Wednesday, February 11, 2004

When world views collide, facts suffer

Upon returning from Frankfurt, Germany, where I taught a seminar on biblical peacemaking to Christian airline personnel, I encountered a less than peaceful public debate.

A host of angry educators, science teachers, journalists, and even a former president of the United States were excoriating state School Superintendent Kathy Cox.

What had she done to draw the withering fire of the educational and journalistic establishment? Cox had the temerity to suggest that the word “evolution” should be removed from the state school biology curriculum because it is “a buzzword that causes a lot of negative reaction.”

You would have thought that she was calling for the end to motherhood. But on second thought that seems to be subject to revision as well (a.k.a. “gay unions”).

The usual ridicule and specious arguments were launched. The heavy artillery of personal attacks (“The only thing that needs to be deleted is Cox.”), dogmatic assertions regarding evolution (“Evolution is real, it is observable and can be documented.”), and tirades against Christian fundamentalists (“who know very little science and who are capable of arguing quite unscrupulously.”) have pounded away at not only the superintendent but all who dared challenge the sacred cow of evolution.

I find the arguments used to defend the Darwinist/evolutionist world view quite revealing. For example, one hears the assertion that when evolution is opposed, this is tantamount to opposing the study of genetics or that the earth is round.

This is a common tactic used by evolutionists. But it is all smoke and mirrors. The assumption is that the theory of evolution (chance through time) is in the same league as “scientific cloud chamber experiments that are observable in the present and are repeatable.”

I highly recommend Jonathan Sarfati’s book, “Refuting Evolution.” Sarfati points out how some scientists define science in a self-serving and essentially prejudiced way (remember the axiom that he who defines the terms wins the argument).

This is a classic example of begging the question. In other words, evolutionists take for granted the very thing being argued.

Another sleight of hand frequently used in an attempt to shame creationists and send them running into their churches where they belong is the science versus faith argument.

The magic trick goes something like this: Science is rational and is based on hard facts, whereas creationism or intelligent design is a “belief born of faith rather than science.”

To reject evolution is to become a member of the flat-earth society. An army of scientists, educators, and scientific organizations are invoked as the final authorities on the matter. This intimidating magic is often effective in cowing the “religious know-nothings.” But it is based on a deception.

The evolutionist is working on the premise of naturalism, the assumption “that things made themselves, that no divine intervention has happened, and that God has not revealed to us knowledge about the past” (Sarfati, p. 16).

Facts have to be interpreted. Evolution requires a faith commitment to its premises, i.e., “that common ancestors for the animal phyla once lived on the earth, even though those ancestors can’t be found.” But in spite of this, Darwinists continue to argue that they don’t have faith, only creationists have faith commitments.

What is really happening in all this is a massive power play by the scientific establishment and a supportive media to remain in control of the educational system.

The world view of secular humanism marches blindly on using the very methods of intolerance and censorship that it accuses the Christian world view of practicing. This is indeed a clash of world views with each having its underlying faith commitments.

Dr. Howard E. Dial

Berachah Bible Church

Fayette County, Ga.