THE CHURCH’S BLIND ACCEPTANCE OF EVOLUTION

The theory of evolution is a bulldozer. It has succeeded in pushing aside traditional beliefs in a God-given morality engraved upon our conscience. In its place, it has left us with moral relativism - the belief that morality is our creation, which evolves along with our social preferences.

In Heretic, chemist Matti Leisola has written:

• ...the theory of evolution is reshaping people’s understanding of morality, with 55% of Americans now contending that “evolution shows that moral beliefs evolve over time based on their survival value in various times and places.”

Sadly, the Church has always been overly receptive to evolving social fads. Paul Feyerabend was a prominent philosopher of science and a professor at the University of California-Berkeley who described himself as a nihilist. He expressed his wonder at how church leaders seemed to capitulate before the evolution onslaught:

• It is a pity that the Church of today, frightened by the universal noise made by scientific wolves, prefers to howl with them instead of trying to teach them some manners… When I was a student I revered the sciences and mocked religion… I am surprised to find how many dignitaries of the Church take seriously the superficial arguments I and my friends once used, and how ready they are to reduce their faith accordingly. In this they treat the sciences as if they, too, formed a Church. (Leisola)

However, we have been assured that the scientific community has such stringent checks in place so that their shouldn’t be any hesitation to accept its proclamations. To contradict their claims, Leisola has offered a number of sobering and illuminating examples. In 2005, paleontologist Mary Schweitzer published that she had found soft tissues in T. rex bones. This finding directly contradicted the accepted orthodoxy of T. rex’ early dating. Discover Magazine commented on the reaction of the scientific community:

• “When this shy paleontologist found soft, fresh-looking tissue inside a T. rex femur, she erased a line between past and present. Then all hell broke loose.” (http:// discovermagazine.com/ 2006/ apr/ dinosaur-dna)

In this article, Schweitzer described the reaction of the evolution establishment:

• “I had one reviewer tell me that he didn’t care what the data said, he knew that what I was finding wasn’t possible. I wrote back and said, ‘Well, what data would convince you?’ And he said, ‘None.’”

Meanwhile, the scientific community has repeatedly assured us that their system of “peer review” provides adequate “quality control.” However, Leisola protests:

• ...it’s no wonder that geologist Warren Hamilton takes such a cynical line on peer review. “Then as now, peer review can represent the tyranny of the majority,” he writes. “I have run the peer-review gauntlet perhaps a hundred times. My papers describing and interpreting geology in more or less conventional terms have progressed smoothly, whereas publication of my manuscripts challenging accepted concepts has often been impeded, and occasionally blocked.”

Leisola then cites R. L. Armstrong:

• “In science this is an old story,” he writes, “likely to be repeated again, as the defenders of common wisdom are seldom treated with the same skepticism as the challengers of the status quo... In science, conventional wisdom is difficult to overturn.”

Leisola sights other examples to show that this same bias is endemic to the scientific community:

• Günther Blobel, winner of the Nobel Prize in physiology and medicine, put it bluntly: “Your grants and papers are rejected because some stupid reviewer rejected them for dogmatic adherence to old ideas.”

It seems that this community’s dogma must be protected at all costs. Leisola cites the ENCODE findings that had directly contradicted evolution’s assertions about their confirmatory evidence of “junk DNA”:

• Earlier we saw how the results of the ENCODE project showed that most DNA is functional, and how the results were attacked and dismissed for undermining the conventional, neo-Darwinian view on this point.

According to Leisola, this kind of thing has been a predictable drama:

• In January 2016 another interesting episode occurred when a paper published in PLOS ONE, exploring the exquisite architecture of the human hand, was withdrawn after complaints that the paper, in essence, broke faith with methodological materialism. Later investigation suggested that the Chinese authors of the article used the term “creator” only to refer to the creative powers of nature, not to God. But no matter: the paper was deemed radioactive.

How did PLOS ONE defend their retraction? Leisola cites their explanation:

• Following publication, readers raised concerns about language in the article that makes references to a ‘Creator,’ and about the overall rationale and findings of the study. Upon receiving these concerns, the PLOS ONE editors have carried out an evaluation of the manuscript and the pre-publication process, and they sought further advice on the work from experts in the editorial board. This evaluation confirmed concerns with the scientific rationale, presentation and language, which were not adequately addressed during peer review. Consequently, the PLOS ONE editors consider that the work cannot be relied upon and retract this publication.

If the word “Creator” is so threatening to the evolution establishment and its orthodoxy, and if its philosophical commitments are so narrowly restrictive, how can anyone embrace its proclamations!

Meanwhile, many do, even the Church, which has been mandated to defend the light of God’s truth.