Genesis 1 as Child Abuse: More Dots to Connect


 

Further to my previous post on Genesis 1 as Child Abuse and accusations of pedophilia and child abuse leveled against me (along with a charge of treason) by a friend of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE), you might be interested in what is happening in Great Britain:

Good news for evolution in Britain

Meanwhile in Britain: Creationism is Banned

The death of freedom of inquiry in British publicly funded schools

Mind you, this legal decision in Britain applies to all schools, including “religious” schools.  So in Great Britain, the scenario I’ve outlined of police barging into churches and Sunday Schools and arresting teachers, pastors and even parents is not so far fetched, and is indeed right around the corner. This scenario will include the closing down of offending churches.

Not to worry you say? We have our 1’st Amendment … right? When this movement hit the shores of the USA, we will find that the 1’st Amendment protections will have been obliterated by laws defining the teaching of Genesis 1:1, and elsewhere, to be “child abuse.”

Citizens, parents, pastors, priests, Rabbis, Sunday School teachers … are we paying attention? Or will we just wait for the jack boots to kick down the doors?

Teachers … if you have any involvement with organizations like the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) … take a look at their stance on this (see above) . Register your outrage at the NCSE blog and withdraw any membership or contributions you may have … and let them know in no uncertain words why.

We are facing a Constitutional tipping point here, make no mistake about it.  It’s not just a dispute over science, it’s a dispute over our rights as citizens of a free republic … NCSE would taaway your rights and put you in prison.

Don Johnson – June 2014

Advertisements

One response to “Genesis 1 as Child Abuse: More Dots to Connect

  1. To be clear: The UK has not outlawed the teaching of creationism. It has outlawed the teaching of creationism as science. And that is how it should be.

    The richness of life, the complexity of our DNA, and the universe at large attest to the majesty of our God who created it all. However, true scientific disciplines have shown that God achieved this through His use of natural processes. I am in full agreement with the concept of intelligent design insofar as God designed the universe and everything in it for His glory. The problem with this term, particularly when it is capitalized, is that it is used exclusively by pseudoscientific creationist organizations such as the Discovery Institute who leave no room for those who accept that God used biological evolution to accomplish the creation of the diversity of life. It’s clear that Intelligent Design (ID) can only be supported as a science if the definition of science itself is changed to include the supernatural. And this has been the Discovery Institute’s goal all along, as described in their “wedge” strategy document. They want to redefine science from the current definition of methodological naturalism to include metaphysics and spiritualism.

    Real science is a way of finding the best natural explanation for a phenomenon, past or present. And that is fine. It works very well as a methodology. Science requires its theories to be testable (either through direct observation or through forensics) and falsifiable. It doesn’t mean the supernatural doesn’t exist; it just means that the scientific method can have nothing to say about it. Maybe God used supernatural as well as natural methods. Certainly, the creation of the universe and all of the physical laws was a supernatural event, and so was God’s breath of life — Adam’s soul. But what about the biological processes that drive life? Are those supernatural? Does the development of an embryo from a single cell to a baby defy the laws of statistics and thermodynamics? How are these biological processes qualitatively different from those of evolution?

    The Intelligent Design crowd will say that science disproves evolution. Not only do they completely dismiss the tremendous volume of evidence which supports evolution and the common ancestry of living things on Earth. But to make this statement, they must include the supernatural in their definition of science. To include metaphysics, spiritualism, and other supernatural philosophies in what we currently practice as science will cause us to have a very strong push away from methods that have been shown to bring us closer to the truth. If we need to postulate that God had to have jumped in with millions of miracles just to make His already created order work, how could we possibly apply scientific reasoning? We just stop, throw up our hands, and say “God did it”. How can we include God as part of the scientific method? Is God testable? Is God falsifiable? Both of these ideas border on blasphemy. I believe in all of the miracles of the Bible, but I don’t think God had to jump in and “fix” his creation in order to diversify the species on this planet. There’s no Biblical or scientific basis for that, whatsoever. I think He got it right using the mechanisms of biology and chemistry which He designed. Genesis states that God caused the earth and the waters to “bring forth” life.

    Isaac Newton was a brilliant scientist. But he can give us a good example of this very problem. It’s a great lesson for today. For all his brilliance, Newton made one critical error in reasoning, and that was to apply an “Intelligent Design” answer to a problem he had with gravity. Newton’s laws of motion predicted the orbits of the planets around the Sun. Because he used approximations when calculating the forces of the planets upon each other, he came to the conclusion that the orbits are unstable and would decay after thousands of years. Newton suggested that God occasionally intervened with a miracle, by sending a comet or other object with just the right direction, size, and velocity, to gravitationally nudge the planets back into their correct orbits.

    Years after Newton, Pierre Laplace found better methods to solve Newton’s equations, showing that the planetary orbits are indeed stable. When asked by Napoleon, “Monsieur Laplace, why wasn’t the Creator mentioned in your book on celestial mechanics?”, Laplace replied, “Sir, I have no need for that hypothesis.” Laplace was likely an atheist, but we know that his findings about planetary motion were true. If he were a believer, he could have just as well said, “We don’t need to explicitly invoke God’s miraculous intervention when describing planetary motion.”

    I think this is a great lesson for us what methodology to use in discerning the truth about how God created the diversity of life on Earth. I believe in the Intelligent Designer. His design of the universe brought about mankind, made in His image, that we would come to know Him. And He upholds the universe day by day. But I do not believe in Intelligent Design as a science, and I believe this movement will only draw people away from God.

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s