The way that scientists tell it, there’s only one way that you can be sure of the truth—if a scientist says so.

I frequent different forums over the Internet, and on Reddit it’s easy to get into a debate about Creation and Evolution that easily devolves into “I’m right because I’m a scientist”, even though the discussion was supposed to be about why Christians have trouble with TENS.

What’s amazing is that there are many things that scientists—if they’re honest—will tell you that they don’t know (some language at destination site), and they will also state that they follow the scientific method, which means that they, at any time, might find data to disprove their hypothesis and they will begin to say that their new theory is right.  Not very convincing.

So, the next time that a scientist claims to have all the answers, do some research and you’ll find that it’s not quite as they’d have you to believe.

In the article When Republicans win, Children Lose at Nuts and Dolts, the author gets it wrong on two key issues.

Child Labor

State Sen. Jane Cunningham (R-MO) proposed a piece of legislation that would have repealed child labor regulations, and according to the author, this is a reason to celebrate:

There are so many reasons that this is bad policy and so many much better ways to teach children a work ethic.  The reason child labor regulations came to be is because children were exploited.  Employment meant poor working conditions, minimal pay and insane work hours. The absence of regulation as proposed by Senator Cunningham, means that young children could be forced to work instead of going to school.

In terms of teaching children a good work ethic, again, there are much better ways then going back to the days of Oliver Twist. Young children can learn a good work ethic through developing good study habits.  For young children, school should be their job.  If the question is learning the value of a dollar, again, current labor laws make it possible for children to learn this lesson.

Where to begin?  Nothing in a repeal of child labor regulations would there be a mandate for child labor instead of going to school.  In fact, school regulations would keep children in class until age 16 at least.  Who would be doing the forcing?

I’m not sure what century the author lives in, but this isn’t the 1830s.  Today we have fancy new gadgets called computers, where people can create from the comfort of air conditioned homes/offices, papers can be filed, and other menial tasks can be done without resorting to kids working their lives away in a factory.

Let alone the fact that said kids would be making a “living wage”—much more than slave labor or even the wage that they would have received when the labor laws were put into effect.

And just what profession does our author have where he could learn “good work ethic” from studying?

Again, this is just a bunch of bogus arguments to support his position, and the argument that “some kids would work late” and “employers could take advantage” again assumes that we’re going to employ orphans or something, instead of children with parents who could say “Hey Johnny, you’re working too much at this job… you need to reevaluate your priorities.”

Because part of learning responsibility is learning when to say no.

Creation Science

Then our author turns to Texas—specifically a bill that’s meant to protect those that don’t tow the line when it comes to the Darwinian theory of origins.

As a matter of general principle, I agree that people should be protected from discrimination in the work place. This applies to people who’s opinions contradict fact, science and logic.

…

In terms of the effect on education, I’m concerned. It’s one thing to say that you believe in intelligent design, it’s another thing to present it as science.  You can believe in intelligent design all you want, but ultimately this is junk science.   In that sense, Zedler’s law is about something a bit more than protection creationists from discrimination.  It has little to do with opening up avenues of scientific research, or teaching alternative scientific theories to evolution.  It has more to do with legislating that a specific religious doctrine is and must be accepted as valid science.

Here the author is inventing things again.  The law specifically says that a person cannot be fired for holding a certain belief—which has happened and was exposed by the documentary from Ben Stein—Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (aff).

Instead of tackling the issue at hand, the author wrings his hands at other groups that are being discriminated against, and then worries that Evolution might be exposed for the sham it is.

But this is what you get from public school apologists, who are being challenged because schools are failing and the culture at large declining.  They defend the status quo instead of seeking to fix the problem.

Yesterday we explored the concept of the Appeal To Authority fallacy: The idea that just because something could happen doesn’t mean that it will or did.  We stated that the logical conclusions drawn about Molecules to Man Evolution rests on this fallacy, because it requires millions of years for things to happen that haven’t been observed, but works itself backwards from the present:  It states that since we are here, this is how it must have happened, it just must have taken millions of years.  Hence they work out the probability of it happening, and then state that because we are here it did.

Argument From Authority

Near the end of that discussion we talked about the Argument from Authority fallacy, which Wikipedia defines as follows:

Appeal to authority is a fallacy of defective induction, where it is argued that a statement is correct because the statement is made by a person or source that is commonly regarded as authoritative. The most general structure of this argument is:

Source A says that p is true.
Source A is authoritative.
Therefore, p is true.

