Photo iStockphoto 
Posted on 02/16/2009 11:06:53 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
by Don Batten
Sometimes a horse can move suddenly when it catches sight of something unexpected in the corner of its eye. To minimize this problem, owners fit horses with blinkers that restrict the field of vision to stop the horse seeing unwanted distractions.
Photo iStockphoto
Modern science operates with the blinkers of naturalism—that science can only deal with natural causes; it cannot infer a supernatural cause.
Professor of Genetics, Richard Lewontin, wrote, ‘ … we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. … Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.’1
A convert from atheism to Christianity, C.S. Lewis, commented on this many years before Lewontin: ‘Does the whole vast structure of modern naturalism depend not on positive evidence but simply on an a priori metaphysical prejudice? Was it devised not to get in facts but to keep out God?’2
Simplistically, evolutionists claim that because we cannot study God—or an unseen intelligent designer—directly, as under a microscope, God is excluded from scientific conclusions.
However, science allows an unseen natural intelligent designer to be inferred from the data, such as in forensic science—for example, an unseen intelligent designer was responsible for strychnine in the stomach of the murder victim. Inferring an unseen human intelligent agent is acceptable, but if the evidence demands a super-natural intelligent agent, that is forbidden.
The more we understand living things, the more their incredible design speaks of a creative agent far superior to humans. The discovery of fibre-optics in the eye (p. 45 in the December 2008 issue) underlines this point. The problem for evolutionary materialism is not that the eye is designed, but that it shows far too much design. Because evolution cannot explain the design in the vertebrate eye, evolutionists resort to a theological argument against its design. So Richard Dawkins claims it is badly designed, so ‘god’ must not have done it and natural processes must therefore be responsible (although he really has no idea how). And of course no human could design a better eye.
Naturalism stifles scientific thinking. Plant scientist Dr Gina Mohammed (p. 38) says, ‘Many scientists have so internalized the assumptions of evolution that they don’t realize these beliefs are actually limiting the quality and impact of their research.’ Blinkered thinking affected her own research.
Blinkered thinking makes for bad education also. Dr Gina Mohammed: ‘Our universities and schools should encourage students to explore various options for interpretation if they truly wish to inspire critical thinking.’
Blinkered thinking affects astronomy as it constrains what explanations are acceptable. If Earth has a special place in the universe, then this solves astronomical mysteries (p. 37), but the materialist cannot allow Earth to be special.
Blinkers constrain geological explanations also. Denying the biblical Flood results in incredibly strained interpretations—on how coal formed, for example (p. 48).
The blinkers of materialism also have serious social and political effects that have led to the deaths of millions at the hands of tyrants like Stalin (p. 52).
Please share this issue of Creation with someone who needs blinkers removed.
ping!
Whatever distinctions we interpose between that which we deem “natural” and that which we deem “supernatural” are, when all is said and done, constructs of the collective mind of man, a fallible instrument incapable of apprehending absolute truth. And that concluding opinion also is a product of a fallible human mind.
Labeling things as *natural* and *supernatural* merely gives some what they consider a reasonable excuse to ignore the inconvenient.
What a crock. Nothing more than a transparent attempt to undermine scientific enquiry by suggesting it should concern itself with something that can’t be observed or quantified. Religion has it’s place and it is not in the laboratory.
How did the quality and impact of Dr Mohamed’s research improve once her ‘blinkers’ were removed?
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
Obama Says A Baby Is A Punishment
Obama: “If they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.”
Determining who put strychnine into someone's stomach is a useful exercise in order to correctly lay blame and prevent further poisonings.
Stating that God created the bombadier beetle on a particular Tuesday 5000 years ago may in fact be correct, but it doesn't jibe with the current evidence and it doesn't help us make future predictions.
Most scientists don't realize that the entire enterprise of science is built on an epistemology that is ultimately uncertain about whether or not the world even exists.
However, they all make a reasonable assumption that it does, that what they measure is the same (within reasonable error bars) as what everyone else measures, and that they can draw reasonable and useful conclusions from those measurements.
Whatever it is, I'd bet we probably won't have to wait a ga-jillion years to find out!
The distinction lies in how we can study and verify the phenomenon in question.
This reminds me of what people said just a hundred years ago about speaking over a telephone...it was seen as black magic or some such.
DNA, atoms, nuclear fission, all couldn't possibly have been "scientific" back then either and we're to just ignore mutiverse theory, string theory now too...how is it they get a free pass???
You think she might be publishing soon? Great! Maybe something along the lines ‘Allah did it’....
Since the mind can't be observed or quantified, and since science is a result of the mind, then I suppose we shouldn't concern ourselves with science. Right?
And how does believing that the bombadier beetle evolved however many million years ago help us make future predictions? What future predictions does that help us make?
Probably more like it's that we shouldn't bother with studying the mind. Thoughts aren't material, have no substance, and can't be observed or detected, neither can emotions, will, opinions, etc.
Better just write them off as supernatural and be done with it.
Oops. You lose. The brain can be observed and quantified. What you choose to call the “mind” is being dissected.
In the future we may be able to create hideous chimeras that combine the best battleground traits of both humans and bombardier beetles. Imagine beings that can travel as fast as humans, but can also splurt highly toxic acid on their foes!
Of course I can observe your brain, but how can I observe your thoughts?
You do claim to have thoughts don't you?
Well, if the premise is that only observable things can have a "place" in science, and if the mind (thought, will, etc.) can't be observed or detected (even granting hypothetical instruments that have perfect sensitivity to material phenomena), then the mind can't have a place in science. And since science is a result of the mind, then science can't have a place in science.
To me that's the paradox of the materialist position. It undermines its own validity. When you rule out the supernatural, the notion of science becomes absurd because you rule out the possibility of the mind.
Thanks for the ping!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.