Women's Flag Football Tourney

Check out our tournament we are hosting in Manassas Virginia.

Dawkins tears Layfield a new one

Now here is where Dawkins works over Layfield's lecture. Once again, this is just to keep it alive and expose the Christian liars. Their propaganda has passed without criticism long enough.

Young Earth Creationists teach bad science and worse religion

By Richard Dawkins

(Filed: 18/03/2002)


THE absurd row over Emmanuel City Technology College in Gateshead has raised an even more absurd confusion, which must be cleared up.

There are not two debating positions, but three. Actually more than three, and some of them could be represented as a shaded continuum, but for simplicity I'll stick to three.

1) Young Earth Creationists. They believe the world is only thousands of years old, based on a literal reading of Genesis (or the Koran, or whatever is their holy book).

2) Old Earth Theists. Theirs is a broad church, embracing the great majority of educated religious people. They believe in a Divine Creator, but they read their creation myth allegorically rather than literally, and accept that the world is billions of years old.

With the exception of some Old Earth Creationists, they mostly agree that evolution happened, but may allow God some supervisory role. Many think evolution was God's ingenious way of accomplishing his creation. Some believe he helped evolution over the difficult jumps.

Others think God kept his hands off evolution, but set up the universe in the first place in such a way as to make it likely to happen.

3) Atheists and agnostics.

Within the broad middle group, you'll find the Pope, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Bishop of Oxford (who gave an admirable Thought for the Day on the subject on Friday) and, I would guess, most of the bishops and clergy of the Roman and Anglican churches.

You'll also find Tony Blair and those of his parliamentary colleagues of all parties who profess religious belief. You will not find the head of science at Emmanuel CTC, Gateshead.

I count myself in the third group, but it is not in that capacity that I object to what is happening in Gateshead. From time to time, I argue against Old Earth Theists, but not on this occasion.

On the Gateshead issue, scientists and theologians, bishops and atheists stand shoulder to shoulder. Young Earth teachers may do some damage to science education, but it's a pinprick compared with the damage they'll do to religious education if they get a grip on this side of the Atlantic.

Confusion is rife because commentators have failed to understand that the Gateshead row is about Young Earth Creationism. Wrongly presuming that we who have asked Ofsted for a re-inspection are attacking religion, they have rushed intemperately into print, not least in this newspaper, imputing to us all sorts of horrific Torquemadan motives.

Without bothering to read what we have said, and - worse - without bothering to read what the Gateshead teachers have said, they have assumed that we are attacking the middle group of mainstream religious believers.

As one retired contributor to The Daily Telegraph (letters, Mar 16) said: "I am a Christian and a scientist. I see no particular problem in reconciling the evolutionary and Creationist approaches to the formation of the Earth."

Well of course you don't see a problem, sir! You are a member of the large consensus in the middle. But the whole point of the Gateshead row is that the head of science at the school does see a problem. He is a Young Earth Creationist.

In the same issue of this newspaper, Tom Utley ("God knows what Professor Dawkins is talking about") tells me at insulting length what I already knew, namely that many Creationists don't think the earth is young. Why, Utley ponderously wonders, do I assume that the Gateshead teachers do?

For one excellent reason. I take the trouble to read what they say. Steven Layfield, the head of science at Emmanuel, gave a lecture on September 21, 2000 (which would therefore have been available to the Ofsted inspectors).

The full text is at: http://www.christian.org.uk/html-publications/education3.htm. Read it. If you love true science, or if you love true religion, the thought of what the children must be missing under this travesty of teaching may sadden you enough to provoke a letter to the Secretary of State for Education, urging her to reopen the case with Ofsted.

Layfield remarks that there is no immediate hope of evolution being removed from the national curriculum, and he lists ways in which Creationist science teachers can compensate.

For example: "Note every occasion when an evolutionary/old-earth paradigm (millions or billions of years) is explicitly mentioned or implied by a text-book, examination question or visitor, and courteously point out the fallibility of the statement. Wherever possible, we must give the alternative (always better) Biblical explanation of the same data."

For Layfield, then, the universe is not billions, not even millions, of years old. It is only thousands.

This head of science - this science teacher and mentor of other science teachers - blinds himself to the whole edifice of exciting scientific work, not just in biology and geology (fossils, the molecular clock, the geographic distribution of species in the light of plate-tectonic continental movements), but also physics (numerous independent methods of radioactive dating converge on the same answer) and cosmology (in a young universe, all stars would be invisible to us except the tiny minority within a few thousand light years).

Moving on in the lecture: "In view of the current inclusion of earth science into the Sc3 component of the national curriculum, it would seem particularly prudent for all who deliver this aspect of the course to familiarise themselves with Flood geology papers of Whitcomb & Morris . . .

"In particular, they would do well to point out that no rock is unearthed with a clear age label and that dating processes in general are speculative, frequently contradictory and in many instances altogether incompatible with a great age."

Yes, Flood geology means what you think it means. We're talking Noah's Ark here. Noah's Ark - when the children could be learning the spine-tingling fact that Africa and South America were once joined, and have drawn apart at the speed with which fingernails grow.

We have here the head of science, in a school that has received star rating from Ofsted. When I suggested a re-inspection, it had not occurred to me that the people who really come out of the affair badly are the Ofsted inspectors. It is not too late for them to make amends and look properly at what they obviously overlooked before.

With hindsight, it might have been better if those of us in Group Three had kept our big mouths shut and left it to the bishops. They have more to lose than we have, and are less vulnerable to prejudiced and perverse misunderstanding.

