Chapter Five (Continued)

Scientists Behaving Stupidly

“The fool has said in his heart, There is no God.”

Psalms 14 and 53

For the most part, we admire those who have desired to understand their chosen topics in such depth that they were willing to take the time and effort to obtain one or more doctorates in the subject. One of us has done just that, having received a doctorate in theology. He, at least, understands the personal sacrifices that attend such an undertaking.

Moreover, we stand in awe at the recent scientific achievements in the field of molecular biology. In particular we are amazed at the brilliance of Drs. Crick and Watson in piecing together the form and function of the deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) molecule and the follow-on insights obtained by the genii who followed in their pioneering footsteps. The intellectual accomplishments of these gifted individuals represent achievements to which we cannot even hope to aspire.

Unfortunately, high achievers in one arena of knowledge sometimes think that their gifts extend to other arenas. Such is rarely the case. In fact, it is common for an eminent personage, in expounding upon a topic that lies outside his domain of expertise, to so thoroughly stick his foot in his mouth that those in his audience of sufficient understanding perceive him to be an idiot. (Remember Blind Tom, the idiot savant?) More unfortunate yet, those in his audience who possess that kind of insight as to catch him in his own stupidity are typically in a very tiny minority. The others just go with the flow, attempting to digest the indigestible and blaming themselves when it doesn’t seem to make sense.

The brilliant Dr. Crick, for one, was an outspoken atheist (he died in 2004 of colon cancer)14. Having made a name for himself in the field of microbiology, he firmly held to the belief that the involvement of God in creation was purely mythical, and was arrogant enough regarding his own intellect as to be certain that he was correct. He had enough intelligence regarding evolution to perceive the numerous difficulties that his insights into the molecular nature of life gave Darwin’s theories. Yet he so desperately clung to the naturalistic paradigm of the origin of life that he avidly embraced panspermia, a theory that supposedly addressed the deficiencies of Darwinism while maintaining a naturalistic view of the origin of life. Panspermia views life as evolving elsewhere in the universe and coming to earth via some comet or other interstellar vehicle. It does explain two things that Darwinism does not: the Cambrian Explosion and the fact that the odds against evolution to have created life out of non-life are so vast that more time is required than is available in the history of this planet. It does not explain that the odds against evolution to have created life out of non-life are so vast that more time is required than is available in the history of the universe. Nor does it explain how these “seeds” scattered on earth evolved from their humble beginnings here to creatures like mankind, when there is no evidence to support that supposition. In actuality, the only thing that panspermia accomplishes is to push back evolution to another planet, which accomplishes nothing. Any normal fool can see right through this myopic fantasy. But not Crick. Why? Dr. Jeffrey thought that the answer may be found in 2 Timothy 4:3 and 4:

“For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; and they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.”

We wholeheartedly agree with Dr. Jeffrey’s assessment15. Jeffrey goes on to say:

“Supporters of the theory of evolution understand very clearly that, if evolution is proven to be false, then the only possible logical alternative explanation for the existence of this Universe and the complexity of life is that there is a God who has created us. This alternative to evolution is so unthinkable and unacceptable to many scientists and intellectuals that they desperately hold onto the faltering theory of evolution to their dying day, despite the total absence of scientific evidence to support it.

“Evolutionary scientist Arthur Keith admitted,

“’Evoluton is unproven and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation which is unthinkable.’

“In reality, these scientists actually demonstrate their own ‘blind faith’ in their scientific religion of evolution and consequently ignore any evidence that contradicts their faltering theory. Their realization of the scientific weakness of the case for evolution is the real reason evolutionists are so determined to keep the theory of special creation from ever being taught as an alternate theory, together with evolution, in schools and universities.
Evolution can only survive in the arena of public opinion if no one is allowed to challenge it with the scientific facts that point to special creation as a more sound theory.

“Some evolutionists are honest enough to admit that their support for evolution is actually a matter of religious faith as opposed to empirical science. Professor G. A. Kerkut, of the University of Southampton (London), expressed his conclusion regarding the underlying attitudes of many scientists on the subject of biogenesis (evolution):

“’It is therefore a matter of faith on the part of the biologist that biogenesis [evolution] did occur and he can choose whatever method of biogenesis happens to suit him personally; the evidence for what did happen is not available.’ [Italics in Jeffrey’s quote.]

“In other words, forget about scientific evidence, just believe in evolution as a ‘matter of faith’ because the evidence ‘is not available’. [Italics in the original.]

“Dr. Henry Morris was originally a firm believer in evolution until he began to examine the evidence critically for himself. He soon realized that the whole theory was not supported by scientific evidence at all, but that evolution had actually become a new scientific religion for those who wished to escape the consequences of the truth of the Bible’s claims about Creation, a personal God, salvation, and our ultimate judgment before our God. He said,

“’Many. . . believe in evolution for the simple reason that they think science has proven it to be a ‘fact’ and, therefore, it must be accepted. . . In recent years, a great many people. . . having finally been persuaded to make a real examination of the problem of evolution, have become convinced of its fallacy and are not convinced anti-evolutionists.’

Dr. Jeffrey quotes from other evolutionists who admit to a lack of supporting evidence:

“A strong supporter of the theory of evolution, Professor T. L. Moor, wrote,

“’The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone.’

“Dr. Niles Eldredge has written,

“’We paleontolotists have said that the history of life supports (the story of gradual adaptive change), all the while really knowing that it does not.’

“Another evolutionist, Dr. Solly Zuckerman, finally admitted the truth when he wrote,

“’The record of reckless speculation of human origins is so astonishing that it is legitimate to ask whether much science is yet to be found in this field at all.’”

What these various individuals lack, and consequently makes them ignorant of their own mindless belief in a bankrupt paradigm, is given in Proverbs 1:7:

“The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and instruction.”


14. Google on Dr. Francis Crick

15. Grant R. Jeffrey, Creation, pp. 217-236


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: