Secularists have used a three prong approach to attack and destroy our Christian heritage so that they can replace it with their own Materialistic Worldview. Their relentless war has most Americans confused and on the defensive. To win this war of worldviews, it is time to:

1) unveil their anti-God strategies

2) provide the truth to counter their lies and

3) switch from a defensive to an offensive strategy.

First, Secularists have used the false Doctrine of Evolution to seemingly justify their worldview scientifically in order to gain credibility and legitimacy. A previous chapter, “Materialism is Irrational,” exposed their strategy to proselytize public school students into their faith system, Anti-God Materialism. Secularist judges in the court system advance their cause by protecting evolution through censorship in the schools and removing God from the public square with unconstitutional rulings.

Second, Secularists have attacked our Christian heritage by intentionally rewriting history to defame the character and intent of our Founders (not to mention Jesus Christ) by either ignoring or falsely interpreting their writings and actions. This is part of a well orchestrated scheme to replace our national Christian heritage with Materialistic Liberalism to pave the way for a godless One-world Government.[i]

The third approach is related to the second but now has a life of its own – spreading the myth of “the Separation of Church and State” as redefined by Secularists. They promote this myth to remove all references and acknowledgement of God from public life. Their ultimate goal is to remove them from the world.

All three of these prongs are based on lies and distortions of the truth. It is imperative that those who love the same God and Country as most of our Founding Fathers did, be able to refute these lies and speak out boldly to defend what is true and good. Otherwise, we will gradually surrender our freedoms to the politically correct thought police.

The remainder of this article will present more scientific evidence against the lie of evolution. Later articles will expose the lies behind the other two prongs and offer a pro-offensive personal and national strategy to maintain our Christian Worldview.

Is Science Always Trustworthy?

Two people with opposing worldviews can look at the same facts and come to opposite conclusions because they start with opposing assumptions. For example, an evolutionist looks at the Grand Canyon and wonders how many millions of years of erosion it took for the Colorado River to bore it out.  A scientific creationist looks at the same canyon and sees evidence of a recent and quick formation of the marvel like what happened after the eruption of Mt. St. Helens volcano. The former is open only to an old earth model that excludes God; the latter is open to a model that includes a young earth with God as Creator.

A scientist’s findings can be truly objective only when he honestly suspends all personal bias and lets the evidence form his scientific conclusions, even if they violate his personal worldview. Unfortunately, such objectivity is rare in today’s politically charged world of science. In fact, one of the world’s leading evolutionists, Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard, stated that science is more about using creative thought and opinion than accumulating objective information when he wrote:

“Facts do not ‘speak for themselves’; they are read in the light of theory. Creative thought, in science as much as in the arts, is the motor of changing opinion. Science is a quintessentially human activity, not a mechanized, robot-like accumulation of objective information, leading by laws of logic to inescapable interpretation.”[ii]

What a remarkable admission. By saying that facts are read in the light of theory, Gould confesses that conclusions are not based solely on scientific facts – and are therefore indisputable – but on the assumptions of a theory. And it is all too common to have one’s theory colored by one’s personal worldview. Consequently, in such a climate, even the testable and verifiable Law of Gravity could be potentially suspect. If this is true, how is it possible that the untestable and unverifiable Doctrine of Evolution has any scientific standing and is heralded by most scientists as a fact? It is because it is used to advance the Materialistic Worldview and the misguided “freedoms” based on moral relativism.

Evolution Not Based of Fact

T.N. Tahmisian of the Atomic Energy Commission commented forcefully on interpreting the facts to support the unproven Doctrine of Evolution:

Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution, we do not have one iota of fact.[iii]

But that does not seem to bother evolutionist D.M.S. Watson, who admits the true motive and rationality behind promoting what cannot be proved. In 1929, he revealed:

Evolution itself is accepted by zoologists not because it has been observed to occur or is supported by logically coherent arguments, but because…no alternative explanation is credible. …the theory of evolution itself is a theory universally accepted not because it can be proved by logical coherent evidence to be true but because the only alternative is special creation, which is clearly incredible.[iv]

Unfortunately for science and the cause of truth, this irrational bias against Scientific Creationism is even more entrenched today – despite mounting evidence that completely discredits Darwinism’s claims. Because this monster has its ugly tentacles in so much of modern belief and thought, only knowing the truth can set and keep one free from its destructive influence.

When Science Meets the Supernatural

By definition, true science demands that scientists follow the evidence of their findings even if it violates their personal worldview. If a thorough scientific investigation of the Shroud of Turin revealed that all indicators point to it being the burial cloth of Jesus Christ, then it would be unscientific to deny that conclusion, or at least to consider the possibility, just because one is an atheist.

Similarly, if a thorough scientific investigation of the bible codes imbedded in the Old Testament (see previous chapter) indicates that human intelligence could not have done the imbedding, then it is unscientific to deny the supernatural origin, or at least to entertain the possibility, just because one is an atheist. Letting your a priori assumptions dictate your conclusions is not true science; it is denial or manipulation of the facts and it produces deception. Just because scientists can’t investigate the last star in the farthest galaxy, they do not have – and should not be given – the authority to declare it does not exist. And, even more so, precisely because the arena of science is limited to the material world, no scientist has the authority to conclude for everyone else that there is no God. He is entitled to his beliefs that form his opinion about the supernatural realm but he is not entitled to his own set of “facts” just because he is a “brilliant scientist.” And incidentally, Einstein believed that God created the universe.

Therefore, if a thorough scientific investigation on the molecular level of a living cell reveals the interwoven complexity of a trillion machines that would be mathematically impossible for evolution to produce in any amount of time, it is patently unscientific and irrational for a scientist to reject outright even the possibility of a supernatural design just because it conflicts with his worldview. Yet that is the essence of the war of words between Dr. Michael Behe and those denying even the possibility of Intelligent design. And it is that anti-science deception that is being defended by secularist judges (see next paragraph) to keep this scientifically viable possibility for origins out of public school classrooms. Instead, an equally untestable model that does not have one iota of fact is protected by censorship. That is the Strategy of Deception that is keeping the Secularist’s boat afloat in this culture. For the sake of science and the cause of truth, it is time to sink it.

Most Americans Agree: Intelligent Design Should be Taught in Our Schools

In December 2005, an activist judge sided with the ACLU lawyer in the Kitzmiller v. Dover case. In his decision, Judge John E. Jones ruled that the Dover, Pennsylvania school district violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by requiring a statement to be read to students notifying them about intelligent design. According to staff members of the Discovery Institute, his wide ranging and sometimes angry comments denounced intelligent design and praised Darwinian evolution. Dr. John West, Associate Director of the Center for Science and Culture at Discovery Institute, wrote of the opinion,

A legal ruling can’t change the fact that there is digital code in DNA, it can’t remove the molecular machines from the cell, nor change the fine tuning of the laws of physics. The empirical evidence for design, the facts of biology and nature, can’t be changed by legal decree. Judge Jones found that the Dover board violated the Establishment Clause because it acted from religious motives. That should have been the end to the case. Instead, Judge Jones got on his soapbox to offer his own views of science, religion, and evolution. ….[v]

In the wake of other recent federal court decisions dealing with Bible-based “Creationist” lessons, many people now incorrectly assume that all intelligent design lessons have been deemed unconstitutional. In the case of Edwards v. Aguillard (1987), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled, “Teaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind to school children might be validly done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction.” Thus, theories of intelligent design were not banished from the classroom. In 2001, as the No Child Left Behind Act was still in the legislative process, Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) offered an amendment to the bill that would expressly allow public schools to discuss theories of intelligent design. The U.S. Senate approved the amendment by a vote of 91-8. It reads, “Where topics are taught that may generate controversy (such as biological evolution), the curriculum should help students to understand the full range of scientific views that exist, why such topics may generate controversy, and how scientific discoveries can profoundly affect society.” In January 2002, President Bush signed the No Child Left Behind Act into the current law governing United States public schools.

Unfortunately, as long as the bias of requiring a “clear secular intent” goes unchallenged on the grounds that that very requirement establishes a Secular Worldview, little progress in the courts will be made. This culture war must be fought on the level battleground of conflicting Worldviews rather than on the misnamed, slippery slope of “church and state.” Whoever controls education, the courts and the media controls the country. Secularists, who have largely captured these three power levers, are not content with equal representation; they want to suppress and eventually eliminate all other Worldviews. They plead “neutrality” and tolerance only when it benefits their godless cause.

Fortunately for America, despite the constant barrage from media, activist judges, liberals and public education promoting the Doctrine of Evolution, a majority of adult Americans still have not been duped by this ruse. A national Zogby poll released in March, 2006, found these results:

When Darwin’s theory of evolution is taught in school, students should also be able to learn about scientific evidence that points to an intelligent design of life.” Fully 77% of over 1,000 respondents agreed with this statement. Alternately, only 19% felt that Darwin’s theories of evolution should be present form; 38% said man developed with God guiding; while only 13% believed God had no part in the process. In addition, when asked about how they believed God created man, over half said they believed God created man exactly how the Bible describes it, while 31% said that man evolved with God’s help.[vi]

Yet the Strategy of Deception continues on in the classrooms and textbooks in public schools and universities under the protective guise of political correctness. The Secularists are forced to deceive the public any way they can because the Doctrine of Evolution is the fulcrum on which Materialism rests. And to insure their deception is propagated in the universities, they use a variation of “natural selection” by appointing only evolutionist proponents to teaching posts. This is the academic version of “the survival of the fittest” to protect and advance their discredited worldview. No others need apply. And when an evolutionist honestly considers the factual evidence of scientific creationism or intelligent design and switches sides, “his services are no longer needed.” So much for academic freedom and tolerance.

But why is this takeover and persecution tolerated when the evidence against Darwinism is so great that even top evolutionists are rejecting it? It is because the Secularist’s Strategy of Deception has used Evolution to sow doubt about God’s existence, the beliefs of our Founding Fathers and, consequently, about the Christian worldview America was founded upon. The chapters in the next section will compare their assertions with verifiable historical evidence.

Coming next week: the answer to the question: Is America founded on Deism or Christianity. LR

---

[i] Care2, http://www.care2.com/c2c/groups/disc.html?gpp=13800&pst=603444&archival=&posts=5, retrieved February 23, 2008.

[ii] Stephen Jay Gould (Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University), ‘The validation of continental drift’ in his book Ever Since Darwin, Burnett Books, 1978 pp. 161-162.

[iii] Dr. T. N. Tahmisian, “The Fresno Bee”, August 20, 1959, as quoted in The Revised Quote Book, p. 5.

[iv] D.M.S. Watson, “Adaptation,” Nature, August 10, 1929, Vol. 124, #3119, pp. 231, 233.

[v] Discovery Institute, “Dover Intelligent Design Decision Criticized as a Futile Attempt to Censor Science Education”, http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=3107, retrieved April 2, 2007.

[vi] 6 Zogby International, “Two New Polls Show Americans Reject Evolution Theory and Want Alternatives Taught”,

http://zogby.com/search/ReadClips.dbm?ID=12817, retrieved April 2, 2007.