by Bill Nugent
We are inclined to think that people hold opinions on important matters solely because of a rational examination of the facts. The field of psychology, however, has long shown us that people make an emotional and philosophical attachment to their opinions as well. It is for this reason that many people are not persuaded by rational discussion alone.
Scientists pride themselves on being open minded and persuadable by new evidence. Any scientific theory is either confirmed or falsified by the discovery of new evidence. When it comes to the theory of evolution however, we see great resistance on the part of some scientists to amend the theory in the light of new evidence. The emotional and philosophical commitment of these scientists to the theory of evolution has caused them to resist change. The tendency to resist the spread of knowledge is called obscurantism.
Scientists are, after all, human beings. Many scientists made an emotion based commitment to the Darwinian evolution that they were taught in school at an early age. Many scientists who believe in evolution have built their whole lives and personal guiding philosophies around the notion that life came about by blind processes of chance.
There are times when these scientists are confronted by irrefutable evidence that single-celled organisms are far too complex to have formed by random processes even if the whole universe were primordial soup and a trillion years were to elapse. They are strongly tempted to turn their backs on the evidence. To grapple with this evidence would mean that they would have to discard the very foundation of evolution and with it their entire worldview.
These scientists must also deal with evidence from the field of genetics that shows that genetic mutations are not only rare but are overwhelmingly destructive errors. Genetic mutations far more often scramble or delete nucleotide base pairs in the DNA. Mutations are no mechanism for uphill evolutionary change.
They must also deal with the mounting evidence for a young age of planet Earth. This new scientific evidence (some of it is not new but has been suppressed for decades) has caused some scientists to become unmoored and others to tie themselves to the mast of evolution’s sinking ship.
For centuries we’ve seen the same kind of obscurantism in the field of medicine. Louis Pasteur’s germ theory of disease was resisted for decades by the medical establishment. Joseph Lister (1827-1912) met almost fanatical resistance to his antiseptic surgical prep system.
Let me hasten to point out that in spite of the obscurantism there is an increasing number of scientists who have honestly evaluated the evidence and abandoned evolution and joined the Intelligent Design movement.
The principle technique of the evolution obscurantist is to superimpose a philosophy of naturalism on science in order to limit scientific discourse to natural causes alone. In other words these evolution proponents will only allow discussion of natural causes for the origin and development of living things. This limitation is totally arbitrary and close-minded. The naturalistic limitation is philosophical and not scientific. True science is objective and therefore must be open to discussion of all causes of phenomena whether natural causes or causes from a dimension we cannot see such as the supernatural.
There is also a need to end the imposition of atheistic, materialistic Darwinian evolution on public school children. This imposition is done at taxpayer expense and has the effect of turning young people away from Christianity and away from Christian morals. It is when people are very young that their basic ideas and views of life are forming. To impose atheistic materialism on these young hearts and minds is a monstrous evil.