Is it real science or Biblical fairy tale?
|Ever since Darwin shocked the world with his, "Origin of the Species", the battle between those that believe in God and those that do not has grown immensely. Many take Darwin's theories of evolution as scientific proof that God does not exist and that everything in the Bible is just a fairy tale.
At first the religious community took a harsh resentment against Darwin and his followers, accusing their science of blasphemy. Most governments censored Darwin's work for many years before finally allowing publication. The infamous Scopes Trial in 1925 exposed the religious bias against the scientific community in America. With time, believers eventually adopted the attitude that science doesn't always refute religious doctrine and both can exist together.
Creation Science, the name given by the US media to the God believing academia world in the early 70's, applied to any theory giving validity of any sorts to Biblical content. Noah's flood is held as the prime example of scientific discoveries converted to an alternate theory. Creation Scientists claim there is ample evidence available to conclude that a world-wide catastrophic flood took place approximately five to six thousand years ago.
But, do not be confused and link Creation Science to Creationism. The latter is the belief in the literal interpretation of events in the Bible as to how the universe and mankind were created by God. Creation Science relies on theories based entirely on evidence collected, regardless of content included in the Bible.
Evolutionists base almost all theories on the lapse of billion of years since the earth and universe formed from the "Big Bang". Creation Scientists base many theories on the Vapor Canopy Theory. Isaac Vail (1840 -1912) first proposed the canopy theory in 1874. The canopy is used to explain the long life spans of pre-flood humanity, along with the source of all the water required to explain a global flood. Those believing in the Vapor Canopy Theory claim to present ample scientific evidence to back the hundreds of hypothesis derived from the canopy's collapse a few thousand years ago. For any person to accept the theory, he would have to question most widely established evolutionary beliefs.
The role of censoring the other side has now fallen to the Evolutionists. A well organized movement by atheistic groups across the nation has formed powerful political action committees in efforts to keep Creation Science out of public school curriculum. Several state legislatures have attempted to allow public schools to include Creation Science theories whenever theories of Evolution are taught. The Supreme Court in 82 overruled Arkansas' legislation by claiming Creation Science was religion and not science.
In 1981 I filed legislation in the 67th Texas Legislature allowing public schools to include Creation Science whenever evolution was taught. I didn't mandate it; I only gave teachers the ability to include alternate ideas if they chose to do so. The bill forbade any reference to religious texts and commanded that all theories be based on the same criteria the evolutionists used:
* State the question
* Form a hypothesis
* Do experiments (research)
* Interpret data
* Draw conclusions
Though opposition was strong from outside atheistic groups, I did manage to get a committee hearing on my bill. We invited more than fifty science professors from major accredited universities across the country. Each of these individuals held doctorates of science and had published alternate theories conflicting with established evolutionary theories. We had all the sciences covered from Biology to Paleontology.
The hearing lasted three days. Each of my scientists presented alternate theories and produced evidence gathered to back the hypothesis. There was never a mention of God or the Bible from our side.
Then it was time for the opposition's view. Madelyn O'Hare, renowned atheist, was their top gun. Along with her appeared some high school teachers and a few protestant ministers. Each accused Creation Science of being religion. It was as if none had heard a word of the past days of testimony. They never presented one member of the scientific community to refute any theory presented by my people.
Though the hall was packed with reporters each day of the hearings, you'd think they all were at another place by the content of their articles. Though we harped it over and over again that we did not want the teaching of the Bible in our schools, the media constantly referred to our cause as just that. It was the first time in my life to discover that our mainstream media is run by secular humanists that care nothing for truth. Fake News!
Some author created an article in the popular website, Wikipedia, on Creation Science. His definition of Creation Science is clearly not accurate nor does any Creation Scientist share his definitions of what they believe. It does; however, repeat the one-sided bias intent of most atheists. He refutes all alternate theories to Evolution as non-scientific and that it is strictly based on stories in the Bible. The website's editors have joined him in censoring all attempts to add truth to the article. They have even censored conflicting comments in the discussion section and allow only favorable entries.
When is science not science? Let's say some explorer climbs Mt. Arafat tomorrow and discovers a large ship frozen in the ice. Scientists excavate the site and discover many animal cages and evidence that the ship has been there for approximately five to six thousand years. Under the definitions invented by Evolutionists, scientists cannot derive theories that a catastrophic flood took place a few thousand years ago and that someone built a ship to save animals from drowning. That would give validity to a story in the Bible, making it religion and not science. This is exactly what has been taking place in the scientific community for many years. No evidence, however it was obtained, is allowed to refute evolutionary theories or lend proof to something mentioned in the Bible.
What is religion? Simply, it is a belief based solely on faith. Is belief in the Vapor Canopy Theory based solely on faith? No, there is ample physical evidence available that the canopy could have existed. There is at least enough evidence to form theories and hypothesis relating to the evidence. Is the theory that the earth and planets are over 3.4 billion years old based solely on faith? Yes. There is absolutely no scientific evidence available to justify the age theory. The only evidence available dates Earth at approximately twenty thousand years. To accept most Evolutionary theories, you must first believe things have been around for more time than can be substantiated. Faith is required more for theories of Evolution than for Creation Science theories.
Since the formation of Royal Society of London in 1660, you can find countless papers published by the scientific community that contradict accepted evolution theories. Popular sedimentation theories that were used exclusively to date evolutionary events were disputed long ago by simply looking a mile down stream to find dinosaur fossils higher up the strata than human remains. Before the first lunar lander reached the moon, evolutionists were sure the moon was covered with at least 20 ft. of powdered dust. When it was found to be only 2 inches, the evolution scientists refused to change their theories on how old the moon was. There are countless scientific finds that never make their way into text books because they conflict with highly accepted evolution theories.
Science has become the tool of the secular humanists. They are so intent to rid the world of religion that they have become a religion of their own. To them, no real scientist can believe in a creator and no science can be allowed to back something in the Bible. And he dare not dispute accepted evolutionary theories. History has taught us that religion in control can hinder our ability to find the truth. Our forefathers did a great thing by separating the two; however, they had no intention of censoring one side or the other as what is now happening with theories that conflict with evolution.
Related Essays Writer.com: