A comment came in not long ago that did not follow from the topic of the post, but I think that it should be seen, so I’ll make a thread for it. It comes from an author of an antievolution book, and handily demonstrates the “conflict model” thinking that is popular among religious antievolutionists and anti-religionists.
Why do scientists so readily embrace evolution in lieu of the written record of creation? The answer lies with a poll of select members of the elite National Academy of Sciences. The poll discovered a prevailing disbelief in God; in fact, only 7 percent of those surveyed held a “personal belief in God.” Of the balance, 72.2 percent held a “personal disbelief” and 20.8 percent were either doubtful or agnostic.
In effect, the sampling revealed that scientists hold a “near total disbelief in God.” (Poll by Peter Atkins and Richard Dawkins, published in Nature, Summer 1998.)
The reason for the rejection, and by assessment an intense hatred of God, is two fold. Firstly, evolution is accepted by an overwhelming majority of biologists and scientists - biblical histories are myths. Consequently, scientists unequivocally abhor any supernatural explanation of natural phenomena, as it questions their intelligence. Secondly, the scientific league refuses to accept a God who would allow all the evil, suffering, and pain that befalls both man and beast (due to sin entering the world through the man, Adam).
Matter-of-factly, anyone who professes belief in God is simply anti-intellectual. Hence, scientists succumb to the grave trusting that their fleshly beings will return to dust from whence they came: there is no God, no life after death, no hell, and no eternal separation from a loving God.
An amusing epilogue: When the results of the poll were first published, a lone dissenter in the U.S. House of Representatives, James Traficant (D-Ohio), complained from the House Floor, “Mr. Speaker, a new report says only 7 percent of scientists believe in God… And the reason they gave was that the scientists are super smart. Unbelievable…”
The scientific council and educators alike have played into the hands of Secular Humanists who view public education as the vehicle to move the citizen into a total secular, materialistic, godless society. According to the manifesto outlined in the journal of the American Humanist Association, The Humanist (1983), the “battle” for the minds and, it must be added, the souls of the innocents is to be “waged and won” in the public classrooms. The aspiration has gained strength by the endorsement of the liberal faction in the National Association of Educators and by teachers, many of whom believe in God but, nevertheless, have been subverted in their faith in that they may only teach the tenets of obstructionism as ruled by the Supreme Court.
The reader may be surprised to find that the expression, “separation of church and state,” is nowhere to be found in the seven articles and twenty-six amendments of the Constitution; yet, the phrase has gained sovereignty over the public schools, not by any right granted by the founding fathers, but by the repetitious manner in which it has been brandished about by those who wish to obstruct the truth. The lesson taught here is not new: “There is nothing new under the sun.” The obstructionist approach; that is, there is no God and, hence, no Son of God, dates back two thousand years to the New Testament epistle, 1 Timothy, penned by the apostle Paul unto Timothy, a servant of Jesus, the Christ. In the disposition, “the putting into order of the church’s affairs,” Timothy was warned to avoid the opposition of “science falsely so called,” or in the modern terminology, “religious obstructionism masquerading as science,” the real purpose of which is to undermine the faith of the people of God.
20. O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called;
21. Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.-1 Timothy 6
May God give the good people of Texas the courage and wisdom to rescue the innocents within the classroom from those who would preach the unprofitable theory of evolution.
C. David Parsons
For a moment toward the end, it seemed like Parsons was going to get it right, and take antievolutionists to task for falsely calling their arguments science. That certainly didn’t turn out to be the case.
Let me take up some of this more directly.
Why do scientists so readily embrace evolution in lieu of the written record of creation?
Quite a large number of scientists are both Christian and accept the findings of evolutionary science; I’m one of them. This fact has to be ignored by Parsons and others who wish to propagate the conflict model.
The answer lies with a poll of select members of the elite National Academy of Sciences. The poll discovered a prevailing disbelief in God; in fact, only 7 percent of those surveyed held a “personal belief in God.” Of the balance, 72.2 percent held a “personal disbelief” and 20.8 percent were either doubtful or agnostic.
In effect, the sampling revealed that scientists hold a “near total disbelief in God.” (Poll by Peter Atkins and Richard Dawkins, published in Nature, Summer 1998.)
Notice how the sampling effect of a poll directed only at the NAS is completely ignored and “scientists” is used thereafter. Nor is Parsons well-informed about such basic information as who conducted the poll in question. It was not Atkins and Dawkins who conducted the poll, but rather Edward J. Larson and Larry Witham. It was, in fact, the second phase of polling they did to replicate a poll taken in the early twentieth century. Parsons does not choose to inform his readers of the existence of part 1, where Larson and Witham found that the prevalence of disbelief in God among the general body of practicing scientists had remained mostly unchanged in the intervening decades, and was found in their poll to be about 60%. That means that about 40% of practicing scientists either do believe in God or are not predisposed to disbelieve, a rather different number than the one Parsons chooses to use. Another point Parsons does not bother to discuss is that even in the recent poll of the “greater scientists” of the NAS, Larson and Witham found that outright disbelief was less prevalent among scientists in the biological sciences, and more prevalent among physical scientists, though the biological scientists of the NAS also had the least prevalence of expressed belief.
The reason for the rejection, and by assessment an intense hatred of God, is two fold. Firstly, evolution is accepted by an overwhelming majority of biologists and scientists - biblical histories are myths. Consequently, scientists unequivocally abhor any supernatural explanation of natural phenomena, as it questions their intelligence. Secondly, the scientific league refuses to accept a God who would allow all the evil, suffering, and pain that befalls both man and beast (due to sin entering the world through the man, Adam).
