Believing Science, Believing Theology

Believing Science, Believing Theology

Have you ever wondered why humans view the world, the way they do?  If you have noticed, they have quite a diverse opinion on just about everything.  In many cases even the thing they agree on, if you were to ask them to think a little deeper, they will begin to disagree.  It seems that thinking in itself does not bring about a unity of opinion.

If we honestly trained our minds to separate a fact from our opinion, which is our interpretation of the facts, we could at least agree on the facts.  You could say that facts are like stones that are lying on the ground.  They have no inherent means other than they are stones lying on the ground.  Similarly, the ground that they are lying on also is a fact.  However, when a human comes along and picks up the stones and begins to ask himself questions about them, such as how, when and why, i.e. to give an explanation of the facts, we then have moved away from the facts and have moved into an interpretation of the facts.  The problem with many people is that they cannot discern the difference between what is their opinion or their interpretation of the facts, and what the facts themselves truly are.

The discipline of science is an effort to determine what interpretation of the facts best represents the facts.  Of course, this is conditional on the scientific community agreeing on what the facts are, but sometimes theoretical science cannot accomplish this merely because the facts are unobservable.  Sometimes scientists must first create an instrument to prove the existence of the facts and then they must have a system to guard their interpretation of the facts. The process that they use to do this is called the scientific method

The same principle applies to theology.  Theology is or should be about the business of sorting out what interpretation of God best reflects the facts.[1]  Like science, this is contingent on the community recognizing certain facts and having the tools to find and interpret those facts.  In the case of Christian theology, the fact would have to be the words of the Apostle and what could be inferred about God from nature and person of Jesus Christ.  One problem we have with theology is that things inferred are not necessarily facts, but more resemble an interpretation of the facts. However, this problem is often found in science as well.

The biggest difference between science and theology is the community explanation of what are the facts.  In science, the fact should be physical and be observable.  However, this is not true in many of the so-called sciences.  For example, in much of evolution science or in psychiatry the scientific method is not possible, which in some people’s minds raises the question of whether or not these disciplines are truly a science?  I would say in the most rigid way of thinking that they are not.  Some, to note the differences between the sciences, use the term soft and hard.  Hard sciences are those sciences that have physical facts to observe like physics or biology.  The soft sciences are like psychology and sociology.

In Christian theology, the facts are also physical.  Christians believe that at one time God revealed himself in Christ.  That Christ was physically present and worked miracles to prove his identity.  Like science, there was also a community of men that witnessed His existence and his miracles.  They claimed that they saw, heard and handled this fact from God (1 John 1:1-4).  Now if these witnessed and experienced events were going to be falsified, they would have by the very nature of the evidence, had to have been falsified in the current time frame of their happening.  They were not falsified, although there were attempts to do so.

In science as in religion, the facts are often one step, or many steps removed from the facts and cannot or have not been observed or experienced by most men.  In the community of faith, members believe that some men have observed the facts and therefore have a better knowledge of the facts than others.  This is not only true in the faith community but also in the scientific community.  Members of the scientific community, like the faith community, believe and accept by faith what the scientific community says about the facts, even though they have not seen the facts personally.  Not only do they accept the existence of unobserved facts, but they also accept the scientific community interpretation of these unobserved facts, for they have neither the facts nor the expertise to question them.

However, this process of acquiring knowledge for the faith community is not as different from the scientific community as some scientists would have us to believe.  The other day I was listening to an audiobook about Einstein’s theory of relativity and in the opening statement the authority, who is a Physicist, said that he believes that there were only a few men in the world that truly understood what Einstein was saying.  I have read similar admissions by other men in other disciplines.  I remember one, which pointed out that there were very few men that headed up any discipline that actually looked at the facts.  The rest of the members of the discipline gained their knowledge through the community, texts, and schools.  The majority of men believed not because of the evidence, but because they believed what the community taught them.  In the majority of these cases, the evidence is never checked by the students of the discipline.  In those circumstances, the majority of people’s beliefs are very much like those of religion, i.e. dogma.  When you look at it this way, there are very few men in any discipline that really handle the facts and observed them firsthand.  In essence, you could say that there are very few men that actually do science and the same thing holds true of those that do theology.  In Christian theology, we could say only the Apostles of Jesus actually did theology.

