Connect with us

Culture and Religion

3 reasons scientists refuse to acknowledge evidence of a Biblical worldview

Published

on

The favored attack against a Biblical worldview by those who espouse a secular worldview is to invoke science. Whether it’s a smug intellectual professor or an unhinged product of American indoctrination centers, better known as universities, the supposed “case closed” attack used to disprove the Bible is a combination of various scientific theories, including evolution, the Big Bang, and my favorite theory that’s relatively new, the multiverse theory.

All of these theories have major flaws. Invariably, these flaws are easily reconciled within a Biblical worldview. For example, evolution cannot reconcile with irreducible complexity. Even Charles Darwin himself noted, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”

Essentially, irreducible complexity is observed when a system is so reliant on each individual part of it that removing any one of them would render the entire system useless. Evolution works through the concept that advancements happen over time as improvements or mutations come into being through natural means. But systems that are irreducibly complex do not jibe with this concept because for the system to have come about through natural means, every component must have been generated simultaneously. It’s more farcical than believing you could throw all the pieces from a Jenga box in the air and they would land in a perfectly formed stack.

The example often used to illustrate this is the basic mousetrap.

Mousetrap

There are five basic components. Any combination of four of the components doesn’t yield a less effective mousetrap. It would no longer be a mousetrap at all. This is an easy way to see irreducible complexity at work. Now, apply this to the basic building blocks of life – the cell. A simple cell is exponentially more complex than a mousetrap. Take away any component of a simple cell and you don’t have a simpler cell. You have nothing. It wouldn’t be able to perform a single function of a cell.

How do secular scientists reconcile this? Google it. The rebuttals I read through ranged from haughty to mildly concerned, but all of them had two conclusions. First, they all stipulated that the answer is simply unknown now, but eventually science will be able to explain it. Second, they went to the tried and true argument that given enough time and enough opportunities, anything is possible. This is the argument that invariably comes forth whenever challenges are made to anti-Biblical scientific theories. Time is the great equalizer for scientists because they know the unfathomable nature of millions or billions of years renders the average person too dumbfounded to rightfully challenge their impossible claims.

Before we get into why scientists are so adamant about preserving their worldview, we should break down the questions they attempt to answer that often challenges this worldview. The questions asked in the widest range of topics from the origins of the universe to the best way to live our lives now to the final destination of our consciousness after our physical bodies die can be broken down into three categories:

  • How are we here?
  • Why are we here?
  • Where are we going?

It isn’t just secular scientists. These questions have perplexed scholars and students, philosophers and layman. The Bible offers complex yet understandable explanations to all of these questions. Even with these clear explanations, humans have struggled to grasp the meaning of it all since the Bible was first distributed to the masses. Nevertheless, the Bible points to real explanations to these questions that can and should be explored more deeply, but these explanations are instantly dismissed by secular scientists as well as a growing segment of the entire population. And therein lies the key to the third reason scientists refuse to acknowledge evidence of a Biblical worldview.

Before we get to that one, let’s start with the first reason and work our way down.

1. Blacklisted black sheep

There is one very easy way for scientists to lose their jobs, have their grants cut, never get published in scientific journals, and get generally ridiculed by their piers. They simply have to declare their belief in a Biblical worldview. Doing so will, for all intents and purposes, land them on the blacklist within the scientific community that will end their careers.

The modern scientific world works within a very tight echo chamber. Within this echo chamber, all discussions must be framed within the natural. Any attempts to stir up discussions of the supernatural are instantly stifled. Further attempts lead to being labeled as a black sheep. Even the most tenured and respected scientists who become Biblical black sheep are unceremoniously blacklisted. They are removed from the echo chamber so their dangerous ideas cannot be heard.

It is well documented that professors have been fired, researchers have been demoted, and scholars have been removed from speaking circuits when they start asking the wrong questions or coming to Biblical conclusions. In the modern scientific world, you can challenge any theory and argue any valid point unless it invokes credence to the Bible or intelligent design. If you go down that road, you’re no longer considered one of the cool kids.

2. The scientist’s old clothes

In the tale of The Emperor’s New Clothes, the titular emperor is convinced by a pair of con men that his newest outfit is woven from magical threads that were invisible to anyone who was unfit for their office or who were unusually stupid. This thought pleased the emperor so he could tell the wise from the foolish in his court.

The whole town knew of the powers of the clothing and were anxious to see it for themselves so they could tell which of their neighbors were stupid. The emperor sent in two of his advisers to check on progress. They saw nothing, of course, but were too ashamed to admit it, so they reported to the emperor how wonderful the clothing appeared. When the clothes were presented and the emperor saw nothing, he, too, was too ashamed to admit it.

The emperor pranced around town naked with nobody wanting to admit they saw nothing for fear that they would be revealed as stupid.

This is a simplification of what’s been happening with secular scientists for decades. Evidence has been emerging in the modern era that slice gaping holes in scientific theories that oppose the Biblical worldview, but it’s all getting pushed aside. It usually comes down to wild interpretations of the evidence rather than outright dismissal, but nevertheless secular scientists refuse to admit the transparency they’re seeing in the old clothes of scientific explanation. It’s better for them to pretend they see the wonderful colors of their scientific clothing than to admit there’s no clothing for them to see.

Keep in mind that scientific evidence is not being debunked. It’s scientific conclusions that are failing the transparency test. The biggest mistake made by those who believe solely in secular scientific conclusions is they believe evidence is mutually exclusive. In their minds, evidence must point to their conclusions, and if they happen to jibe with a Biblical worldview, that’s just a coincidence. But the truth is the exact opposite. Is evidence of a beginning to the universe proof of creation or the Big Bang? By itself, it lends credence to both theories, but to secular scientists it is only allowed to be attributed to their theory.

More scientists are changing their conclusions to align with intelligent design at the least. Many are going so far as to embrace the Bible itself. The Emperor’s New Clothes ends when a child finally comes out and tells the crowd the emperor has nothing on at all. How the story ends is eerily similar to what’s happening in the world of modern secular science.

The Emperor shivered, for he suspected they were right. But he thought, “This procession has got to go on.” So he walked more proudly than ever, as his noblemen held high the train that wasn’t there at all.

3. Ephesians 6:12

The Bible warns of this problem. Romans 1:22-23 referred to the machinations of the people in Paul’s era who dismissed the Bible’s teachings so they could engage with man-made idols.

22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

This concept lives in practice today. Secular scientists aren’t worshiping on alters of birds. They’re worshiping on the alters of insufficient scientific theories. Again, I must be clear that the observations and evidence presented through science is usually not incorrect. It’s their interpretations of the observations that are wrong. For example, the lack of a “missing link” between apes and men is seen through the Biblical worldview as proof of the Bible’s authenticity, whereas it is seen as something to be assumed until it is discovered by those who believe in secular science.

This is a delusion. It’s one that is reinforced through governments, schools, and mainstream media. Just as the creation itself must be seen through a supernatural lens, so too must we view this delusion as one of supernatural origins. For this, we turn to Ephesians 6:12:

12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

It’s important to understand the primary driving force behind the secular scientific worldview is one with its roots in the supernatural. We need to recognize the enemy for what it is, and dismissing this opposing worldview as simply a product of stubbornness or ignorance would be a huge mistake. When we realize there are forces outside of our realm that work towards corrupting the worldviews of the people, we’ll be better prepared to fight against it.

As Ephesians continues, it warns us that we must wear the whole full Armor of God. Read through Ephesians 6:13-18 to gain an understanding of all we will need to defend against the principalities, powers, and rulers of the darkness of this world.

Science in and of itself is not bad. Every day we gain a better understanding of how God’s creation works, and scientific observations can reinforce our Biblical worldview. Just don’t let the conclusions made by secular science taint this understanding. Their delusion is strong, but the evidence is increasingly supportive of the truth many of us already hold dear.

I’m Tammy Rucker. Thank you for listening.

Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Culture and Religion

First they came for the gun owners….

Published

on

By

First they came for the gun owners

…but I didn’t say anything because I didn’t own a gun.

One of the more infuriating aspects of the Left’s game of denying reality with their little ‘That wasn’t really socialism’ is that there are distinct parallels between their agenda and that of other socialist nations, past and present. They all have a similar process of imposing socialistic slavery with a specific national agenda. A key part being the deprivation of the means of self-defense to their citizens and those who posses these means.

Denying the right of self-defense is a fundamental aspect of socialism

It is a fact of history that gun confiscation is an integral part of implementing of a socialist national agenda. The USSR required the people to turn in their guns, as did the German national socialist worker’s party. As was Fidel Castro’s response in the question of whether the people should have guns as or the United Socialist Party of Venezuela confiscating guns from the people for their own safety, of course.

These have all taken place at the onset of socialistic slavery, but somehow the new version isn’t the same because reasons. Leftists aren’t really trying to set up a governmental monopoly on the use of force, they are just trying to protect the children* [ *unborn and under 9 months old excluded ]. Even though it has been proven time and again that their repression of Liberty does not work as advertised.

The liberty grabber left is now celebrating the destruction of basic civil liberties

Where this subject not so deadly serious, it would be comical to still witness leftists parroting the ‘No one is talking about gun confiscation’ or a variant thereof. Meanwhile they can scarcely contain themselves in the glee over New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern seizing on their ‘serious crisis’ to confiscate guns with tweets looking to replicate the destruction of a basic human right in the states.