Over to you, gentlemen. Power to your elbows. If there is anything I can do to help, you'll find me lying low, with my head down. With the best will in the world, I seem to do more harm than good. It's somebody else's turn.


Richard Dawkins FRS is Oxford's Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science. His latest book is Unweaving the Rainbow

Lecture Given by Steven Layfield at Emmanuel College (Pseudo-science Christian crazy talk)

In the God Delusion, Richard Dawkins mentions a lecture by Stephen Layfield (a pseudo-science Christian nut-job) that was taken down by Emmanuel College after Dawkins exposed its stupidity. It is reprinted on Darwinwars.com for everyone who wants to see another religious liar at work. I also am publishing the text below just to keep it alive and open on the internet. For eductaional purposes only, of course! I also think this is important, for media's sake, to make sure these propagandists are enduringly exposed, if only in cyber-space.

A Lecture Given by Steven Layfield at Emmanuel College, Gateshead on 21 September 2001

Introduction

We are interested to know what the Bible says about Science not because we wish to add a certain "religious flavour" to our Science lessons but because the Bible provides us with, as it were, spectacles through which the whole of reality can be sharply focussed. At a most fundamental level of thinking there are really just two alternative starting positions. One is characterised by the assumption that man can find out all that is true by careful enquiry; the other acknowledges the limitation of such endeavour and recognises the need for us to accept Divine help. One is the rationalist voice of autonomous humanism; the other is God-centred Christianity. It is important that we recognise this distinction right from the start. Much difference of opinion at a higher level can be traced back to this point. Those of us who are engaged in the struggle to show the superiority of a Creationist paradigm (world-view) over and against the prevailing orthodoxy of atheistic materialism and evolutionism in science, have been viciously attacked for adopting a "Bible-first" mentality by many of our opponents.

Let us state then right from the start that we reject the notion popularised, perhaps inadvertently, by Francis Bacon in the 17th century that there are "Two Books" (i.e. the Book of nature & the Scriptures) which may be mined independently for truth. Rather, we stand firm upon the bare proposition that God has spoken authoritatively and inerrantly in the pages of holy Scripture. However fragile, old-fashioned or naive this assertion may ostensibly appear, especially to an unbelieving, TV-drunk modern culture, we can be sure that it is as robust a foundation as it is possible to lay down and build upon. The words of the Apostle Paul on trial before Festus seem strangely relevant to our situation, "I am not mad, but speak the words of truth and reason" (Acts 26:25).
Top

What is Science?

First we must identify with some precision what we mean when we talk about "Science". We shall find that popular notions of Science vary widely. For example, Webster's 1828 Dictionary says that Science is,

"1. In a general sense, knowledge, or certain knowledge; the comprehension or understanding of truth or facts by the mind. The science of God must be perfect.
2. Pure science, as mathematics, is built on self-evident truths; but the term science is also applied to other subjects founded on generally acknowledged truths, as metaphysics; or on experiment and observation..."

Thus Science, as its Latin root suggests, is concerned with knowing. We may have heard the glib comment, "If you really want to know something, ask a scientist". This seems altogether in sympathy with a more up to date definition, reflecting perhaps culture"s shifting religious conviction which defines Science as,

"knowledge obtained from the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical world, involving experimentation and measurement and the development of theories to describe the results of these activities."

This latter definition may at first glance seem acceptable enough. It duly acknowledges the limited scope of scientific enquiry to "the physical world" in its present "structure and behaviour". But, unlike the previous one, notice that there is no reference to God, truth in general or metaphysics. Implicit in the first, yet strangely absent from this second absent definition, is the acknowledgement that there must exist some general framework of thinking to make proper sense of sensory empirical data. Hence, the possibility of Scripture providing this normative role is explicitly denied.

Both Scripture and human philosophy affirm that in developing a body of knowledge and/or truth, we must inevitably assume something. No practitioner of Science can avoid this presumptive first step. For example, cosmologists assume a uniformity of matter and the laws of Physics when contemplating the distant galaxies and stars etc,. But why should such matter and the laws which govern its behaviour be the same everywhere? Thus, when the astronomer infers the existence of metals and certain gases in distant stars he is in fact assuming the unity of nature (i.e. that we inhabit a universe, not a multi-verse): something he cannot prove.

However, if, as Jesus clearly taught, the Bible really is the Word of God - and the internal evidence is overwhelming - true Science will always agree with it. The form of knowledge to which it tends will be trustworthy and true. The ultimate absurdity of abandoning the Biblical framework of knowledge is the introduction of doubt into the universality of any scientific law.
Top

Naturalism

Perhaps as a result of a general acceptance of Aquinas?s dualistic theory of knowledge and Bacon?s 'Two Books' approach, practitioners of Science over recent centuries have progressively developed the notion that scientific endeavour, and the theory that describes it, must proceed along lines of thought that are inherently 'naturalistic'. Thus today, schools, universities and TV documentaries present 'natural History' and 'natural Science'. When examined at a fundamental philosophical level, it emerges that the following assumptions have been subtly added to or implied in most contemporary notions of Science:

all that exists is hard matter (atoms and molecules)

only 'natural physical processes' can be invoked as causes of all effects.

Practical Consequences

However well-intentioned the contemporary scientific fraternity in pursuing with such rigour 'natural science', it must be apparent that what we are left with is in fact 'methodological atheism' - an approach to Science which, by definition, precludes any mention of God or supernatural activity whatsoever. To be sure, we must seek explanations for 'present phenomena' in terms which are naturalistic. This is consistent with the Biblical revelation of God as a God of order (1Cor 14:33) But historical events may in fact have been wrought 'supernaturally' by the hand of God. Only brute pride and prejudice will explicitly deny this possibility.

