Nonsense or Nonscience

In November of this year Senator Marco Rubio caused a small uproar when he responded to an unexpected question during an interview with GQ.  The question was simply, “How old do you think the earth is?”  Marco's sputtering and convoluted answer betrayed a position that is all to common for America's professing Christians.  We live in a country that has a tense but polite truce between two world-views that are at war. Nowhere is this more evident than in the political arena. Marco was in a tough spot that no professing Christian would envy.  How could he reconcile his foolish superstitions with the indisputable theory-facts of god-free science and still maintain some semblance of intellect?  Unfortunately, it has somehow come to this oddly stark choice: either throw your brain or Jesus under the bus. A gut-wrenching choice indeed. But why has it come to this?  Is there some unspoken cannon of scientific knowledge that must be accepted or rejected in its entirety in order to avoid being labelled and imbecile? Last I looked, there was no such scientific "bible" containing the indisputable facts of true knowledge.  Actually, the notion itself is the antithesis of science. It is science masquerading as mathematics.

What I mean is that true science should hold all knowledge in a constant state of doubt.  If there is one basic tennet of science, it is that nothing is settled.  Everything is subject to questioning, debate, testing and experimentation.  The areas of knowledge that fall under the label "science" are not things that can be proven with absolute certainty, whereas the concepts of mathematics can be.  A scientific theory is a very different animal than a mathematical one.  No matter how much a scientist may wish a theory to become a fact it can never be.  Much like Geppetto wishing Pinocchio to become a real boy without the benefit of a Blue Fairy. Even worse, there are areas of knowledge that adopt the monicker of "science" but are mostly unworthy of the title.  Like inanimate marionettes their practitioners prance them about on strings on stages composed of academic journals hoping that the public will be gullible enough to mistake them for real science. These are fields such as Anthropology, Archeology and Geology dealing with questions and concepts that are not testable by either direct observation or experimentation.  These fields are more forensic than scientific in nature and many of their theories are mere speculation and conjecture. I am not saying that these fields have not made valuable contributions to society. They have. But they are all to often careless and overreaching and clouded with opinion rather than unbiased research.

What I am trying to get across here is that what so many people wish to pass off as a monolithic and cohesive body of knowledge that they call science is nothing of the sort.  Rather it is a spectrum of knowledge and assertion supported by bulwarks of varying strength and veracity, none of which can attain to the status of unassailable fact. Indeed the very idea of a scientific concept as dogma should be anathema to any real "scientist."  Unfortunately, the popular discourse does not welcome debate on scientific issues, rather it condescends to and shames any and all who might dare to question certain theories.  Certain ideas and concepts have been walled off and declared forbidden.  To breach any of these barriers brings a hasty cacophony of cries of scientific "blasphemy" from the self-anointed priests of science.

While the reasons for this attitude vary from pride to greed to just plain obstinance, there is a strong correlation between these blasphemy-barriers and those scientific theories that prop up atheistic philosophies.  Such is the case with evolution and the age of the earth.  The emotional responses that questioning these theories elicits from seemingly Vulcan-like scientists betrays them as impure half-breeds having religious sensibilities underneath thin logical facades.  There is no rational defense for the impolite and irrational rhetoric that flows from otherwise cool headed individuals.  Why should my doubts regarding the results of the radiometric dating of rocks or the origins of life cause them such consternation? Why should their ridicule and condemnation force me to reconcile what are, at the core, inevitably irreconcilable philosophies? For indeed it is philosophies that are at odds and not science as they claim.

And that is the bottom line, isn't it? Atheists hiding behind a hijacked veil of "science" and throwing hand grenades at those who dare believe that God exists. Atheists wish to declare a monopoly on intelligence while exiling all others under a banner emblazoned with "FOOLS." But by doing so they have rejected an area of knowledge, the knowledge of God, as being nonsense. They hold the laws of the physical universe as paramount and preeminent.  The very idea of a being that is not bound by and controlled by such laws, who might break them, or worse, rewrite them at any instant is utterly repulsive. They reject the divine based on doctrine rather than discernment because His existence necessitates the obliteration of the very ground on which they plant their feet while shaking their fists at Him. And in their passion and hypocrisy reveals their nonscience.

"...men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.
Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen." - Romans 1:18-25

The Man in the Monkey Suit

Recently, an old friend/coworker of mine re-connected with me and the conversation swerved toward theology for the first time in our relationship.  Turns out Jeff (not his real name) is an atheist and he wanted to discuss his beliefs (or lack thereof) with someone with opposing views.  At the time, I was in the middle of re-reading C. S. Lewis' book Mere Christianity.  It wasn't too far into our discussion before I challenged Jeff to read Mere Christianity and volunteered to read a book of his choosing.  A few day's later Richard Dawkin's book The Greatest Show On Earth: The Evidence for Evolution showed up in the mail.

I was aware of Richard Dawkin's reputation as a vocal atheist and I wasn't looking forward to reading anything he'd written.  Not because I was afraid he'd shake my faith, but because I'd seen some interviews and heard some excerpts from his books.  The man seems to take great pleasure in concocting new insults for those who don't agree with his opinions.  He wasted no time in confirming my fears by calling creationists a "baying pack of ignoramuses" in the first paragraph. This set the tone for the entire book.

Apparently, these "ignoramuses" don't just disbelieve that animals all evolved from a single cell, they deny any form of adaptation whatsoever.  This could be deduced from the fact that almost the entire first half of the book is devoted to establishing that almost every life form on the planet is capable of radical adaption in response to their environment.  This isn't something I disagree with, in fact, I actually embrace it as further evidence of God's ingenious design for His creation.

