Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: Desperate Measures

Expand Messages
  • Paul
    Paul: Colson s essay on withholding of copyrighted materials: BreakPoint with Chuck Colson Desperate Measures The Evolutionist Establishment Turns to Blackmail
    Message 1 of 2 , Nov 2, 2005
      Paul: Colson's essay on withholding of copyrighted
      materials:

      BreakPoint with Chuck Colson

      Desperate Measures
      The Evolutionist Establishment Turns to Blackmail

      November 1, 2005

      If there's one word that could be used to describe the
      evolutionist establishment right now, that word would
      be desperate.

      To prove this, one only need look at the latest news
      coming out of Kansas. The Kansas State Board of
      Education has adopted new standards that will
      permit the teaching of intelligent design as part of
      science curricula. Let me repeat that: The standards
      don't mandate the teaching of intelligent design. They
      permit it. And they don't prohibit the teaching of
      evolution. They allow both sides of what has become a
      genuine scientific controversy to be taught.

      Now, most of us would call that academic freedom. But
      the opponents of intelligent design see it as
      backwoods, Bible-pounding, flat-earth fundamentalism.
      They're accusing intelligent design advocates of
      introducing religion or philosophy into a scientific
      debate.

      The latest developments in the battles show exactly
      who is close-minded and who isn't. This past week, the
      National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and the
      National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) announced
      that they would no longer allow
      their copyrighted materials to be used in any
      curriculum that challenges Darwin's theories. This is
      serious business; the materials provided by these two
      organizations form the core of any biology curriculum
      in the United States.

      The heads of the NAS and the NSTA released a statement
      that read in part: "Kansas students will not be well
      prepared for the rigors of higher
      education or the demands of an increasingly complex
      and technologically driven world if their science
      education is based on these standards. Instead, they
      will put the students of Kansas at a competitive
      disadvantage as they take their place in the world."

      So their solution to this alleged "disadvantage" is to
      put the students at a real disadvantage. This is
      nothing less than a case of blackmail: "You teach our
      philosophical beliefs, or else you can't use our
      accredited science course materials."

      The NEW YORK TIMES unwittingly gets to the heart of
      the controversy when it writes that the intelligent
      design theorists "would single out evolution as a
      controversial theory and change the definition of
      science itself so that it is not restricted to the
      study of natural phenomena." Wait a minute: science
      "restricted to the study of natural phenomena"? That
      means all science is shaped by a naturalistic view of
      the world. But naturalism is not a scientific
      theory or fact. It's a philosophy.

      So, you see, intelligent design theorists are the ones
      who are trying to free science to pursue truth
      wherever it leads, shaking it loose of philosophical
      restraints. This is exactly what Francis Bacon, the
      "father of modern science" and a Christian, did in the
      sixteenth century, when he abandoned
      Aristotle's philosophical presupposition that the
      universe is eternal and decided instead to follow
      science wherever it leads. That, according to
      Professor Harold Poe at Union University, allowed the
      modern scientific revolution to take place.

      And that's exactly what is at stake here. If the
      intelligent design movement succeeds, we would have
      nothing short of a new scientific revolution --
      freeing science to pursue truth wherever it leads. No
      wonder the hidebound traditionalists -- that is, the
      evolutionists -- are desperate.
    • Victor
      ... Victor: Christian attempts to use science (not the same as evidence) to support the Bible reject the most important part of our epistemic history. The
      Message 2 of 2 , Nov 2, 2005
        > BreakPoint with Chuck Colson:
        > So, you see, intelligent design theorists are the ones
        > who are trying to free science to pursue truth
        > wherever it leads, shaking it loose of philosophical
        > restraints. This is exactly what Francis Bacon, the
        > "father of modern science" and a Christian, did in the
        > sixteenth century, when he abandoned
        > Aristotle's philosophical presupposition that the
        > universe is eternal and decided instead to follow
        > science wherever it leads. That, according to
        > Professor Harold Poe at Union University, allowed the
        > modern scientific revolution to take place.
        >
        > And that's exactly what is at stake here. If the
        > intelligent design movement succeeds, we would have
        > nothing short of a new scientific revolution --
        > freeing science to pursue truth wherever it leads. No
        > wonder the hidebound traditionalists -- that is, the
        > evolutionists -- are desperate.
        >
        Victor:
        Christian attempts to use science (not the same as evidence) to
        support the Bible reject the most important part of our epistemic
        history. The truth is that Western science was historically founded
        on Aristotle's first principle. The Bible predicted and identified
        this idea as the first principle (arche) of the last days: the
        assumption that matter (all things) does not change.

