Articles:
Scientism vs. Morality
Evolutionists believe that nature and life itself came about via unguided random events and natural processes that did not have us in mind.[1]Evolutionists operate under the dogma of Scientism, which is the view that all real knowledge is scientific knowledge—that there is no reliably objective, rational form of inquiry that is not a … Continue reading
The empirical evidence from common sense[2]For a common sense approach see the apple. refined by cutting edge science would disagree. As an example, see The Miracle of the Cell, where Michael Denton provides compelling evidence that long before life emerged on our planet, the design of the carbon-based cell was foreshadowed in the order of nature, in the exquisite fitness of the laws of nature for this foundational unit of all life on Earth. Nowhere is this fitness more apparent than in the properties of the key atomic constituents of the cell. Each of the atoms of life—including carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen, as well as several metal elements—features a suite of unique properties fine-tuned to serve highly specific, indispensable roles in the cell. Moreover, some of these properties are specifically fit for essential roles in the cells of advanced aerobic organisms like ourselves. Man is the Purpose of Creation.
By contrast, the scientific enterprise in modern times is thoroughly atheistic; it therefore promotes an atheistic approach to the origin of the universe via (1) Cosmic Evolution (Big Bang Cosmology), (2) Chemical Evolution (life from dead chemicals) and (3) Biological Evolution (neo-Darwinism, survival of the fittest, random mutation and natural selection).
Evolutionist conclude from these failed theories that “The time has come to take seriously the fact that we humans are modified monkeys, not the favored Creation of a Benevolent God on the Sixth Day. … As evolutionists, we see that no justification [for ethical behavior] of the traditional kind is possible. … In an important sense, ethics as we understand it is an illusion fobbed off on us by our genes to get us to cooperate.” (Philosopher of Science Michael Ruse and Biologist O. Wilson, Harvard University).
These theories are considered as incontrovertible, but rest on untested assumptions, vast anomalies between the data and the theories, and the need to introduce hypothetical entities for which there is no empirical evidence.
The War Against Plan and Purpose
The philosopher and mathematician Bertand Russel wrote that “in the period since Copernicus, whenever science and theology have disagreed, science has proved victorious”. This is hardly the case, but the philosophers and scientists of the Enlightenment have waged a vicious war against God, the truths of His Torah and the Torah Nation. The following video examines the views of evolutionists on morality – views that are amoral and irrational. For safe viewing click here.
Scientists speak out
Not all scientists accept that evolution is true. In the next video, scientists associated with Discovery speak out about the evidence of intelligent design in nature. For safe viewing click here.
References
| ↑1 | Evolutionists operate under the dogma of Scientism, which is the view that all real knowledge is scientific knowledge—that there is no reliably objective, rational form of inquiry that is not a branch of science. It is a key ingredient of the work of New Atheist writers like Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennet and the late Christopher Hitchens, and its proponents dismiss philosophy’s and theology’s claims to provide distinctive but equally rational and objective avenues to truth. But the view faces a notorious problem: scientism is not itself a scientific thesis, but a metaphysical one. Hence it is either self-defeating, or implies so broad a construal of what is allowed to count as “science” that the claim that all real knowledge is scientific knowledge becomes trivial. |
|---|---|
| ↑2 | For a common sense approach see the apple. |