The political and religious consequences for modern culture resulting from the uniform application of naturalistic and materialistic presuppositions in Science teaching are immense. The able Professor of Law at the University of California, Berkeley, Phillip Johnson has keenly identified how a body of elite professionals have been remarkably influential in the shaping of the moral character of today's generation by this distinctive approach to Science.

But won't the integrity of 'Science' be threatened if we allow a divine foot in the door? Johnson, who has written extensively and with much helpful insight, has clearly shown a widening audience that defining scientific endeavour in such materialistic and naturalistic terms, contrary to popular opinion, actually stifles and cripples scientific progress. He rightly argues that the research process ought, with honesty and integrity, to pursue empirical evidence logically wherever it leads. But if naturalism is true, what place is there for such moral concepts as honesty and integrity? Perhaps it is not mere coincidence that there has been a rising trend of fraudulent Science in recent times .

Moreover, it can now readily be shown that there exists both physical laws and a substantial body of empirical data, especially the intrinsic irreducible complexity possessed by all living organisms which are incompatible with, or else fundamentally defy, a doctrinaire naturalistic explanation. Johnson and others have fought hard academically and politically. Presently, his 'Intelligent Design (ID)' group are urging the US Government & Legislature to wake up and realise the social and moral implications of adopting unquestioningly naturalistic scientism in the classroom. It remains to be seen how successful they will be. The recent machinations of the Kansas Board of Education show clearly that there exists a powerful body of ideological proponents who are keen to retain the falsehoods inherent in the present status quo.

Here in the UK the situation is regrettably worse. Successive recent Governments have formulated policy statements which describe explicitly if not implicitly what mainstream Schools are to understand by the Here in the UK the situation is regrettably worse. Successive recent Governments have formulated policy statements which describe explicitly if not implicitly what mainstream Schools are to understand by the term 'Science'. However, though much ground has been lost over the past 200 years or so, it is heartening to read in the latest revision of the National Curriculum that Scientific Enquiry should, at Key Stage 4, include reference to the controversial character of the Darwinian Theory of Evolution and the limitations of scientific knowledge in certain inaccessible contexts .
Top

Biblical revelation of reality

Johnson's charges are most important because the Bible calls us to recognise in all our thinking the totality of reality. This includes the unseen, spiritual realm as well as the material, spatial and temporal dimensions. St Paul explicitly warns us, 'See to it that no-one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ' (Col 2:8).

Scripture reliably informs us that an omnipotent, eternal and all-wise God supernaturally created the Universe (matter, space and time) ex nihilo (from nothing), presently superintends His creation; hears and answers prayer; directs legions of angels to do His will; moves in the hearts and minds of all men; turns slowly but surely the great wheels of providence; upholds all things by the power of His word and consigns to heaven and hell those who are respectively obedient or disobedient to His revealed will. This supreme Being is the great Architect, Creator and Sustainer of all and exists simultaneously within and without His creation . Despite the complete absence from the current mainstream Science national curriculum, He is, in the words of Francis Schaeffer, 'The God who is there'.

It is apparent then that Theology and not Physics or Mathematics that is properly 'Queen of the Sciences'. It is in this sense of the fullness of knowledge which God alone possesses that 'the science of God must be perfect' as our first definition plainly stated. Physics, as we shall see, is merely concerned only with a proper understanding of the normal workings of the material world. But the best physicists (e.g. Kepler, Newton, Faraday, Brewster - to mention but a few) duly recognised the limitations of their undertakings and were happy to acknowledge the existence of God and the genius of His handiwork as they sought to fathom and explore it. Their determination to understand the mechanism of present operations within the universe by no means prevented them from a contemplation of a supernatural, divine act of creation in the past and the mystery of providence in the present.

A Biblical view of the world and universe requires us to believe that everything has been made for mankind who alone among living creatures possesses spiritual faculties enabling him to forge vital, personal fellowship with his Maker. Given that man's chief end in life is to know and glorify God, the whole of Creation must necessarily be perceived as a stage upon which he may realize this potential and fulfil this purpose. The material medium therefore ought to be recognised as a divine construct by which man, when truly guided and enlightened, may discover the great wisdom and power of God together with remarkable tokens of His kindness and love.

Mindful of these things, theologians have most helpfully identified the conceptual framework of Creation, Fall and Redemption in which thinking, and therefore teaching which is truly Biblical, must take place. No academic discipline can progress properly which ignores them. They are fundamental to the establishing of a Biblical view of reality not merely for any abstract reason, but because they are momentous historical events. The first two are especially pertinent to the cause of true Science.
Top

Creation

The Bible at once confronts us with the God of Creation. Throughout the first chapter of Genesis there are a whole string of statements in which, as one has well said, 'God is the subject of the verb' . Historically, Christians have tended to struggle in their attempts to harmonise the plain/obvious sense of the Biblical narrative of Genesis 1 with 'the assured facts of modern Science'. Almost invariably, they have tried to hide their embarrassment of the explicit supernatural behind a smokescreen hermeneutic which requires a mythological interpretation of many of the early chapters. They typically inform us that the principal lesson we are to learn from the Genesis account is that nature somehow betrays the existence of God as we look at it in the right sort of way. While this may be true, we affirm that creation is something which God historically did. The distinction may seem trivial or unimportant but it is by this creative act that the credentials of God as the almighty and all-wise etc, are effectively established and communicated to us. A proper awareness of this show of Divine power inspires humility and awe-filled worship in all who are confronted by it.