In science, as in theology, there are certain assumptions that must be made to carry out science.  Scientists must believe in the uniformity of nature and the law of cause and effect, otherwise, they could not do science.  They must believe in a pattern that can be found in nature, which can be analyzed and measured.  As Einstein said, “God does not play dice with the universe”.  Of course, it must be noted that some younger scientists believe He does.  Though that view is not the one that is accepted or used by the scientific community.  Mainly because it would destroy the community.

In Christian theology, the assumptions are that there is a God[2] and that God has revealed himself in Jesus Christ.  These assumptions are accepted as facts by the Christian community.  If you do not accept them, you cannot logically do Christian theology.  Of course, you could write about Christian theology as I write about science and I am not a scientist.  This may or may not be a disadvantage.  It is often hard for a fish in a bowl to see itself as others do.  Sometimes being in a discipline is very much like being like a fish in a bowl.  Those outside the bowl may have a clearer view of the fish and the bowl, than the fish that is inside the bowl.

I think this will help to understand why we often think, the way we think.  Our thinking seems to be largely dependent on our habits of thought; and our habits of thought depend to on a large degree, on the community that we belong to, or lack of one.  Now by the community, I mean formal and informal.  Formal communities are groups like a family, religious organizations, professional groups or political parties.  The informal communities are your friends, the books you read, and the places or the field that you work in.  In the broader sense the formal community will often influence the informal ones reading habits and other social habits of the individual.  In most cases, the community does a large amount of thinking for the individual, which is a hard pill to swallow for those that like to think of themselves as free thinkers.  The greatest amount of our freedom of thought comes from our freedom to choose a community that will greatly influence our thinking.

The implications of this are many.  One of the obvious ones is that it is the community that does the educating of the individual that comes into it.  The community imparts its view of the world, which all in the group will believe is the correct view.  Another obvious thing is that the community not only inputs its knowledge into the individual, but it also inputs its biases and its attitude, i.e. its spirit.  It is also obvious that it is very hard to change or correct a belief in a community.  It often takes the death of an entire generation, which allows a free flow of ideas.  So, what we gather from this the community can enlighten, and can also blind the individual. This is true of the scientific community or a community of faith, as noted in Thomas Kuhn’s book, “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”.

The Christian faith, unlike any other faith, is much like science because it is based on a physical happening.  That is the coming of the Logos (Christ) into flesh, his life, death, and his resurrection.  All of these things were observed by men.  These men, in turn, wrote down their experience and observation of the Logos in the book we call the New Testament. “That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched this we proclaim concerning the Word of life.  The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us.  We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ” (1 John 1:1-3).

Note in this scripture that the apostles’ beliefs were grounded in facts.  They claimed to hear, touch and see the man that they preached about. Their beliefs were not based on second-hand information learned from a book, but rather they were based on first-hand experiences.  All of the Apostles of Jesus, but one, were killed for their faith and yet not one of them recanted their belief in Jesus.  This seems to be better evidence than most scientific theories come up with and I have not heard of too many scientists dying for their theories.  Yet today you have people that believe that the Christian community has no right to preach the message of Christ because they did not witness it.  However, if that is the case how does a high school science teacher have a right to teach science which he has not personally observed?  What right would anyone have to teach that humans came from a common ancestor or that a lizard evolved into a bird?  Has anyone ever observed it actually happening?  No, they have not, and they will never observe these things.

The Apostles of Jesus observed Jesus and the miracle of his resurrection.  They also created a community of men that they left their knowledge with.  This community was then told by them to take that knowledge to the world.  Some have tried to explain this away by saying that Jesus never lived.  However, if that is the case how can you explain the existence of a community of thousands built around his death and resurrection, shortly after his death?