It is more than a coincidence that the tempo of the drum beat for liberty control has increased while the ideological fraud of socialism is being forced on the people. After a long winded piece gloating about leftist victories over liberty, an opinion piece in Bloomberg has even suggested that Chief Justice John Roberts seize on the serious crisis in New Zealand, using it to destroy this basic civil liberty.

Citizens turned into subjects with a change in the relationship between the people and the government

The genius of the founding fathers is that they recognized that down through history, people have had varying relationships with government. In most cases it was one of the government having a monopoly on the use of force. On occasion the people would challenge this monopoly and change the government, but only after an ensuing orgy of carnage and death.

The founders set forth a new paradigm, that of government by the consent of the people with a semblance of parity via a distributed ability to use force. The nation’s Socialist-Left would like to change or ‘reform’ that paradigm back to the old-fashioned version of the government being the sole purveyor of force. Please note that we are dispensing with the tired old line of the left that this is not what they want. They have made this quite clear over the past few years to the point that anyone that is informed of the issue recognizes that this is just another lie on their part.

“He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression.” – Thomas Paine

Relegating gun owners to 2nd class citizenship

Those of us who haven’t traded, sold or lost all of our guns in a boating accident are a persecuted class these days. The situation is much akin to a baseball pitching machine throwing fastballs over and over again without let-up. With all kinds of new laws being proposed at state and federal levels that range from invasive Intergalactic Background Checks, liability insurance requirements, gun registration and of course, gun confiscation SWATing legislation.

The destruction of basic civil liberties will only begin with gun owners

Every citizen of the nation is protected with basic Constitutional principles and civil rights including due process, the presumption of innocence and the right to face one’s accuser.

The gun owner has been excluded from these basic civil liberties in some states, and if the liberty grabbers had their way, such would be the case nationwide. With just the flimsiest insinuation of being ‘dangerous’ a gun owner [or those who are merely accused of being a gun owner] will be subjected to gun confiscation raid from the authorities.

This will be just the beginning of the ordeal – if they survive the SWAT team coming at 5:00 AM without warning. Our 2nd class citizen will have to prove they aren’t ‘dangerous’ after they have effectively found guilty in a star chamber. It will only be after spending thousands of dollars in legal fees that they may get their property back in less than stellar condition. The trend is to set gun owners below the legal status of accused criminals in the eyes of the justice system.

We’re just starting on the slippery slope

Fresh from their moves against the basic human right of self-preservation, the chief censor of the government of New Zealand has arbitrarily decided that certain ideas are beyond the pale, sparking a debate over free speech as reported by the Associated Press. This of course is another ongoing controversy in the states over the issue of political correctness and ‘Hate speech’. This shows that isn’t just about ‘military style assault weapons’ or whatever is the phrase at the moment, this is a question of liberty, something the people who use a similar sounding label used to pretend to support.

Make no mistake, the legislative mechanisms and regulations used to deprive gun owners of their commonsense human and civil rights will be used on others if they are allowed to stand. A civil liberties group in California made the point that one doesn’t have to be a gun owner to be subjected to gun confiscation SWATing. If they can go after the property of a gun owner in one instance, because they don’t like their attitude, what’s to stop them from going after a journalist or other type of activist? These orders only have to allege someone is dangerous with little evidence, much less proof that they own a gun. What’s to stop them from deciding free-speech is dangerous or ‘offensive’ necessitating that their computers or cell phones should be seized – at gunpoint no less?

The Takeaway

The whole point of the ‘first they came for’ series is that authoritarians rarely go after everyone at once. They are very careful in picking their targets for their oppression with the tactic of divide and conquer. Today it’s the people who own guns, tomorrow it will be those who don’t conform to the precepts of ‘political correctness’.

This is why President John F. Kennedy stated that: “The rights of every man are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened.”

This is why everyone should be concerned at the headlong rush to denigrate the right of self-defense. And why everyone should be horrified that the government could even consider jettisoning the basic civil liberty of due process and the presumption of innocence. The loss of basic civil rights for some will mean the loss for everyone.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Speculation about ancient human skull in Israel points to unscientific method of modern science

Published

on

Speculation about ancient human skull in Israel points to unscientific method of modern science

What does an ancient human skull found in a cave in Israel tell us about the past? It all depends on which perspective you take and whether you want to follow sound scientific practices or manipulated conclusions from circular reasoning.

Modern science can give us a tremendous view of the past. With nearly every discovery, we can see God’s work at play in molding the planets and the stars, the oceans and the lands, the people and the other wonderful creatures. Unfortunately, scientists often distort the findings to fit in with their secular worldview. A clear case of this comes to us from a study published four years ago in the scientific journal, Nature, titled Levantine cranium from Manot Cave (Israel) foreshadows the first European modern humans, that is still being erroneously taught today.