Let all the earth fear the Lord; let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of Him.
For He spoke, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast. (Psalm 33:8-9)

Christians know only too well the great value of such contemplation. When faced with great trials, like Job (38ff), they are strengthened in hope and comforted in death by such knowledge. As real historical events, such astounding creative accomplishments represent wonderful tokens of encouragement that the might and right of God's kingdom will at last prevail.

We make a great mistake however if we assume that such a view of Earth history is peculiarly religious and only valid for those who have faith. Indeed, so self-evident is the truth of Creation and so morally relevant its message that the Scriptures announce to us, 'For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities - His eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse' (Rom 1:20). By stark contrast, the prevailing notions of naturalism and atheism are condemned as intellectual suicide and folly (Ps 14:1; Rom 1:26). Coming as it does at the very beginning of the Bible, we may legitimately assume that the doctrine of Special Creation is foundational to the establishing of both true science and real piety within our land. Indeed, so important is the retention of this creative act in our minds that God has ordained one day in seven for us to remember it (Ex 20:11; Mk 2:20).
Top

Fall

No sooner are we informed that this world is the result of ingenious, special (miraculous) creation than God records for us the sober fact of its subsequent fall and corruption. Sin entered human experience and God's subsequent curse of the world affected everything (Gen 3). Decay and death inevitably characterise our present physical existence. That which was made harmonious and beautiful in the beginning, is now tragically infected with a poison which secures its destruction. In the words of some past poet, man, the crowning glory of God's original creation, is now 'a magnificent wreck'. The full extent of the physical consequences of the fall on creation may never finally be known. But those of us engaged in the proclamation of true Science must reckon all that we find to be somehow affected by it. Two passages of Scripture (among several) which clearly allude to the Fall include:

The heavens shall vanish away like smoke, and the earth shall wax old like a garment, and they that dwell there shall die in like manner: but my salvation shall be forever, (Isaiah 51:6)

For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God. We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. (Romans 8:20-22)

Besides the obvious principle of decay bound up within the famous second law of thermodynamics, we may well consider invoking the historical fall event to explain effects such as lunar craters, certain pathological virus infections and various instances where nature now appears 'red in tooth and claw'.

Furthermore, if the Biblical record is to be trusted, we must acknowledge within our grand geophysical paradigm the historicity of a world-wide flood as outlined in Gen 6-10. If the Biblical narrative is secure and the listed genealogies (e.g. Gen 5; 1 Chro 1; Matt 1 & Lu 3) are substantially full, we must reckon that this global catastrophe took place in the relatively recent past. Its effects are everywhere abundantly apparent. Principal evidence is found in the fossil-laden sedimentary rocks, the extensive reserves of hydrocarbon fuels (coal, oil and gas) and the 'legendary' accounts of just such a great flood common to various population groups world-wide. The feasibility of maintaining an ark full of representative creatures for a year until the waters had sufficiently receded has been well documented by, among others, John Woodmorrappe . Much useful research has already been undertaken in recent years which confirms that speciation via 'micro-evolution' and variation within limits can happily account for the rapid re-population of the world and separation of human racial groupings such as we find today.
Top

Science in Schools (Biology, Chemistry and Physics)

In the light of all that has been said, it is surely necessary for us to proceed into the 21st century class-room with some caution. Modern technology which has greatly impacted our lives in countless ways provides the ordinary man in the street and his children whom we teach with considerable reason to suppose that their confidence in the proclamations of modern Science are well-founded. There is therefore an understandable tendency for pupils to admire and respect what they are persuasively told by popular media Science pundits. Science teachers who affirm Biblical authority must be constantly on guard. Flawed orthodoxy is fervently preached at the very highest level in colleges and universities throughout the land. The high priests of secular humanism wield a great deal of power and their influence is regrettably noticeable in the formal statements of the National Curriculum and School Examination Syllabuses. Textbooks are produced whose authors inevitably 'kow-tow' to the dictates of examining bodies and regrettably, most teachers in turn, blindly follow on unquestioningly.

A teacher who expresses ideas contrary to the prevailing secular world-view knows that he risks suspicion and scorn from both his students and his colleagues. Truly the fear of man is a great snare (Pr 29:25). But as challenging and as revolutionary as it may seem, Christian teachers must grasp this particular nettle if ever they are to make significant spiritual in-roads into the hearts and minds of today's youngsters and tomorrows generation of cultural transformers. Church leaders too must do their part. Apart from the mercy and grace of God, as long as Christianity is preached as a 'religious optional extra', all we can hope to secure in the lives of the children under our charge is a weak, existential piety in which the historical Christ must be squeezed and trimmed to fit. We urgently need thinking Christians who understand Scientism's subtle message and mistakes to speak out with clarity, conviction and courage against it. The same classroom practitioners must, in its place, be prepared to express without compromise the integrity and infallibility of the Biblical historical narrative however loud and disagreeable the objection. Such ambassadors must strive to be 'as shrewd as serpents and as innocent as doves' (Matt 10:16).
Top

What can be done?

Until or unless the Science/Faith problem is properly tackled at a higher level (i.e. Government & University), the likelihood is that present curriculum constraints will substantially apply for the foreseeable future. Teachers must therefore do all that they can to ensure that pupils, parents and fellow colleagues are reminded frequently that all is not what it seems when popular so-called scientific dogma presents itself before them.

In the meantime, the same Science teachers may care to try some or all of the following:

• Remind classes of great Scientists from the past who have believed in God and the Bible. This can be done easily enough by displaying pictures of them together with brief quotes indicating their spiritual allegiance and a summary of what in particular they are famous for. This simple exercise alone can be staggeringly effective in assuring students that a simple trust in the Bible as the word of God is not tantamount to intellectual suicide - a popular media contention. Most are astonished to find out how many past worthies were committed to Biblical authority. Henry Morris, for example, lists over forty Scientific disciplines and a further twenty-six notable inventions or discoveries which were established or substantially developed by Bible-believing Scientists .
  