Appeals to Authority are often used in a court of law when the Judge is not an expert on a given issue.

Why It Fails

The Argument From Authority rests on the credibility of that authority—does the person listening trust that person.  Since no human authority is infallible, simply that a person says something is true does not make it true.

The argument may be true or false, but it cannot be proven true simply because it claims to be true.

How This Applies to Christianity

Two examples from the Wikipedia page highlight how the Appeal To Authority applies to Christianity:

Referring to the philosophical beliefs of Jesus, Muhammad, or any other religious figure: "If (religious figure) said it was so, it is so." Such an appeal may be based upon the belief that the speaker in question is holy and, by extension, inerrant. Alternately, the figure may be considered to be an expert on the given subject: "Buddha was a great moral teacher and he said that euthanasia is wrong, so it must be wrong."

Referring to a sacred text: "If (the text) said it was so, it is so." Like in the previous example, such an appeal may be based upon the belief that the sacred text in question is inerrant. This argument may also present a false dilemma situation, where the text can be interpreted in multiple dissimilar ways.

Why are these a problem?  Because most Christians will say “Since Jesus said this, it is true” or “The Bible said this, therefore it’s true.”  The person making these arguments is saying something about their belief in Jesus and the Bible—that they are both inerrant and without fault.

This is why it’s important to understand those that are in apologetics, and those that talk about Creation.

How the Appeal to Authority Works

You see, this is the cornerstone of the application of the Bible.  If the Bible is inerrant and true, then it is always true and can be relied upon.  Much of Scripture treats it this way.  However, if portions of the Bible are unreliable or untrue, then it casts doubt on the work as a whole.  Certainly, it may be good for some things, but each portion would then be left up to individual interpretation, and it would be no more than a human work.

If, for example, there were as many contradictions as the skeptics would like you to believe are there, then the Bible could not be trusted in any of its sections.  It would not be deemed a good historical work, and would not be worth following—like Paul said, if Jesus is not risen, our faith is in vain.

This is why Christians are fighting over Creation and Evolution as vehemently as they are.  It’s why there are some Christians trying to fit Evolution into the Bible.  It’s also the reason that many are picking and choosing what to teach on.

It all goes back to the Appeal to Authority—what Authority does the Bible have?

The Infinite Monkey Theorem goes something like this:

…a monkey hitting keys at random on a typewriter keyboard for an infinite amount of time will almost surely type a given text, such as the complete works of William Shakespeare.

This logic is part of what makes up the logical belief in Evolution: the idea being, that given enough time there can be enough mutations—some of which were beneficial—to explain how humans came from primitive life all the way back to the one celled organism.

There is a problem with this logic, however.  It is an appeal to probability.

Appeal To Probability

The Appeal to Probability is a logical fallacy.

It assumes that because something could happen, it is inevitable that it will happen. This is flawed logic, regardless of the likelihood of the event in question. The fallacy is often used to exploit paranoia.

Only in the case of Evolution, this is in reverse.  The Evolutionist looks at where we are today, examines the data that he sees, and then deduces that since the world is as it is today it must have happened the way that he says, and no other way is possible.

Probability and mathematics are foundational to Evolution—hence the necessity for millions, billions or trillions of years between the beginning of time until we get where we are today.

Evolutionists Need Time

Since there hasn’t been an observed beneficial mutation where a species actually gained DNA data, it is necessary to abstract into time past—as far back as needed—such that it would not be expected to be witnessed today.

Furthermore, the Appeal to Probability is utilized each and every time the Evolutionists say that the fact that we are here (and that probability is huge!) means that it all must have worked out.  I mean, just look at the other planets—scientists figure that there must be some other life out there, and yet the fact that we haven’t found any makes the probabilities worse.

Just Because Something Could Happen…

…doesn’t mean that it did.  It doesn’t mean that Evolution is true, simply because it could be true.

When it comes to talking about Origins, we’re talking about a historical question, not a scientific question.  The “science” that is involved—natural selection—no one disagrees with.  What is the point of contention is whether God created or man evolved from primitive beings over millions of years.

The God of the Bible is clear—He created the world the way it was, and it was very good.  Sin and death came after the fall, not before.  Noah brought every kind of animal on the Ark before a worldwide flood which change the environment of the Earth.

But that raises the question—is this a fallacy as well because it’s an Argument from Authority?

A group of six dozen paleontologists recently paid a trip to the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky to see what they presented.

"The real purpose of the museum visit is to give some of my colleagues an opportunity to sense how they’re being portrayed," said Arnold Miller, a professor of paleontology at the University of Cincinnati, which is hosting the conference. "They’re being demonized, I feel, in this museum as people who are responsible for all the ills of society."

[The Olympian – Scientists study foes’ ways at Creation Museum]

Obviously, there are two different worldviews at work here, and one trip to the museum wasn’t going to change the mind of these people who had built their livelihood on evolution.  But it was the one comment that Ken Ham found in an early version of the AP story that is of interest:

Christine Janis, a professor of ecology and evolutionary biology at Brown University, said most of the arguments addressed at the museum she’s heard countless times before. What she found most troubling was the crowd. More than 750,000 people have visited in two years, and Janis is concerned the Creation Museum’s version of human history is the only one they’re getting.

“They’re out-breeding us, that’s for sure,” Janis said.

[AP, Hat Tip Ken Ham]

This remark drips with the disdain that these people have for people with a different worldview.  It’s not enough to believe that they, alone, are the keepers of all knowledge, it’s now correct to look down on those that disagree with you as somehow less educated and set to doom civilization because they are “less evolved” or something.

And that’s one of the biggest problems atheism has—that it’s not just a belief system, but it’s one that’s militant and is out there to declare that every other belief system is wrong.  And because you don’t know that you’re wrong, you’re pathetic.

There is no freedom except to be free from religion—because religion means accountability to Someone, it means rules that aren’t of our own making, and it means belief in something you cannot see or test.

Yet it was true freedom brought about by founders with a Christian worldview that made this country what is was, and hopefully its undoing will still take some time.

What was your reaction when, earlier this week, we found that our paleontologists had done it again?  Done what?  Well how many times can you “find the missing link that proves evolution and our link to primates?”

I mean, wasn’t that what Lucy was?

The media are funny, aren’t they?  They make this announcement couched in so many interesting statements that it almost makes you think evolutionist atheists are very misinformed.  The words they used to describe “Ida” make it sound like Evolution (the version where a single celled organism became man via the apes, or TENS ) was unproven until this fossil was discovered.

Any good Evolutionist will try to convince you that Evolution is a fact—and they didn’t need these bones to prove it.

However, if you just keep attuned to what’s going on around you, you can see how easily they aren’t as sure as they want you to believe they are.

What is “Ida”?

• The well-preserved fossil (95 percent complete, including fossilized fur and more) is about the size of a raccoon and includes a long tail. It resembles the skeleton of a lemur (a small, tailed, tree-climbing primate). The fossil does not resemble a human skeleton.
• The fossil was found in two parts by amateur fossil hunters in 1983. It eventually made its way through fossil dealers to the research team.
• Ida has opposable thumbs, which the ABC News article states are “similar to humans’ and unlike those found on other modern mammals” (i.e., implying that opposable thumbs are evidence of evolution). Yet lemurs today have opposable thumbs (like all primates). Likewise, Ida has nails, as do other primates. And the talus bone is described as “the same shape as in humans,” despite the fact that there are other differences in the ankle structure.³
• Unlike today’s lemurs (as far as scientists know), Ida lacks the “grooming claw” and a “toothcomb” (a fused row of teeth) In fact, its teeth are more similar to a monkey’s. These are minor differences easily explained by variation within a kind.

From Answers in Genesis

Ida is more like a lemur than a man, but you wouldn’t get that from media reports.  For what they say, you would expect the image to look like something like a man and a monkey, when this clearly has no resemblance to man.

There’s A Lot We Cannot Explain

Science still doesn’t have an answer for:

• How did the universe form?
• What is consciousness?
• How did life first come about?

And other probing questions, and I would postulate that science isn’t equipped to handling what are, at the core, historical or philosophical questions.

There is a definite reason that TENS must be true, just as, for the Christian, there is a reason that the story of Creation must be true.

But there can be only one truth.

Hat Tip: Everyday in Grace

This is supposed to shock you.  Get ready.  Brace yourselves.

Gov. Sarah Palin believes that humans and dinosaurs coexisted on an earth that’s only about 6,000 years old.

Shocking, I know, since thousands of people have visited the Creation Museum.  Check out this page on Wikipedia talking about polls on the topic of Creation and Evolution.