Some may respond by saying that religion believes in miracles and science believes in facts.  Before we take a close look at this statement, let us define our terms.  A fact is something that e exists in itself.  It stands by itself and needs no explanation or interpretation.  Let us use our original example of the stones, or rocks on the ground.  Let’s say that I was walking alone and saw some rocks laying on the ground.  The rocks on the ground are a fact and in that statement, the ground would also be a fact.  If you asked me how the rocks got there and I said I saw a truck dump them there, the placement of the rocks would be a fact for me, but not for you.  You see a fact must be a thing that is able to be observed.  Therefore, the placing of the rocks would be a fact for me because I personally witnessed it.  The placing of the rocks would be a theory for you based on my testimony.  Now the strength of the theory would depend on the credibility of the witness.  Now, a theory can never become a fact to you unless you had a time machine to go back in time to the point where the rocks were dumped on the ground.  The best you could do is try to find more witnesses that might confirm the witness’s testimony.  The more witnesses the greater the probability that the witness is telling the truth and that the thing really happened or existed.  You may increase the probability of how the rocks got on the ground, but you can never make a theory, a fact.  Even if you were to take a truck and dump thousands of rocks upon the ground, all you could do is increase the probability of your theory.  So, when you hear someone say that the theory of evolution has become a fact, you know that you are talking to someone that has some fuzzy thinking going on in their head.  You might ask them if they were there when it happened.

I think now we may be ready to talk about science, religion, and miracles.  We all know that religion believes in miracles, but do the facts bear out that science does not believe in them?   Before going there we need to ask, what is a miracle?  To me, a miracle is something that is super-natural i.e. beyond a natural explanation.  If this is true, science should not hold to anything that cannot be explained by natural causes, within the framework of uniformity of nature.  Yet, when we open a freshman science book, we are immediately confronted with the big bang theory of how the universe, time, space and matter, came out of nothing.  We are even told when it happened, some 17 billion years ago.  So, here we have a scientific theory that sounds very much like the first verse of the book of Genesis, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and earth”.  Now, here’s the kicker, science says their theory is science and Genesis is religion.  One view is scientific and the other is a belief in a miracle.  The miracle of ex nihilo-the creation of something out of nothing.  But how can one viewpoint be a miracle and the same viewpoint science?  Someone might argue that it has been observed that the universe is expanding, which proves the big bang theory and that the universe had a beginning.  But this would raise the question, “If the universe, space and time are expanding what did they initially expand out from if neither space and time existed?  Does the evidence for the big bang prove the miracle of creation?  Does it prove the existence of God?  I do not believe so.  However, it does leave the door open for something to exist outside of time and space, and that something could be God.  It would also leave the door open for that God to come into space and time, and even to alter it.  Otherwise, you have to believe that something came from nothing.

Is not something coming from nothing a miracle?  I would say it is one of the greatest miracles ever recorded.  If you can believe in something coming from nothing, then believing in the miracle of Jesus turning water into wine is nothing, for we see nature turning water into wine every day, Jesus just sped up the process.  However, something out of nothing? That’s a big one.

[1]  Some may say that Theology has no facts. But they have the facts of existence and consciousness.

[2] To some degree all of our assumptions are based on the primal assumption that we exist. Both the scientist and the theologian assume that they exist and begin with that as a fact.

Faith as Tacit Knowledge

Faith as Tacit Knowledge

“Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”

Heb 11:1

Faith is seeing the invisible or is it seeing the unseen?  One day I was riding with my son in law who is an avid hunter.  As we were riding along he kept saying “Look, do you see the deer?”  My usual reply was, “Where?”  Then he would point  to a spot in the woods and say“There!”  However, often even after he pointed out the spot I could not see the deer.

This leads me to the question why.  Why could he see the deer, and I could not?  I concluded that there were only four possible answers.  1. He had more practice than me.  You know the old saying ‘practice makes perfect.’  2. That he and others have a gift of seeing, i.e. they’re wired differently than other people.  3. It was a combination of both one and two. 4. He was delusional and there were no deer there.

The following is based on my thinking about the above experiences.  My first observation is that the more you know about a thing the easier it is to find it and see it.  My son in law knows a lot about deer, so he knows what to look for and where to look.  I do not.  His knowledge has come from years of his personal experience of hunting deer.  His knowledge of deer is twofold, it is both objective and tacit.  By tacit I mean intuitive.  He has a gift of seeing and picking the deer out of the background environment.  He does not have the gift because he loves to hunt; he loves to hunt because he has the gift.