  
• Note every occasion when an evolutionary/old-earth paradigm (millions or billions of years) is explicitly mentioned or implied by a text-book, examination question or visitor and courteously point out the fallibility of the statement. Wherever possible, we must give the alternative (always better) Biblical explanation of the same data. We shall look at a few examples from each of Physics, Chemistry & Biology in due course. Remember, 'The first to present his case seems right, till another comes forward and questions him'. (Pr 18:17)
  
  
• Display a variety of topical data which is not readily explained by current orthodox science. E.g. presence of information in DNA; lack of Solar neutrinos; rapid decay of Geo-magnetic field; recessional velocity of the Moon; lack of intermediate fossils to mention but a few! Posters can readily be constructed from cut and pasted copies of old 'Creation ex Nihilo' magazines which are brightly coloured and always helpfully illustrated.
  
  
• Provide summary background reading and further information for all who express an interest in the controversy. There is a vast array of useful internet help and information freely available. I have found Ian Campbell's Creation Matters booklet most helpful with both staff and sixth form students .
  
  
• Circulate periodically to all staff and interested pupils anti-scientism news sheets (e.g. The Sceptic ) with appropriate comments. Being factually based they are both thought-provoking and good stimulants to follow-up discussion. We must never undermine the therapeutic value of truth. You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free. (Jn 8:32)
  
  
• Make helpful literature & video resources available in the School library and actively encourage its perusal. Catalogues advertising such specialist items are available from at least two UK based organisations .
  
  
• Organise talks by specialist Scientists who are able to provide authoritative pronouncements in favour of the Biblical world-view whilst providing a fair but critical appraisal of naturalism. There is a need for someone to draw up a list of suitable personnel together with their academic credentials and contact details in order for Schools nationally to take advantage of such visits.
  
  
• Set up a Science Critical Forum in which the relevant issues in the context of topical items of science news are discussed within the School. The claim of 'religious neutrality' everywhere vaunted by the secular dominated mass media will be shown to be spurious. Students and (teachers) must be shown instead that what is served up as Science for popular consumption is frequently riddled with subtle atheistic propaganda the fruit of which is the paralysis of true spiritual thinking and Christian action.
  

It remains for us to examine a few notable examples of how naturalism has infected the National Curriculum in each of the three principal areas of Biology, Chemistry and Physics. In doing so we shall try to provide a measure of suggestion and practical advice for those involved at the chalk-face.
Top

Biology

Biologists ought at the very least to recognise and draw particular attention to the lack of factual evidence for macro-evolution. They must clearly teach that whilst limited variation within species can and does occur (micro-evolution) it is intellectually dishonest to extrapolate such evidence and marshal it in support of general evolutionary theory. Mutations just do not produce new information necessary for the production of whole new organs or appendages. Typically they involve either a loss of information or, at best, an adjustment of it. The distinguished Australian molecular biologist Michael Denton , among others, has closely examined the limitations of mutational variation and has shown that it is most unreasonable to imagine that successive slight changes of coded information can account for the large scale differences between say a mouse and an elephant or an octopus and a bee.

Biology teachers should encourage students to identify 'design features' for all living systems to which they are introduced and should help them to recognise organisms which possess intrinsic/irreducible complexity. Michael Behe's book, Darwin's Black Box and Stuart Burgess' recent book, Hallmarks of Design are essential background reading. Students and/or staff reading either of these important works will learn to recognise interdependence, functional intricacy and structures showing optimum efficiency which characterise living things. Through such training, they will graduate with the sentiments of King David ringing loud and clear in their hearts and minds: For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. (Ps 139:13,14)

Perhaps too, students would do well to read a little of Rudyard Kipling in order to appreciate how relatively easy it is to devise a story-like explanation for alleged evolutionary adaptations. They should be reassured that in most cases, the evidence marshalled in support of such fables is simply non-existent.

They might note the remarkable interdependence of symbiotic systems (e.g. the yucca plant and the yucca moth) and the obvious need for each to commence functioning simultaneously to account for their present existence.

Biologists must constantly remind pupils that information concentrated in cellular tissue ensuring function, growth and replacement is a distinct entity from the molecules upon which it is written. Such information never arises spontaneously by chance: rather, in accordance with the universal law of cause and effect, it must be the product of intelligent thought. The genetic code thus provides overwhelming prima facie evidence for intelligent design. Only blind, wilful ignorance prevents serious-minded people from seeing it. The Apostle Paul, with remarkable prophetic insight, immediately afterwards comments, 'For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools' (Rom 1:21,22)

Summarising, by providing a thorough understanding of the form and function of creatures and plants found within creation, they must aim to foster within their students a response of awe, wonder and humility before their Maker.
Top

Chemistry

Chemists should point out the remarkable fact that an astonishing variety of materials and compounds now known to us are all formed from 'the dust of the ground' and that the evident order epitomized in the periodic table betrays the fact that the Creator is a God order not chaos. They ought to recognise the delicate balance of power which governs atomic and molecular bonding mechanisms and which gives rise to the vast array of substances formed.

