When the God of Empiricism Fails - Science Blocks Its Ears
By Michael Bresciani (10/06/07)
In a recent report out of one American university students were advised
not to debate with creationists about the origins of life. Debates have
become a great medium just to bring the latest findings of creationism to
the table. Secularisms academicians are now saying the best way to null
the message is to ignore both it and the messengers. Does anyone remember
why we call them universities?
The key word in the latest guidance offered to today’s students is
“ignore.” Is it blatant, brazen or both to call for the use of ignorance
to gain or retain knowledge? It is no secret that every deadly ideology of
the past had to ignore the truth about a lot of things including itself
for its survival and proliferation. Ignoring a message usually gives way
to ignoring, abusing and then killing the messenger. History is replete
with examples from both the ancient and the modern world.
We can only wonder if “ignoring” or laughing at the creationist will be
enough. Is it only, a matter of time before scientists who are the priests
of the god of empiricism want to conduct their own inquisitions? Will
history repeat itself so soon after man (secularists) makes God in his own
image?
A familiar pattern always seems to appear when the so called “open minded”
crowd decides they don’t want to allow the alternatives to their emerging
dogma. An especially poignant and microcosmic example of this pattern is
seen in the sixth and seventh chapter of the book of the Acts of the
Apostles.
The young and zealous disciple Stephan is dragged before the religious
leaders to give an account of the gospel he has been preaching. He keeps
the crowd of priests and leaders swaying and assenting as he rehearses the
history of Israel from Moses to the present. He enforces the status quo
and the acceptable doctrine of the day. Then in a sudden shift he accuses
the leaders of resisting the Holy Spirit and killing the Lord of Glory.
The accusation enrages the “religious and holy crowd” so much that they
stone Stephan to death.
What often goes un-noticed is that just before they stoned him to death
the Bible says they “blocked their ears.” The best way of stifling any
chance of a message getting to the heart is still to stop it from getting
into the head. This gives meaning to the phrase “close minded.” It is the
opposite of universality and it is the end of knowledge and the seed of
ignorance.
So the question doesn’t hang unanswered in the mind of the reader, we call
them universities because they are the repositories of universal
knowledge. Or at least they used to be. When we instruct young minds to
see theology and philosophy as mutually exclusive we have begun a downward
trek that leads to something far beneath universal knowledge. Ignoring one
truth to extol another is the gateway to ignorance not knowledge. The
practice of ignoring one truth to raise the credence of another is called
dogma. Dogma is not reason, it is not knowledge and it can never be
referred to as universal.
Have we gone from the right to disagree on to the need to disallow?
Empiricists hold that belief in the creation can only be held by pure
religious dogma. Yet, the Apostle Paul calls on reason when he says that
the creation itself is its own witness to a creator. Neither he nor the
Bible demands belief in creationism but both implore mankind to exercise
the highest reasoning to arrive at such conclusions.
That reasoning Paul says needs to be directed to the creation itself not
the bible alone. “For the invisible things of him from the creation of the
world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even
his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.” (Romans
1: 20)
Science that once was content to pursue an alternative answer to the
creation account has capitulated to the idea that its quest for that
answer is the only possibility. Its pathology has now become its dogma
because it excludes any other answer offered. When science reverts to
dogma it has ceased to be objective and it is not far from becoming
dangerous if not deadly. By all accounts this is the point where science
becomes pure dogma and highly religious.
Dennis Haysbert plays Jonas Blane on the hit series “The Unit” on the CBS
Network. In a recent episode he shoots dead a government agent who even
after being given evidence that he is acting on a lie, tries to kill Jonas
anyway. Jonas given no choice defends himself thus killing the agent.
Blane and members of his team stand around for a moment stunned by the
dead agents willingness to carry out his plans even after being shown that
he was totally mislead. Blane pauses and then says “It was suicide by
dogma.” The right and wrong of it no longer mattered, only the mission.
It is the mission of secular empiricism that is clouding the better
judgment of its proponents not the evidence. The evidence needs more
defense than the Bible and to a growing number of scientists around the
world it is sinking in its own oblique incredibility if not altogether
committing “suicide by dogma.”
It could safely be said that in some way Paul was appealing to us to use
something akin to “common sense” to see that the creation tells its own
story. Common sense doesn’t preclude investigation but it often tends to
defy false conclusions even if they are derived from investigation.
Science seems to take exception to this as well. This is how dogma is
born.
Science must be dogmatic not because the Bible says God is the creator but
because the creation says God is. This is exactly what the Apostle Paul
was saying in Romans 1: 20 rather than pleading with people to believe
what he said at face value or because it was scripture.
It may seem like the perfect non sequitur to say that knowledge and
ignorance have married in the science of the twenty first century but this
is a century not unfamiliar with perversities. Furthering one body of
knowledge or epistemology by means of ignoring another is dogmatic,
perverse and dangerous. Just what is mankind ignoring as it blindly does
obeisance to the god of empiricism? Let’s see.
Empiricism is ignoring the fact that after a generation of hammering
Darwinism into the heads of our youth and scoffing at the idea of teaching
them creation as an alternative they are defying the very premise of
science itself. Hiding behind the thin veil of “the separation of church
and state,” science has managed to hide all the possibilities to a
generation whose knowledge is made suspect thereby.
Not knowing that the “separation of church and state” is an extrapolation
derived from misconception and driven by the “common wisdom of the day”
(word of mouth) America’s youth recently displayed their ignorance of this
fact in the State of Colorado.