2007

• God’s Numbers The latest Newsweek poll shows that 91 percent of American adults surveyed believe in God—and nearly half reject the theory of evolution.

I can’t find the original article, but many Internet links say the same thing.  So, the Huffington Post is laughing at Gov. Palin for something half of the people in America believe is true.

So, what are they saying about their guy (Sen. Obama), and what are they saying about you and I that believe Evolution is false?

It is rooted in the strong belief of the veracity of their side of the argument.  Very few actually enter into this debate without a belief that they know the truth.  I believe that if those people are present, they’re probably bystanders, watching exactly what will be said.

I believe that this a big hurdle to be overcome if we are going to have intelligent discussion.  That means that each side of the debate must set aside arrogance and condescension and must actually listen to what is being said.  Which is next to impossible, I will grant, because each worldview grows out of many years of thought.

One of the most unprofitable lines of argument for the believer is to be dismissive of the atheist/evolutionist based on the argument that “we know the truth.”  I was reminded this morning as I left my house that Jesus died for all– and we all were enemies with God when He died for us.  That means that we are to be treating others in love. 

The other is when we do not spend the time to actually find out what the other side believes.  Personally, I’ve done a lot of this type of thing.  The problem is that when you leave the realm of the philosophical and approach the world of reality you’re dealing with another human being who has done a lot of thought (sometimes more) about what he’s saying and we need to actually find out what they believe and why if we’re going to have a civil understanding.

For the unbeliever, I find that the most unfruitful line of argument is the one where you declare the believer ignorant, dumb, and disparage their intellect.  You assumptions toward the believer as just as distasteful as their assumptions of you.  And there’s no better way to either inflame or shut down discussion than constantly impugning the intelligence of the other party.  Attack the argument, sure.  Point out its weaknesses, and make fun of it, but attacking the person will get you nowhere.

So, here’s where we get to the New Scientist.  If you (unbeliever) can get past the philosophical challenge to the basis of objective truth (which I believe may serve to inflame more than actually advance the believer’s cause) you will notice something in this article.  No, I’m not looking for a point by point refutation of everything that it has to say (though I’m sure someone will attempt to refute something).

What I want you to see in this is that each side has a well thought out set of beliefs, and worldview, and that the author spends some time critiquing this very tactic both sides use.  We’d go a long way if we could eliminate this type of thing:

The author sets up a false dichotomy by sorting people into two groups: those who are merely amateur observers of biological origins and those who “really know” the truth (of which he considers himself). If you find the evidence compelling that evolution is not a valid explanation, then it is simply because you are not in the “higher” class. If, however, you believe that God has told us exactly how He created the earth and life, well, the writer has a special section just for you—on why you are wrong. Of course, for the amateur observers who accept evolution as fact, many of them do so out of indoctrination and not in-depth study (usually in a government-run schools), and have not heard the case against Darwin. We could also turn his argument around and say that those who “really know” are those who have overcome or see through this tax-funded indoctrination to accept the biblical account.

Agreed?

For more interesting reading, check out Rachl Lukis’ post.

I started seeing ads for this movie show up at my site, but I had no idea what it was about. It turns out that Ben Stein has created a movie that documents how professors that choose not to believe in Evolution are systematically denied access to teaching positions, research positions, etc.?

This is from Ken Ham:

As you know, Darwinists have been expelling any hint of creation or intelligent design from public schools and research institutions. Now, many of them are expelling people from their academic posts in a desperate attempt to defend their evolutionary worldview. The upcoming film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed comes to theaters on April 18.

Already a highly controversial film, its host Ben Stein (whom I met last month) is on a personal quest to discover more about the topic of origins and to expose the ruthlessness of many evolutionists. Even though Stein is not a creationist and is not a Christian, he presents the evidence of intelligent design we see in the world and exposes the censorship efforts of leading evolutionists. I encourage you to visit www.GetEXPELLED.com right now and discover more about this excellent, entertaining, and enlightening film. I’ve seen it twice now, including at a special preview screening at our Creation Museum. You need to see how our education system is expelling freedom of speech—and then you should do something about it.

“For a theater listing, go to:

www.expelledthemovie.com/theaterap.php

If you don’t see your local theater listed, call the manager and say you want to watch Expelled. Please be a “creation evangelist.” Let your family and friends know about this film, and then direct them to our website where they can find out more about the gospel message.

Right now it’s not offered in my area, but I’m definitely interested to see this movie!