The so called 'Anthropic Principle' is an important concept which has only been recognised as scientifically significant relatively recently. Briefly summarised, it states that the Earth (indeed the whole universe) comprises an apparently unique environment full of materials whose processes of change/regulation are governed by physical laws that are remarkably fine-tuned, enabling life in general and human life in particular to be maintained. There are many catalogued examples of such fine tuning that it is easily shown that the statistical probability of them collectively existing within such narrowly permissible ranges is vanishingly small. Dr Arthur Jones notes one remarkable example:

In dry air, 78 out of every 100 atoms are nitrogen whilst 21 are oxygen. Nitrogen's relatively unreactive molecules are essential to build air pressure and to dilute oxygen. The proportion of oxygen is quite critical: with less than 15% oxygen, no fire could be lit, whereas at 22%, forest fires would occur too easily and at 25% even wet vegetation would burn (so lightning would quickly destroy the living world) .

In view of the current inclusion of Earth Science into the Sc3 component of the National Curriculum , it would seem particularly prudent for all who deliver this aspect of the course to familiarise themselves with Flood Geology papers of Whitcomb & Morris . These plainly show the superiority of a catastrophe paradigm over and against the still prevailing orthodoxy of uniformitarianism to explain various topological features of the Earth such as fossilisation, sedimentation, lava flows & magnetic reversals etc. In particular, they would do well to point out that no rock is unearthed with a clear age label and that dating processes in general are speculative, frequently contradictory and in many instances altogether incompatible with a great age. This is especially important when dealing with the alleged aeons required for the formation of hydrocarbons (coal; oil and gas deposits) and various metamorphic rocks. Such issues have been dealt with most helpfully by Dr John D Morris and his team at the Institute for Creation Research.
Top

Physics

Physicists must stress the very great difference between well-established empirical laws of Science (especially the conservation laws) and the highly speculative, hypothetical extrapolations into the distant past/future currently in vogue in cosmology. It is mostly in the field of astronomy where the controversy tends to rage. The apparent close-relationship between cosmology and elementary particle theory stems from the assumption that the universe began with a Big Bang and that in the immediate aftermath elementary sub-atomic particles evolved into larger particles which in turn eventually formed stars, solar systems and finally Galaxies.

Bearing this in mind, it is sobering to remember that no star has ever been observed forming or moving through the alleged main sequence. Theoretical time-scales involve millions/billions of years. No observer therefore could possibly monitor it! Spectacular photographic images typically show relatively static formations. Thus, while categorisation of stars can be carried out according to Hertzsprung-Russel Bearing this in mind, it is sobering to remember that no star has ever been observed forming or moving through the alleged main sequence. Theoretical time-scales involve millions/billions of years. No observer therefore could possibly monitor it! Spectacular photographic images typically show relatively static formations. Thus, while categorisation of stars can be carried out according to Hertzsprung-Russell criteria, whether the great variety of star types represent evidence of stellar evolution remains fundamentally unproved. Furthermore, the elusive dark matter urgently needed to rescue a semblance of reasonableness for modern cosmology theory is still missing. Hence, why rapidly expanding debris from a primeval explosion spreading out to fill three dimensional space should ever overcome the initial self-destructive gravitational force of an alleged Big Bang is still a most pertinent question.

Closer to home, the new draft GCSE syllabus specifications for NEAB (AQA) for example requires students to be introduced to notions of where our Solar System came from. They are encouraged to suppose that the raw materials were ejected from previously exploding stars which somehow condensed into the intricate spinning and orbital elements of our Solar System. Physics teachers must give careful thought and consideration to the actual data (i.e. planets; moons; rings; magnetic fields; anomalous orbits; comets etc,) and then weigh the possibility of such intricate structure and complexity arising by chance. They should go on to explain that the time-honoured laws of Physics collectively cry out 'impossible'! But this should not surprise us. The Bible teaches plainly that 'the heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands.' (Ps 19:1). It is God who did it. By the word of the Lord were the heavens made, their starry host by the breath of His mouth. Psalm 33:6 The full array of objects which fill up the night sky 'speak' loudly and clearly of the creative work of God - 'there is no speech or language where their voice is not heard. Their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world.' (Ps 19:3,4)

Physicists should constantly remind their students that no laws of Physics are better attested than the Laws of Thermodynamics. They should develop a clear understanding of the Second Law in particular which prohibits the spontaneous, unaided development of orderly systems from disordered, chaotic ones. They should then use it to demonstrate the impossibility of alleged natural processes producing the evident complex structure evident all around us - especially in living things. Carl Sagan, who spent so much of his life working on the SETI (search for extra-terrestrial intelligence) project knew that pattern and order are the characteristics of signals which would positively indicate a source of intelligence. It is both sad and ironic that this dedicated humanist, while searching for it in radio signals from space, could (would?) not recognise the same fingerprints in the information bound up in the genetic code so close to home.

Physicists too should utilise the ideas of the Anthropic Principle to underscore how finely tuned the Earth/Moon/Sun system is as a harbour for life. They should point out that

• the period of the Earth's rotation (24 hrs) is critical. Much faster and violent windstorms would be destructive; Much slower and the day time/nigh time temperatures would be too extreme.
  
  
• the Moon's gravity is critical. Much greater and the tides would be catastrophic; much less and the oceans would become stagnant through insufficient mixing.
  
  
• the temperature of the Earth's surface is critical. Too hot and excessive water vapour and carbon dioxide will collect in atmospheric clouds and the greenhouse effect will run away with itself causing a the ice-caps to melt and further overheating; too cold and more snow and ice will form reflecting solar energy promoting yet cooler temperatures.
  