My second observation was that people see what they expect to see; what they are looking for and what they want to see.  This means that sometimes the knowledge of something and believing it’s there helps you to see.  If you do not believe something might be there, you will not even be looking for it.  Therefore, unbelief tends to close your eyes and your mind to seeing and believing.

I hike often with a friend who climbs a small mountain on a daily basis.  Often he climbs it twice in one day and is on  his way down the first time before I start climbing up.  My friend prides himself on his awareness so I decided to put his ability to the test to see how much of his surroundings he was actually aware of.  So, I began to hide from him to see how long it would take for him notice me.  I began by hiding behind large obstacles like trees and rocks, but as the experiment when on I made myself more and more obvious.  It finally reach the point that I simply squatted down in the middle of the trail.  I was simply amazed at how close he got to me before seeing me.  Of course, my last experiment was done on a steeper part of the trail where one is prone to be watching where they are stepping.

My experience lent support to the theory that you tend to see what you are looking for and fail to see what you are not looking for, even if it is self-evident.  In other words, you see what you expect to see and you see what you are looking for. Also being intensely focused on one thing causes you not to see or notice other things. We could infer from this that specialization causes people to be blind to other things and to even be ignorant of their own blindness.

There are hidden clues which point to the fact that there is more than meets the eye.  Ancient seers who had the ability to see the clues of the unseen labeled them as “faith or revelation”.  In this, faith is the product of revelation or God lifting the veil that humans can see the clues to his existence.   In this, there is nothing strange with some men seeing God better than others.  In fact, it is the norm. The idea that God must show himself equal to all men comes from a Democratic ideology more than sound reason. From this, we can gather, that there is a good reason to follow some men’s opinion on spiritual things. One of the ways you can tell who to follow is laid down by Jesus when he said, by their fruits you shall know them.

 

 

A Letter to a Young atheist (2)

A Letter to a Young atheist

You asked if I had read any books written by atheists.  I’ve read a number of the books written by the four Horsemen and many other atheists.  After reading them, I still think atheism is a mental disorder that shows up at the end of any declining civilization.  Even if every religion throughout the world is wrong that doesn’t make atheism right.

You argument that the division in the religion world is proof that there is no God demonstrates a shallow understand of the human condition. In fact, if there is an all powerful being you would expect finite creatures like humans to be divided concerning their belief about it.  So, what you point out to be inconsistent is very much consistent with a belief in an all-knowing God.  The disunity of belief is the very thing you should expect to find when a finite creature believes in an all-powerful God.

Your quibbles about there being no proofs for the existence of God border on the hysterical.  First, there is an enormous difference between evidence and proof.  A huge percentage of human knowledge has little to no proof of its own accuracy.  The majority of human knowledge believed is based on the authority of a teacher, and to have faith in that teacher.  Very few people ever see the evidence or proof for numerous beliefs.  These beliefs range from Darwinian evolution to theories of the multi-verse.  If you believe these things, it’s because someone told you to believe it and you accepted it by faith and you accepted it as logical because they framed the evidence in a world view that you had already accepted. When talking about evidence we are using the language of science, when you start talking about proofs you are using the language of philosophy not science. Science cannot possibly prove or disapprove the idea of God[1].  Science recognizes its limitations.  Why can’t you atheists? The truth is that you don’t understand science any better than you do religion.

However, science can offer evidence that seems at least to support the idea of a supreme consciousness that created all things.  The apparent design that we see in the universe is one of these things and the other is the fact that the universe had a beginning. Both scientific theories support the idea of consciousness more than a belief that the world and the universe were just cobbled together by a mindless force. However, it does not prove it be on a shadow of a doubt.

If you’re looking for proofs in philosophy, you can forget it.  Philosophically, it would be hard to prove that you even exist, much more than proving the nonexistence of a god.  Human beings are small ignorant creatures whose existence is based pretty much on faith in many presuppositions, which cannot be proven. Our ambiguous position in the universe tends to cause insecurity so we gravitate towards seeking certitude (proofs) of our beliefs. In this religion is actually more honest than secular people when it says that we walk by faith and not by sight.

