Although our university professors, teachers, journalists, and media types take great pride in their “superior wisdom and knowledge,” if you listen carefully to their words you will see that they do not have any interest in open dialogue, free expression of ideas, or finding the truth. I believe that if they acknowledged the truth, they would eventually have to deal with their own sin and lifestyle choices. They want to ignore the God of absolutes and serve their gods created in their own image in order to please themselves. I struggle to express myself in writing, but Rev. Michael Bresciani explains this topic quite clearly. If you have a short attention span like I do, read this slowly a bit at a time and you will gain a deeper understanding and possibly be able to narrate this back one day to your liberal friends and progressive professors. ~ Anne
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.