As already noted, the “rejection” is by no means characteristic of all scientists. This is a common tactic among those who have to argue against reality: simply assert the state of affairs most congenial to their argument and there leave it. Here we have Parsons attributing “hatred of God” to an entire profession, where our best available data say only that about 60% disbelieve; Larson and Witham did not go into what feelings their respondents had about God, nor does it make much sense to attribute hatred to people who disbelieve in the existence of the being that is supposed to be hated. Nor is Parsons reliably informed about the reasons that scientists don’t accept supernatural explanations as science, which has nothing to do with “questioning their intelligence” or “hating God”, and everything to do with making sure that science works. When scientists began deprecating the use of supernatural causes as explanations in science back in the nineteenth century, the overwhelming preponderance of practicing scientists were also theists. These people certainly did not mold the modern rules of science because they thought the supernatural “questioned their intelligence”, and it is ludicrous to imply that they took the steps they did because they “hated God”. As for Parsons “secondly”, I’m afraid it simply doesn’t make sense; again, Parsons is attributing to all scientists a view that is only held by a subset of that group.
Matter-of-factly, anyone who professes belief in God is simply anti-intellectual. Hence, scientists succumb to the grave trusting that their fleshly beings will return to dust from whence they came: there is no God, no life after death, no hell, and no eternal separation from a loving God.
Again, Parsons is railing against a strawman of his own creation, that all scientists must be God-hating unbelievers. We know that premise is false. Matter-of-factly, some people who profess belief in God are anti-intellectual, and it appears that Parsons is arguing strenuously to be included in that grouping.
An amusing epilogue: When the results of the poll were first published, a lone dissenter in the U.S. House of Representatives, James Traficant (D-Ohio), complained from the House Floor, “Mr. Speaker, a new report says only 7 percent of scientists believe in God… And the reason they gave was that the scientists are super smart. Unbelievable…”
Rep. Traficant apparently understood as little about the poll results as does Parsons, since he makes the very same error of using the sample of “greater scientists” to pull a number he erroneously applies to the general population of practicing scientists.
The scientific council and educators alike have played into the hands of Secular Humanists who view public education as the vehicle to move the citizen into a total secular, materialistic, godless society. According to the manifesto outlined in the journal of the American Humanist Association, The Humanist (1983), the “battle” for the minds and, it must be added, the souls of the innocents is to be “waged and won” in the public classrooms. The aspiration has gained strength by the endorsement of the liberal faction in the National Association of Educators and by teachers, many of whom believe in God but, nevertheless, have been subverted in their faith in that they may only teach the tenets of obstructionism as ruled by the Supreme Court.
We here in the USA have a variety of different faiths and even non-faith. We are stronger if we do not engage in the sort of internecine struggles that ravaged Europe for centuries. We are best served if each person can pursue their faith (or do whatever they decide with their time if they don’t believe) in the private sector, and we are ill-served if some one or few doctrines are given the imprimatur of government promulgation. The Southern Baptist Church used to be in the forefront of First Amendment cases aimed at keeping government programs to strictly secular content, for the simple reason that if no religious doctrine is espoused by the government, it then is simple for the church to instruct its members without that interference.
The reader may be surprised to find that the expression, “separation of church and state,” is nowhere to be found in the seven articles and twenty-six amendments of the Constitution; yet, the phrase has gained sovereignty over the public schools, not by any right granted by the founding fathers, but by the repetitious manner in which it has been brandished about by those who wish to obstruct the truth. The lesson taught here is not new: “There is nothing new under the sun.” The obstructionist approach; that is, there is no God and, hence, no Son of God, dates back two thousand years to the New Testament epistle, 1 Timothy, penned by the apostle Paul unto Timothy, a servant of Jesus, the Christ. In the disposition, “the putting into order of the church’s affairs,” Timothy was warned to avoid the opposition of “science falsely so called,” or in the modern terminology, “religious obstructionism masquerading as science,” the real purpose of which is to undermine the faith of the people of God.
The reader may not be surprised to find people in the present who weren’t paying attention in civics class. The phrase, “separation of church and state”, appears in correspondence from Thomas Jefferson and is descriptive of the policies that do appear in our constitution and its amendments. That Parsons is apparently a fan of David Barton’s loopy stuff is no surprise at all. The purpose of keeping the government out of the business of telling people what to believe with respect to religion is to keep our internal affairs civil, and avoid all that stuff about hanging, burning, pressing, stoning, impaling, or otherwise managing to kill people who believe something either slightly or completely different from what many or most people in an area happen to believe. That purpose only undermines the faith of people who don’t value the lives and respect the views of their fellow citizens, in which case, yes, that ought to be undermined.
May God give the good people of Texas the courage and wisdom to rescue the innocents within the classroom from those who would preach the unprofitable theory of evolution.
Obviously, Parsons has no clue about the content of evolutionary science. “Unprofitable” is precisely the opposite descriptor that is actually required, since evolutionary science informs our medicine, our agriculture, our wildlife policies, and even aspects of engineering and chemistry which have picked up tools for getting things done more efficiently from evolutionary science. The Soviet Union and China adopted a teleological alternative to western evolutionary science, with the result of experiencing agriculture failure on a scale that killed tens of millions and produced long-term hardship for many more. We should take care to learn from their mistake, and not try to repeat it by politically mandating a non-materialist teleological ideology in place of good science.
All in all, Parsons’ performance here is less than inspiring. Even the simplest level of scholarship seems to be beyond him, he evinces no mastery of the topics he insists on criticizing, he deploys logical fallacies to the exclusion of reasoned argument, and on top of it all presents himself as a sanctimonious jerk. This doesn’t bode well for the book-length treatment that he has authored.