"What is this babbler trying to say?" Acts 17:18

Wednesday, June 13, 2012

Why "We" Don't Believe in Science, er, Evolution

The New Yorker recently had an article with the intriguing title: "Why We Don't Believe in Science." The article cites a poll showing that 46% of Americans believe God created the earth relatively recently. In other words, that is 46% who don't believe in evolution. It explains that this number has "remained virtually unchanged" in the thirty years that Gallup has been asking the question. Now, the obvious answer to the article's question of why we don't believe in science (which in the article is often equated with evolution) is that evolution is not true. Unfortunately, the article overlooks this answer and instead posits that the reason we are so backwards and don't believe is because of (wait for it...): "the irony of evolution: our views about our own development don’t seem to be evolving." Yes, that is rather ironic. Humans seem to be hardwired with a belief in a creator and a creation. One cannot help but be reminded of the Psalmist's words: "The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands" (Psalms 19:1). Or the philosopher Paul's statement that, "what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 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" (Romans 1:19-20).

How does The New Yorker propose to deal with this universally acknowledged fact? One is almost embarrassed at the crudeness of saying what the article proposes: brainwashing. To quote: "This means that science education is not simply a matter of learning new theories. Rather, it also requires that students unlearn their instincts." Yes, think about it. It is brainwashing. Yet another indication that Ben Stein was right in his documentary Expelled. The "science educators" of the article are fools... but don't take my word for it. To quote Paul again: "Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles" (Romans 1:22-23). Thankfully, according to the poll, only 15% of Americans have become total fools, exchanging God completely for a furry ape or a fish in the primordial slime. Which would you rather have: Father God or father ape?


David Haddon said...

Good show, Brian. I had a quibble about calling Paul a "philosopher." But then I remmebered that I had just written up R. C. Sproul in my biblio entry for his "Not a Chance" as "Theologian-philosopher." And Paul is making a rational apologetic for the knowledge of God innate in every human being, innate but capable of being denied by an act of will.

Jonathan Marshall said...

It's one thing to re-educate when false information has been given, but when we are admitting that what we are fighting to "unlearn" are "instincts", well, that's a bit scary.

In my teaching experience, truth has a way of attracting our instincts, even without extensive knowledge in a subject area. That's an arguement I can make even outside of the premise that we were created in the image of the God who is Truth.

Well said, Brian.

Brian Carpentier said...

@ David: I just don't like calling the apostles solely by their first names. I've said "St. Paul" before, but I fear someone might imagine a halo hovering over that term! Philosopher definitely fits him as you see.

@ Jonathan: Thanks for the comment! Without even touching a natural law argument, I like to think of it as "common-sense." Now, granted, the article points out that not all apparent common-sense is correct, but if they go back far enough eradicating what they call instinct, and I call common-sense, they will abolish the very foundation of certainty in anything at all. They are checking their brains at the door and refusing to acknowledge (for instance) the obvious (common-sense) fact that the orderliness of the creation points to an ordering Intelligence and not to random chance.

David Haddon said...

So why not call him by his biblical title as the Apostle Paul, one sent by God?