missing. Hundreds of fossil remains belonging to hundreds of intermediate human ancestors have been discovered since Darwin’s time and continue to be discovered at an accelerated rate. (p. 43).
All three quotes above are absolutely false. I have as much evidence for: “There are five-eyed chartreuse aliens on the dark side of the moon preparing to pelt us with sweet potatoes” as Ayala has for his statements. Ayala’s words are not those of a truth-seeking scientist, but rather the rantings of an evo-atheist lunatic. They show us that the more exalted the philosopher, the grander the delusion. Ayala’s words seem true only when they are artificially and arbitrarily glued to his bogus philosophy of science. These evo-atheists who run the NAS are not teachers of knowledge; they are rather, like Sokrates, antidemocratic reactionaries.
The men and women who put the NAS book together, and the rest of the NAS hierarchy, are unable to comprehend the enormous difference between saying something is true, and proving that it is true. While such a handicap has no bearing upon their respective abilities to philosophize, it categorically disqualifies them as competent scientists.
We began Chapter 3 by citing Colossians 2:8-9:
Beware that no one shall be despoiling you through philosophy and empty seduction, in accord with human tradition, in accord with the elements of the world, and not in accord with Christ, for in Him the entire complement of the Deity is dwelling bodily.
We’ve seen in this Chapter and in the three which preceded it, that what sustains the evo-atheists of the National Academy of Sciences is not evidence for their position, but rather “philosophy and empty seduction,” just as the scriptural passage maintains.
We’ll see in the next two chapters that the adamant reliance of the NAS members on philosophy and empty seduction necessitates their violation of our most cherished political principles.