In one high school in Colorado where they were thinking of re-writing the
pledge of allegiance, students said they didn’t want anyone interfering
with their “separation of church and state.” Forget science, it seems that
social studies, civics and political science teachers failed to tell the
students that “Congress shall make no laws regarding religion” does not
necessarily mean “separation of church and state.” Common wisdom doesn’t
usually give much importance to semantic differences; it is all too often
only interested in what is common or with what is better known as popular
wisdom. This is another example of the marriage of knowledge and
ignorance.
The remarks of the students in Colorado cause me once again to recall the
quote from author and educator Josh Billings who said “I’d rather know a
few things for certain than be certain of a whole lot of things that just
aren’t so.”
Secular empiricism would have us ignore the voluminous new discoveries
that creation science has made in the last forty years that defy the basic
premise of Darwinism. Some discoveries are so astounding that if it
weren’t for the intrinsic dignity of the creation scientist the
information could be used to deride and embarrass the Darwinist’s The
restraint afforded to the secularists is never returned in kind and any
college freshmen risks being laughed out of the classroom for just
bringing up the subject of creation as a legitimate possibility.
Secular empiricism asks us and our children to ignore reams of material
recently discovered that supports creation. It is not what has been
recently discovered that cast aspersions on secular science but it is
still what “has not” been discovered that casts the darkest cloud over its
musings.
Evolutionists are not likely to defer to the mathematicians who have
concluded that the missing links should be overwhelming us in every dig
from the Boston Tunnel to the average backyard vegetable garden. The most
conservative calculations show that the skeletal remains of inter-species
links would be so pervasive that we would be numbering them in the
millions or billions instead of the eighteen or so that evolutionist’s now
embarrassingly flaunt to an unsuspecting generation. Creationists don’t
need to wait for the return of the Lord Jesus Christ to have the last
laugh. But it isn’t about who’s laughing, it is about who is losing. In
this case it is the minds and souls of an entire generation.
The Bible that secularist’s hold in such contempt has subjected itself
more truly to the definition of science than modern empiricism. Science
which is defined by the pursuit of data derived from “repeatable and
observable phenomena” refuses to recognize the miracles of sight to the
blind, healing of the lame and resurrection from the dead that was so
often repeated and observed by crowds of witnesses to the life and public
ministry of Jesus Christ.
It was witnessed, recorded and carefully disseminated to each successive
generation for their examination. Isn’t that enough repeatable observable
phenomena for empiricists? Isn’t an entire generation of religious
pilgrims, transients and travelers going in and out of Jerusalem and
seeing Jesus performing these things enough eye witness?
Evolutionists haven’t anything to compare with the Bible account but must
rely heavily on prior philosophic postulate to present their theories. And
since no one was there to witness the alleged unfolding of evolution
throughout the ages, they haven’t a single witness. For many this requires
far more faith than belief in God as creator of the universe. Those who
say faith in God is too taxing on the reason of man should take another
look. After weighing what the ignorance of empiricism’s god offers it
seems the God of the Bible isn’t asking for all that much.
The list of scientific inadequacies doesn’t end with the theory of
evolution. Science seems all too unaware even of the similarities and
associative verifications it gives to the Bible. The idea that God could
be Omni-present is not unlike the new theory of quantum physics which
holds that it may be possible for some things to exist in two places at
the same time.
Science says that when physical objects (biological or not) approach the
speed of light that time slows down in equal and direct proportion to that
speed. At the speed of light it is believed that the physical object
should still exist but in only a pure metaphysical state. Keep in mind
that the word metaphysical is the most oft used term for what the Bible
calls a spirit. The Bible also says that after life on earth all humankind
continues to exist in a spiritual state and is no longer subject to the
ravages of time. Science as seen in this case is not proven wrong when
compared to the Bible, rather it is just late; this of course doesn’t give
science any room to brag.
Science scoffs at the idea of a resurrected Christ appearing in a room
without entering through a door, eating some fish and then leaving without
exiting through the door. (Lk 24:36f) But they are willing to imagine a
time when humans could be transported from place to place by something
akin to Gene Roddenberry’s Star Trekian transporters.
The need to indoctrinate youth into a strong secular world view is driven
by events that are yet to come. It is all part and parcel to the “last
days’ the Bible refers to just before the second coming of Christ. The
Antichrist will not have much difficulty convincing the largely
secularized world that he is the best one to handle the world’s economy,
politics and it’s military. He will be seen as a savior at first but he
will always be no more than a dictator who will lead the world to its
final demise at the battle of Armageddon.
Until the end it does well to remind ourselves that religion is not the
only area where charlatans, fakers and fools are birthed. Science has its
own hefty share of misguided, over zealous and closed minded ideas and
individuals. The scientific community has the same limitations as the
religious community, both should strive for excellence but neither has
accomplished perfection. The only real difference is that the faithful can
point to God for perfection and the scientific community has time and
chance alone. For discerning minds, religious or not that is far too close
to nothing at all.
Trusting in the god of empiricism will offer little comfort at the final
judgment of all mankind. Christ said all will stand before God’s throne
and the books would be open. There is little reason to believe that the
book of science will be one of those books. No one will be frantically
looking around for Dawkins, Hitchens, O’Hare or Darwin to help them make
their defense before God.
Rev M. Bresciani
(Printer friendly version) Email: Michael Bresciani