Adaptation: A Must Have Feature
Adaptation of an extreme sort would be necessary for animals to survive a transition from a pre-flood earth to the much harsher and varied climates of the post-flood planet. The book of Genesis gives us some clues:

Then God said, “Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.” God made the expanse, and separated the waters which were below the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse; and it was so. God called the expanse heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.

Then God said, “Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so. God called the dry land earth, and the gathering of the waters He called seas; and God saw that it was good. - Genesis 1:6-10 (NASB)

These verses seem to indicate that the pre-flood earth was surrounded by a sort of water barrier.  Such a barrier would have homogenized the earth's climate (like a greenhouse) and resulted in far fewer species (few enough to fit on the ark) since there would have been no need for animals to adapt to widely varying climates. The assertion that the pre-flood earth was a much more hospitable place is bolstered by the fact that only afterwards did God allow Noah and his descendants to eat meat.

And God blessed Noah and his sons and said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth. The fear of you and the terror of you will be on every beast of the earth and on every bird of the sky; with everything that creeps on the ground, and all the fish of the sea, into your hand they are given. Every moving thing that is alive shall be food for you; I give all to you, as I gave the green plant. - Genesis 9:1-3 (NASB)

Why the sudden change of heart about meat?  Because the pre-flood greenhouse was gone.  From that point forward seasons would dictate when food could be grown and in many harsher climates meat would become the only available food source.

To believe the account of Biblical flood, one has to believe in Adaptation.  If fact, in order for the current number of species in a mere 4,000 years one has to believe in a sort of adaptation on steroids. This has historically represented a very big difficulty for the Biblical timeline.  Fortunately, the budding field of Epigenetics is now producing evidence that this accelerated rate of adaptation may not be a problem after all.

Carbon Footprints
Dawkin's explanation of carbon dating is found on pages 103-107.  Carbon dating is based on the assumption that the ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 in the atmosphere (and thus in all living things via the food chain) has been a relative constant throughout history.  When a living thing dies and is removed from the food chain, the carbon-14 in their body begins to decay with a half-life of 5,730 years.  By measuring the difference between the amount of carbon-14 remaining in a fossil and the carbon-14 that should have been present at the time of death we can calculate a rough estimate of the fossil's age.  But is the assumption of a constant ratio of carbon isotopes realistic?

Carbon-14 is special because it is continually being made by cosmic rays bombarding nitrogen atoms in the upper atmosphere. - The Greatest Show On Earth, p 104.

There is every reason to believe that the antediluvian atmosphere would have exhibited a much smaller ratio of carbon-14 than our current one.  Arguably, a newly created atmosphere would have been totally free of carbon-14.  In addition the water barrier surrounding the earth would have greatly reduced the number of cosmic rays reaching the upper atmosphere. It would also make sense that the majority of fossils in existence would be pre-flood plants and animals encased in the massive sediment deposition resulting from such a catastrophic event.  We would expect these fossils to have much lower levels of carbon-14, not because they are billions of years old, but because of the altered environment in which they lived. Once again we see that more than one theory can fit the existing facts.

The Man in the Monkey Suit
Dawkins believes that there is only one possible conclusion from the evidence: that The Theory of Evolution is an undeniable fact. His belief is so strong that he makes little effort to hide the revulsion and contempt he feels for anyone who might dare to interpret the evidence any other way. How can I, a college educated, reasonably intelligent and fairly informed individual, come to such a different conclusion?  It seems obvious to me that the reason is that one of his biggest "facts" has been left undeclared: that there is no God. It is this unstated presupposition that informs his investigation and drives his conclusions.

On page 14 of Dawkin's book he describes an experiment performed by a Professor Daniel J. Simons at the University of Illinois.  In the experiment, participants are asked to count how many times a basketball is passed back and forth between a group of people in a short video.  After the video is over and the counts are tallied, the researcher then asks, "How many people noticed the gorilla?"

About half of the participants insist there was no gorilla. In a moment of uncharacteristic humility, Dawkin's too admits that he did not see any gorilla the first time he was subjected to the experiment. Although his purpose in mentioning this is to suggest that his opponents are not paying attention, the illustration is a double-edged sword.  Richard is so eager to bolster his atheistic world-view that were God himself to stride across his field of view He would go unnoticed.

The Real Question
And this is the real issue.  Belief in Evolution and the questions regarding whether evidence supports it or not do not occur, cannot occur, in an intellectual vacuum.  As much as various parties wish to don the mantle of Vulcan-like passionless logic, they cannot.  There is too much at stake in the answer. The reality is that belief in Evolution is simply the pedestal that supports a denial of the existence of a creator. This is the real question: IS THERE A GOD?

The entire issue reminds me of the parable in Luke 16:19-31, where Jesus describes how someone in the torment of Hell asks Abraham to send someone back from the dead to warn his brothers:

And he said, ‘Then I beg you, father, that you send him to my father’s house— for I have five brothers—in order that he may warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’ But Abraham said, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.’ But he said, ‘No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent!’ But he said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead.’ - Luke 16:27-31 (NASB)

The Theory of Evolution is actually a red herring.  What Dawkins and other Evolution zealots should be looking for is proof of the existence of God.  Two thousand years ago Jesus himself was asked for similar proof, to which he replied:

“An evil and adulterous generation craves for a sign; and yet no sign will be given to it but the sign of Jonah the prophet; for just as JONAH WAS THREE DAYS AND THREE NIGHTS IN THE BELLY OF THE SEA MONSTER, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." - Matthew 12:39-40 (NASB)

So what about it?  Was Jesus really killed and resurrected on the third day?  This is the sign for our generation.  This is the preposterous belief we should be proving or disproving. Compared to this singular question, evolution versus creationism is just a sideshow.