  

Finally, Physicists must underscore Karl Popper's contention that experiments designed to test or validate a proposed theory, may only falsify. Thus hard data derived from such tests demonstrate, at best, that the theory might be true.
Top

Relevance & importance of a proper approach

Does a distinctively Biblical approach to Science teaching really matter? Yes it does and it matters a great deal: much is at stake. The Bible informs us that our thinking largely determines the way in which we live (Prov 23:7). Over the past one hundred and fifty years or so, a great thinking wedge has been driven between alleged 'absolute scientific truth' and in stark contrast, tenuous and subjective 'religious belief'. Science masquerades today as a pursuit of ultimate truth. Hence, an idea promoted constantly within academia and the mass media is that people can be classified as either 'religious' or 'non-religious' depending on whether or not they carry any religious baggage in their heads together with the religiously neutral, objective facts of Science.

[By way of illustration, let me recall an announcement earlier this year by the BBC concerning the new Art exhibition in London's National Gallery - Seeing the Light. Members of the public were informed that the curators had kindly posted explanatory captions against each picture for the benefit of all perusing the displays who were 'not religious'. The potency of this declaration lay in the fact that listeners think that they are merely being informed whereas in reality they are being subliminally conditioned to categorise human beings as either religious or non-religious.]

It is however philosophically dishonest to make such a division. As we have stated earlier, we are all believers in something. The issue is not that some have beliefs while others don't. Rather it is that some believe what is true, while others believe what is false.

So is Christianity & the Bible true - historically, scientifically and objectively or is atheistic, humanistic, materialism true? One's allegiance to either requires a certain leap of faith. For example, the secular humanist believes that

• nothing but blind impersonal chance directs the energy which drives the universe
  
  
• all that exists are photons and atoms (waves and particles) which behave uniformly and consistently.
  
  
• all processes are natural processes which may ultimately be understood as a single mathematical equation. Hence mathematicians and physicists hold the keys to real/absolute knowledge and truth.
  
  
• all thought and feeling are comprehensible in terms of natural electro-mechanical processes
  
  
• death is simply physical obliteration.
  
  
• God and spiritual ideas are helpful (utilitarian) figments of imagination etc.
  

If he is ruthlessly honest (but why should he be?) reason and rationality have no prior claim upon his thoughts than irrationality. If blind, purposeless chance is the sole driving forces behind the universe, why should there even be such a thing as reason?

It ought to be apparent to all thinking individuals that none of the above are hard facts: demonstrably or empirically true. Hence the Science built upon such foundational assumptions is tantamount to atheism - a belief.

As we stated at the beginning, Christians, with very good reason, reckon the Scriptures of the Old & New Testaments a reliable guide concerning just what we are to believe. They are not merely religious documents. They provide us with a true account of Earth history which we ignore at our peril. Many who parade as competent scientists today are unwittingly asking the same question which Satan first uttered back in Genesis, 'Did God really say...?'(3:1)

A true knowledge about real nature of everything (i.e. the goal of true Science) will inevitably lead those who possess such knowledge to a realisation that they have been supernaturally and specially created by Jesus Christ. This same God therefore has a rightful claim upon their life - indeed, by virtue of His historical creative act, He actually owns them (Col 1:17). Ownership logically implies accountability and accountability anticipates judgement.

True Science then should confirm pupils' realisation that they are rational, spiritual beings of infinite worth with immortal souls whose eternal destiny, because of their sin, is placed in the balance. True science is no enemy of true religion. Indeed, the fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge and of wisdom (Proverbs 1:7 and 9:10). As the 17th century astronomer Johannes Kepler remarked, his work consisted of 'thinking God's thoughts after Him'.

May it please God to raise up a new generation of Scientists who are duly respectful of their Maker and who, recognising the limitations of human scientific enquiry, give full weight of respect to the statements of propositional truth of Holy Scripture - being the authoritative Word of God.

Top

Copyright © 1996 - 2002 The Christian Institute All Rights Reserved

The Christian Institute, 26 Jesmond Road, Newcastle-Upon-Tyne, NE2 4PQ
Tel: (0191) 281 5664. Fax: (0191) 281 4272
Email: info@christian.org.uk Internet: http://www.christian.org.uk/

The Christian Institute is a company limited by guarantee, registered in England as a charity.
Company No. 263 4440 Charity No. 100 4774

Myths and lies persist over Nicaragua

Let’s get it out of the way first because it is an inevitable (if also a bit ridiculous) rebuttal. Daniel Ortega, Nicaragua’s newly re-elected president, may be a political thug in the same way that politicians in most “democracies” are, including the United States. They buy support and form alliances for political advantage and then, after winning office, they decide to push policies the general population opposes. In Ortega’s case, the former is probably true, the latter may not be true. Time will tell, but regardless of what route he takes, he will be accused of treachery from one side or the other.

But this is not about Ortega's behavior. This is about the media's behavior. If current coverage is any cue, the U.S. media will only show the side that agrees with Washington's opinion.

For instance, a recent article published in The Washington Post written by N.C. Aizenman is ridiculously inaccurate and misleading. The scary part is it is only a (extremely) small taste of more to come.

One of the more obvious myths the article pushes is that the Contras were a positive force for democracy in the 80’s. This is rejected by any fair reading of historical facts(click here for a small example). Even Wikipedia is more accurate. The Contras were a U.S. controlled (and created) proxy terrorist force of the right-wing and land owning class in Nicaragua. Oh, and weren’t some of those “rebels” on the CIA payroll anyway?

Through fear and violence, the Contras (and their U.S. backers) only made democracy and free elections more difficult in Nicaragua. For this article to quote statements that the contras “were the ones who gave Nicaraguans their democracy” without a rebuttal is ridiculous in itself. But to also imply, in the face of evidence to the contrary, that the Contras were indeed responsible for democracy and, to add insult to injury, were and are the victims, is beyond comprehension. They were aggressors, plain in simple.