First, watch the way that it is being reported. Then, let’s discuss the conclusions.

This is an important discovery, one that clearly points to a Biblical worldview of the roots of man from the garden of Eden working its way from what is now Africa into what is now the Middle East. It jibes with the story of the great flood, stories from the life of Adam through Joshua, and a centralized end point of ancient man in the region along the Mediterranean Sea from North Africa up through modern day Turkey.

Of course, that’s not what the scientists doing the research concluded.

“The is the first evidence that shows that, indeed, there was a large wave of African migrants coming out of East Africa and inhabiting the Eastern Mediterranean region,” said Israel Hershkovitz of Tel Aviv University.

One of the biggest problems with modern science is that our society blindly accepts their conclusions. They know, right?

Proper scientific method that we all learn in high school tells us the conclusions of the research are completely unscientific. We know a few things that are truly observable:

  • Humans very likely started in Africa and Neanderthals were in the Middle East.
  • Humans and Neanderthals interbred to form the basis for Europeans. Today, everyone other than purely African people have at least a little Neanderthal DNA.
  • A human skull fragment was found in Israel.

Given this information, it is obtuse to draw the conclusion that this represents a large wave of African migrants inhabiting the Eastern Mediterranean region. One skull fragment does not tell us that there was a large migration. One skull fragment does not tell us that it was a migration at all. Modern science must establish hypotheses based upon observable facts, but it almost always extrapolates too much.

This wouldn’t be a bad thing if it extrapolated based upon the Bible. We are told the general story of everything that happened from creation through the rise of the Greeks within the Old Testament. Every scientific and archaeological discovery in the region supports this general story, but a culture that utilizes far more distant time frames to explain the discoveries has generated the faulty conclusions that scientists present to us today.

The evidence tells two different stories depending on the observer’s worldview. It’s unfortunate that most have pushed aside the obvious and verifiable conclusions in order to perpetuate the paradigm of secularism.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Seriously, ‘eat mor chikin’ at Chick-fil-A

Published

on

Seriously eat mor chikin at Chick-fil-A

A month doesn’t pass without some organization protesting Chick-fil-A to exclude them from participating in some program or even open restaurants in certain locations. This month’s version of Chick-fil-A hate was the last straw for Senator Ted Cruz (and me) as San Antonio’s city council has voted to prevent the fast food chain from operating at the airport.

Let’s call this what it is. Any individual, organization, or company that supports a Biblical worldview or donates to Judeo-Christian causes are considered to be anti-LGBTQ. The only ones who are not labeled as such are those who go out of their way to embrace the LGBTQ community and who promote such things as gay marriage. Faith-based institutions that prioritize modern day’s version of “tolerance” over the Bible’s teachings are often considered to be A-OK to the leaders of the LGBTQ community (as compared to the actual members of the community, most of whom are not involved in pushing the leadership’s agenda beyond believing marriage is not only between a man and a woman).

Chick-fil-A has done nothing to attack the LGBTQ community. They’ve always been stalwart defenders of equal rights and do not deserve the type of treatment they get from people like the six who voted against them in San Antonio’s city council. Yes, they donate to Christian causes. Yes, they let their employees off on Sunday except in those rare circumstances when they’re presence on Sunday is a blessing. Yes, ownership expresses a Biblical worldview. But such things shouldn’t earn them a place on the blacklist.

Nevertheless, they are, and it’s time for patriotic Americans to commit to a sustained campaign in support of this company which has become a symbol as a primary victim of the left’s contempt and discrimination.

Starting tomorrow (can’t start today since it’s Sunday), it’s time to eat out at Chick-fil-A whenever it makes sense. But don’t just do it once. Make it a regular thing. Thinking of other fast food joints for lunch? Whenever possible, don’t. We need to let them and everyone else know that if the left is going to continue to denigrate and block Chick-fil-A, that we’re going to counter their maneuvers by supporting them with our business.

It can’t stop there. We also need to let those who act against Chick-fil-A know, such as those discriminating against religious freedom at the San Antonio city council, that it’s unacceptable. Notice that I’m referring specifically to those who act against Chick-fil-A and not average citizens who protest Chick-fil-A. Protests are protected by the 1st Amendment, so anything beyond respectful discourse should be avoided with the people who have a conscientious difference of opinion. But those who act against Chick-fil-A, especially if they’re part of the government, must be dealt with at the ballot box. A strongly worded letter wouldn’t hurt, either.

Chick-fil-A doesn’t need our help. They’re doing just fine. But that doesn’t mean we can’t expand our support for them anyway. The best way to show or deny support is with our business. Give it to them. Withhold it from those who oppose American freedom.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending

Copyright © 2019 NOQ Report