What Is This World Coming To?

They say that it takes faith to believe in God. I submit that it also takes faith to be an atheistic scientist. While there is no foundation for a belief in “goo to you” evolution, evolution is required to be “true” and “indisputable” because the alternative (a divine cause) is strictly disallowed.

Recently, I read a book REVIEW by Royal Truman over at Creation Ministries International. The book, “A review of Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome”, written by John C Sanford, will most likely end up putting the scientist in hot water with his academic colleagues. Ben Stein, who produced the movie “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” blew the whistle on the common practise of ostracizing dissenters.

Truman begins his review of Sanford’s book thus:

I write this review with very mixed feelings. On the one hand, for the first time some key data are being divulged which we need to include in our models, and which honest thinkers who question evolutionist theory need to digest. But I have a problem. In the Prologue professor Sanford wrote, ‘I knew I would be at odds with the most “sacred cow” of modern academia. Among other things, it might even result in my expulsion from the academic world.’ I know John personally and treasure his intelligence and integrity. In further drawing attention to his book, I may be contributing to having his ties to academia severed, a world to which he has such strong emotional ties and to which he has made so many contributions. I know academics and journalists who have already lost their jobs for questioning Darwinian theory.

He is not exaggerating. I myself have also had my experiences in this matter.

‘I started to realize (again with trepidation), that I might be offending a lot of people’s religion,’ he confides early on. How correct he is. I recently discussed the issue of life’s origins with a dear friend I’ve worked together with for years. He brought up three arguments contra creation which I easily answered on strictly scientific terms. Suddenly he leaped to his feet. Trembling with rage he pointed a finger at me, and yelled that what I was doing was dangerous! The fundamentalists in America are dangerous! They are fighting against tolerance! They refuse to accept science! They are irrational and have no facts!

Further on, Truman observes:

Sanford was a practising evolutionist and at heart a eugenicist (p. 116), who ‘gradually realized that the seemingly “great and unassailable fortress” which has been built up around the Primary Axiom is really a house of cards. … Its apparent invincibility derives largely from bluster, smoke, and mirrors’ (Prologue). But we will learn that evolutionary theory fails on grounds most people did not suspect.

What about cosmology? Surely there’s no “smoke and mirrors” in that discipline! Like evolutionary scientists who cannot allow any input from God, cosmologists are likewise duty bound to that same dogma. They are, also, not averse to using the odd “fudge factors” as this ARTICLE argues.

Recently Max Tegmark said, ‘… 30 years ago, cosmology was largely viewed as somewhere out there between philosophy and metaphysics. You could speculate over a bunch of beers about what happened, and then you could go home, because there wasn’t a whole lot else to do.’ But now they are closing in on a ‘consistent picture of how the universe evolved from the earliest moment to the present.’

How can that be true if none of Lieu’s five listed items can be explained by ‘knowns’? They have been explained by resorting to ‘unknowns’ with the sleight of hand that allows the writer to say ‘we are closing in on the truth.’ I recall Nobel Laureate Steven Chu speaking to a large gathering of high school children on the occasion of the Australian Institute of Physics National Congress at ANU in Canberra in 2005. He said that we now understand nearly all there is to know about the Universe, except for a few small details like what is dark energy and dark matter, which [allegedly] make 96% of the stuff in the Universe. As Homer Simpson would say, ‘Duh!’

The author’s argument is that cosmologists regularly employ theoretical fudge factors like dark matter to explain why the universe is behaving in an otherwise inexplicable manner. Dark matter and dark energy cannot be seen or explained yet they supposedly constitute 96% of the known universe. Scientists need them to exist, therefore they must exist.

Like I said, being an atheistic scientist requires faith.