The article makes the implication that the Contras retained some kind of popular support. But then it refutes its own claim when it states the Contras numbered “12,000 at their peek.” I suppose it’s hard to twist facts when even the inflated versions don’t help your case.

The Contras were vastly unpopular and feared in Nicaragua. You get a hint of this in the article. “Everybody there knows what operations you were responsible for, and there may be those who want to take their revenge.” That was a former Contra stating why he didn’t return to his ranch. But this statement leaves you in some kind of limbo, wondering what exactly he means be “operations” and why such a popular democracy promoting group would be so hated that one of its foot soldiers feared facing his neighbors. You would think he would be welcomed as a hero. That is, if we assume the Contras were actually popular. I guess according to Aizenman, disappearances, murders, and torture are all good reasons for love and admiration, especially for the people who had to face the possibility of these pleasantries every day.

And even though the article makes a point of quoting a former Contra who claimed the Sandinista government “gunned down his father and confiscated his family’s cattle ranch” the majority of human rights violations were committed by the U.S. backed Contras, not the Sandinistas. Undoubtedly, things have changed. But present greviances do not change the facts of the past.

Indeed, when compared to other U.S. backed governments in Central America at the time, the Sandinistas were highly passive towards oppositional forces and especially kind to the civilian population. Even election conditions were greatly superior to other countries in the region, especially the U.S. client states El Salvador and Guatemala. (See Herman Chomsky)

Of course comparisons only mean so much. Case studies referenced in many books and articles, most notably in Chomsky’s Manufacturing Consent, show that election conditions in Nicaragua were generally good and the Contras posed a threat to democracy, not an aide.

The main problem with this article is the framing. The Contras come off as victims even though they were the U.S. backed aggressors. Ortega may not be the man for Nicaragua’s future but the article doesn’t want to examine his policies. It only wants to twist facts to sympathize with a history that never happened. Well at least not in the way the article wants it be understood.

But regardless, pushing known myths is still just as dishonest as it was in the 80’s. It’s discouraging (or encouraging, depending on who you ask) to know nothing much has changed in the media's coverage.

Flowers for the clients. Trash for the competition.

Rumsfeld barely scathed

If a former high level U.S. official is being charged for international war crimes, it seems like it would be pretty big news. Maybe someone I know would have heard about it. Well, not when it is a 200 word snippet on page A20 of the Washington Post.

Maybe it has been on the news, though I doubt it.

Maybe the charges were explained in detail. They weren’t.

Maybe the article would mention others who are also being charged. None were.

Hopefully once the case goes forward there will be some truly in-depth reporting on the issue, though it is highly unlikely.

Starbuck's Coffee Conservatives

This isn’t quite a mass media issue but it sure resembles some small aspect of it. Then again, most everything involves some intertwining media issues.

Apparently, conservatives were outraged because too many liberal writers got their little quotes on Starbucks cups. You’ve probably read or seen them at least once. I have, though Starbucks espresso has some kind of weird detergent taste to it that I just can't stand. But sometimes it is just about the only place around.

Anyway, The New Republic has an article about conservative pundits getting all up in arms because they were a marginalized voice on the Starbucks cups. So of course, like any good corporation, Starbucks caved.

Now, conservatives get to be in every Starbucks across the country. Well, at least their quotes get to be on the cups. All this because Concerned Women for America, some fundamentalist conservative Christian group, cried enough. Starbucks, like the media outlets, doesn’t want to take the chance of offending the religious bloc. Too bad. Somebody needs to.

The media on Chavez and Uribe: Client states favored over enemies

Sure, Chavez may have authoritarian tendencies, he may be hostile to the United States, he has made alliances with US enemies, and he has called Bush a donkey.

On the other hand, the United States has a history of supporting violent military coups, at times lending assistance in genocide, other times showing tacit support to dictatorial regimes, and has shown hostility to many democracies in South America, past and present, including Venezuela. To top it off, the US at least showed tacit support for the forced removal of the democratically elected Chavez, at the most had a hand in his kidnapping. The media only ever mentions the possibility of “tacit” support, repeated verbatim across all media channels – as if they have something more substantial than the US governments word to supply as evidence. The Times never even bothers to mention that the real hostility started after the 2002 coup against Chavez in Venezuela which the United States openly supported.

Venezuela’s “leftist” leader may have failed in his attempt to get a Security Council seat but so did Guatemala, the country the right-wing US government was supporting. The Chavez government used tons of money to try to win the vote; however, the US has been using its enormous economic and military power as influence for decades. Something Venezuela could hardly hope to counter.

The Times’ Simon Romero only finds importance in the “limits of the efforts by the Venezuelan president, Hugo Chavez, to find a prominent platform for his views.”

This is all typical of the media’s reporting on Venezuela. When Venezuela strengthens ties with countries in opposition to the United States this is depicted as simply “an effort to counter the power of the United States.”

It seems impossible for the media to consider that Venezuela may actually being doing the exact same thing the US claims to be doing when it strengthens ties to not so pleasant bedfellows – simply looking out for their own “national interests.” At least allow the readers to decide without influence from what sounds like a US State Department press release.

Chavez’s government isn’t the only one getting special treatment by the media. A recent article in the Washington Post about landmine use in Colombia left two important factors out of its coverage. One, the US has pushed Uribe to up the intensity of crop eradication and military operations in Colombia - which is highly funded by the US.

Also, the questions surrounding the paramilitary in Colombia were not included in the article. The fact they have not set down their arms and continue a violent rampage of torture, murder and other human rights violations, and that they were not completely exonerated by the cited study of landmine use, is not mentioned.

So which country is the client state?

When in doubt just read the paper.