        Francis Bacon (1561 - 1626) argued against Aristotle's deductive
        methods. Deduction starts with axioms, elementary assumptions. The
        structure of knowledge is built up and tested by applying logical
        rules. If a statement is logically consistent, it must be true. The
        lowest level in this structured system, the simplest statements about
        "how the world works", were known as arche, first principles.

        Bacon advocated the method of induction that starts with many
        observations and tries to find simple powerful statements "of how the
        world works" that fit all observations. If an idea or theory
        conflicts with an observation of nature, induction says that the idea
        must be abandoned. The idea that the scientific system is free from
        deduction, reliance upon a first principle, is a myth.

        1. Mathematics is itself deductive, built upon axioms in a logically
        consistent manner. Modern science is largely mathematical. In fact
        mathematics is used as a reasoning tool. If a process can be modeled
        with mathematics, then it is assumed that our ideas are consistent
        with nature.

        2. The early Christian philosophers, did not abandon Aristotle's
        first principle, but rather used it to define new concepts and new
        mathematical techniques. Our first principle, and theirs, is the
        assumption that Peter predicted, that matter does not change as a
        relation, that it does not age in an orderly manner.

        a. All the basic definitions of physics, the Western concepts of
        time, matter and energy, depend on this assumption. The entire
        structure of scientific reasoning was founded upon the Aristotlean
        assumption that matter cannot change.

        b. Even our experimental system depends on this assumption. If matter
        changes as a relation, we could not detect it locally because all of
        reality would be affected, even our instruments and units of measurement.

        Is science really free from its first principle? Consider the following:

        Scientists claim that a cesium clock beats an unchanging rhythm that
        we even use to define the unit of distance. Yet no cesium atom in
        distant galaxies beats the same tempo as local ones. Scientists
        invent undetectable cosmological expansion, where empty space
        stretches light, so that we do not have to accept a simple observation
        of nature. Does our first principle take away our freedom to think
        rationally?

        Scientists claim that orbits are clock-like and follow our
        mathematical laws of gravity. Yet no orbit in the arms or disk of
        galaxies, even our own, is clock-like or follows our laws of gravity.
        Scientists invent undetectable, mathematical dark-matter that
        surrounds every galaxy to make the observed orbits fit our assumption
        that matter does not change. Does our first principle really free us
        to accept observations, or does it force us to fit nature to our most
        basic assumption?

        The most distant views of the heavens, the three Hubble deep images,
        show that primordial objects were highly compressed. Clearly these
        tiny galaxies are visibly ejecting and expanding their arms and defuse
        structure. (Twelve times the Old Testament mentions that a
        firmament, a dense place is continually being pounded out and spread
        out). The observations clearly show that matter and motions in the
        early universe were expansive. Why is it that scientists are not
        allowed to accept what is visible? Perhaps a first principle really
        takes away our freedom to think apart from science's dogma.

        Are scientists really free to pursue truth wherever it leads? Or do
        they always force nature to fit our elementary assumption that matter
        does not change? Clearly the Bible states with grammar that it does
        change. Why do scientists reject what we see in simplicity and invent
        a universe that is 99% undetectable?

        The Apostle Paul wrote in Colossians 2:8. "See to it that no one
        takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to
        the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles
        [stoicheia] of the world [kosmos -orderly system], rather than
        according to Christ." The word "see" is blepo and is in the
        imperative. Watch out. Be aware. Be on guard. Look - see. We are to
        be on guard against the stoicheion, the elementary assumptions, the
        first principles of philosophy, that take one captive like military
        prisoners. Stoicheion are the first principles for a system of
        scientific thinking. Yet Christians embrace these elementary ideas
        invented by the pagans philosophers and teach them to our children.
        Can God really make foolish the scientific system itself? Can He do
        what the Bible says He will, take the wise of this age with their own
        wisdom? We should never tailor the Bible to fit our scientific
        culture. The simple literal words of the Bible really do free ones
        mind. Think about it.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.