The new atheists are small-minded people who have an over-inflated view of themselves and their intelligence.  As a result, they are fundamentalist in their thinking and they still live in a world of proofs.  This alone is an unbelievable paradox because of their belief system, or their lack of beliefs.  For in their belief system of materialism there couldn’t be such a thing as truth for truth[2] is a concept that belongs in a religious framework that believes in an Ultimate Authority as a foundation of human knowledge.  The atheist appeal to truth demonstrates that they are still thinking in a religious framework and in essence, for many their lack of belief has become a religion.

[1] The US National Academy of Sciences has gone on record with the following statement: ‘Science is a way of knowing about the natural world. It is limited to explaining the natural world through natural causes. Science can say nothing about the supernatural. Whether God exists or not is a question about which science is neutral.” Taken from “Who made God?, a searching For a Theory Of Everything” by Fay Weldon.

[2] In a materialistic worldview there cannot be a traditional moralistic truth. Atheism will always lead to relativism where truth is what a person believes.

A Letter to a Christian Science Teacher

A Letter to a Christian Science Teacher

Your Zionist interpretation of the Bible seems to align with those that you dislike; i.e. fundamentalist’s, and your defense of science seems to contradict your statement, that it is not a religion.  However, you defend it as though it was your religion.  Furthermore, the way you defend it seems to be a little over the top.  If you view it simply as a method of finding the truth; i.e. the scientific method, then why the big fuss?  No one disagrees with the scientific method.  The question is do scientists really follow it?  I personal think not.  The scientific method is used pretty much to make the scientific community respectable and they keep it as law about as well as the Jews kept the Law of Moses.

I think it is self-evident that in most people’s minds science has become a metaphysical concept[1], which goes way beyond people in white jackets applying the scientific method to their research.  Science has become the authority that people appeal to in a secular atheistic culture and for many, science has evolved into a new religion.  It used to be that people would appeal to the Bible or the church.  They would say “Because the Bible says so” or “Because the church says so”.  Now it is nothing but “science says”.  For many in our culture the only knowledge that has not been debunked and found useless is called science.  This is nonsense; however it is fostered by many in the scientific community.  To me there is far more truth in a good work of art than in most scientific theories, or more power in a song than in all of the science in the world.  Science has given us many toys and made life easier in some ways, but I think it hasn’t given many people meaning, peace of mind, joy or love.  In fact, many scientists are arrogant jackasses.  “Knowledge puffs up, love builds up”.  Science does not teach this, the Bible does.  The false god (idol) of science has taken us to the very edge of the abyss.  It has given evil men the power to take away our humanity and turn us into machines.  The state is already using it to manipulate the herd in any direction it wishes.  Science is now the handmaid of the state, just as religion was a century ago.  I personally, value my freedom more than comfort, ease and pleasure.  To me science is like religion, it is human and therefore needs to be criticized and critiqued often.  The power that it has attained is equal to that of religion and is one of the powers that the Bible speaks about.  Remember that our battle is not with flesh and blood but rather with the principalities and powers in the heavenly places.  Those heavenly powers have their counterpart on this earth.  What do you thinks stands behind the metaphysical concept of science?

Science is the false god of many worldly people.  It promises them salvation if they will give it their money and commitment.  It promises health and wealth to all that follow it.  It claims to be able to predict the future (global warming).  Something the Bible says only God can do.  Not only does it claim to know the future, it also claims it can control it.  It also boasts of its miracles of healing and its signs and wonders.  To me this sounds a little like the antichrist in the book of Thessalonians[2] and surely sounds like religion.  I think science is what you make of it, but for many they have made it their faith and religion.

[1] Science is a concept that does not existence in reality. If it does where is it? Can I see it, smell it, taste it or touch it? I can do all these things to the people that practice it but I cannot do it to it. In this manner, it resembles religion.

[2]  ” The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with the work of Satan displayed in all kinds of counterfeit miracles, signs and wonders, and in every sort of evil that deceives those who are perishing.  They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved.  For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness” (2 Thess 2:8-12).

 

 

 

God and Einstein

 

God and Einstein

There has been much debate about the religious beliefs and faith of Albert Einstein.  Both the atheist community and the believing community have claimed him as one of their own.  However, I believe it can be demonstrated that Einstein was somewhat of a mystic and would not be overly comfortable in either group.

“The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious.  It is the source of all true art and science.  He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed.  This insight into the mystery of life, coupled though it be with fear, has also given rise to religion.  To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their most primitive forms — this knowledge, this feeling, is at the center of true religiousness.  In this sense, and in this sense only, I belong in the ranks of devoutly religious men.”

Rudolf Otto wrote a book entitled, ‘The Ideal Of The Holy’ in which he attempts to explain the spiritual experience that Einstein describes and what Otto goes on to refer to as the numinous which he believes is a sign which points to the deity and could be likened to the voice of God that beckons man to his true center.

The sub-title to Otto’s book, ‘The Idea of the Holy’ is ‘An inquiry into the non-rational factor in the idea of the divine and its relation to the rational’.  In the book Otto points out that numinous is not rational or reasonable but it’s not irrational or unreasonable, it is simply outside of those categories.  You might call it super-rational.

It is this numinous experience that the atheist lacks.  Because he has not experienced it, it is impossible for him to understand someone who has experienced it like Einstein.  Einstein had experienced the Totally Other which lied beyond his explanatory powers to communicate it to those who had not experienced it, those that he referred to as dead or blind.  Otto’s book is the best attempted I have seen to put the experience into words.  You can get a PDF copy at the below address.

Click to access Cman_046_3_Harvey.pdf

The Two Humanities A New Perspective[1]

The Two Humanities A New Perspective[1]

From the beginning of time, there have been two humanities that worship.  Those who worship the true God and those who worshiped false Gods; those that believe God and those that do not.  This view of a divided humanity raises a number of questions.  One of them is, when did this great divide take place and was it ever deepened by happenstance, or by God’s action?

For a long time biblical, scholars have believed that there were two creation stories in the book of Genesis.  I personally looked upon Genesis chapter one, more less as a general account recording the creation of the physical universe which included man.  Genesis’s chapter two offers a more detailed description of the creation of humanity.

However, recently I began to think that Genesis one and two may have clues that point to some interesting ideas.  For instance, could it be saying that they were two creations?  One humankind being for a general or broader humanity and one for a specific humanity. To employ scientific terminology, could there have been two species of humanity created?  One that had a special place to live and special relationship to the creator?  In other words, one was more human and more God-like than the former, maybe one that was endowed with God’s spirit?

If you recall the story, when Cain killed Abel he was ejected from the presence of the Lord and it says that he went out and he took a wife and built a city.  This raises a number of questions.  One being who did he marry, and another being where did the people come from, for him to build a city?

As we move along in the story, we are told in the sixth chapter of Genesis, “When human beings began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. Then the Lord said, ‘My Spirit will not contend with humans forever, for they are mortal; their days will be a hundred and twenty years.’ The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.” (Genesis 6:1-4)[2].

What are some of the things that might be inferred from this section of scripture?  One, there was were two humanities one seemingly superior to the other.  The two inter-married and produced a third race.  We can also infer that the mixture of the races resulted in a shorter lifespan for all the descendants of both races. From the reaction of the deity, we could also assume that he was not pleased with this mixture of humanity.

Are there any benefits to viewing humanity this way?  It would help explain the numbers of people that are reported existing in the world during the time of Cain and Abel.  It also explains the large numbers of humanity present at the time of the flood of Noah.  It would also offer an explanation for the decrease in the life expectancy of humanity.

It also would answer the problem of death being in the world before the fall of man. In this view, death was outside the garden and life was inside of it, or in relationship with God. When Adam sinned, he brought sin and death into his world and because of his lost relationship with God, he became like those outside the relationship ruled by the law of sin and death.  Immediately after his sin, we see sin and death at work in the story of Cain and Abel.  The god species lost its protective place with God.  It is here in the story that we find another clue.  Cain leaves the presence of the Lord, goes out and marries and builds a city.  Who did he marry?  Well, there are only two possibilities, he married his sister, or he married outside of the god species.  You could say he interbred with another species.  We used to think that mating between species was impossible or never happened.  However, new evidence seems to be pointing to the fact that Homo sapiens did mate with other species of humanity.  So some in the scientific community referred to this species as the ghost species[3].

[1] This whole article is based on speculation. The Bible is very vague about the history of the earth and the earth erases its history. Therefore, it is impossible to know exactly the history of mankind. Science as we know it today is as vague as the Bible. If you want to study a book on our depth of knowledge of the earth’s history read Henry Gee’s book “Deep Time”.

[2] This account might explain the source of the legends of Greek heroes being the sons of God.

[3] If you are interested in the studies which talk about humans having intercourse with sub-humans and if you want to know more about what scientists call the ghost species simply Google the subject.

The Darwinian Evolution Narrative

The Darwinian Evolution Narrative

The more I read on evolution the more I have come to realize that the theory of Darwinian Evolution is based more on narrative than facts.  By this I mean that it is based on a well thought out story without a lot of real facts to back it up.  Most often it is based on conjecture or outright fiction.  I also have noticed that the facts are often made to fit the story instead of the story fitting the facts.

How could this happen?  How could so many intelligent people embrace such a theory as fact?  There are three answers to this question.  The first one is that they have accepted the scientific maxim or dogma that everything must be explained naturalistically, leaving no other possible explanation, except maybe for the seeding of the earth by alien life forces.  This dogma also hinders any real attempt by those inside the system to attempt to disprove the theory.  The second is the failure to see that the theory is not the facts.  Some confuse the map for the territory.  The third is that many in the educated class had accept science as a new faith. Some have gone so far as to give it a name, it’s called scientism; the belief that only true knowledge must come through science.  Well this may make Johnny a real brilliant boy but it also makes him a very narrow-minded boy.

Evolution in its most basic form is a fact.  Life changes and adapts to its environment.  We can see this happening in the barnyard and sometimes it is aided and directed by man (consciousness)[1].  However, Darwin’s theory of evolution is not a fact, it is an interpretation of the facts, with the interpretation of the facts being dependent on the narrative and there is no narrative without a secular or atheist world view.  Historical fact verifies that the materialistic worldview came first, then the narrative and then the theory.  It is a well-known fact that Darwin and others in his time believed in the theory of evolution before there were any scientific facts to support it[2].  This simply means that it would be very easy for this theory to have a social origin.

Evolutionist’s are constantly asking the question what narrative best fits the facts?  By this they’re usually talking about a theological narrative that they suppose existed.  However the truth is there is no theological narrative as to how God made the world.  The Bible simply states that God did it and any good theologian would never suppose or assert that they were capable of explaining how God created the world.  They clearly understand that such an event could only be spoken about metaphorically in story, poetry and myth.  Theologians understand the difference between truth, and the truth.  Theology leaves room for mystery and science leaves none. For that reason, science has the tendency to fill the gap’s with narrative and speculation, which it then attempts to falsify.  At least that is what it claims to do and should do.

In this, the Darwinian theory of evolution is a theory of necessity for those accepting a materialistic or atheistic worldview.  The only alternatives would be for them to just simply say they don’t know. Unfortunately, the majority are not willing to do that or even try to base their study and research on an attempt to figure out how consciousness created all things. In most cases this is because they have a prior commitment to materialism, like Johnny, they have become small-minded. It should also be noted that because of their prior commitment to materialism it would be very difficult to attempt to falsify a theory which you have already committed to as the only one possible.

However, this insight has not led me to any expectation on my part that the theory will be overthrown sometime in the near future. The Theory itself has evolved into a secular myth that supports a secular world view. The science has ended, religious faith has taken its place.

[1] I find it strange that people can accept that man can direct evolution and at the same time hold to the belief that a God could not do it.

[2]  “The Road of Science and The Ways to God” By Stanley L. Jaki Page 282