The BBC this morning featured various stakeholders in the
Paris Climate Accord addressing Trump’s possible pull out of the Accord. No
doubt he will do whatever garners him the most attention. President flip-flop
has no ideology other than self-aggrandizement. The accusatory rhetoric of
stakeholders is totally biased to their ideological position –saving the planet
from ultimate disaster. I disagree with most of what president Thump has to say
on climate change, but I also believe that no matter how absurd the president
is, someone needs to throw a wrench into gears of the religion of climate
change. My point though, has little to do with climate change and more to do
with the supercilious attitude of those promoting this “inviolable” cause. They
take the position of judge and jury, condemning every opposite view.
People who look behind the self-serving
statements by global warming alarmists about an alleged “consensus” have always
known that no such alarmist consensus exists among scientists. Now that we have
access to hard surveys of scientists themselves, it is becoming clear that not
only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these
skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus.[1]
Listening to the “holier than thou” proponents of climate
change, I get the message –that anyone who disagreed with their purpose in the
slightest way is stupid, ignorant and blind to their facts. Bombastic rancor has
become the approach used by rabid environmentalists and modern atheists.
The creationists and other critics of evolution are absolutely correct when
they point out that evolution is “just a theory” and it is not “proven.”
What they neglect to mention is that everything in science is just a
theory and is never proven. Unlike the Prime Number Theorem, which will
absolutely and forever be true, it is still possible, albeit very, very, very,
very, very unlikely, that the theory of evolution by natural and sexual
selection may one day turn out to be false. But then again, it is also
possible, albeit very, very, very, very, very unlikely, that monkeys will fly
out of my ass tomorrow. In my judgment, both events are about equally
likely.[2]
In typical atheist jargon this blinkered atheist recognizes
that he may be wrong. Disingenuous causes as well as those based on suspect
science utilize bullying and intimidation to promote their agenda. Atheists try
to make Christians feel as though they are uninformed, and part an ignorant
minority. In order to accommodate non-belief, science has had to come up with
more malleable standards for what is accepted. Unabashed at the flimsiness of
their “proofs” they plod on in a fog of unproven claims. A theory is validated
by peer consensus, which in other disciplines would be considered
“group-think”.
The things that science has taught us
about how the world works are the most secure elements in all of human
knowledge. Here I must distinguish between science at the frontiers of
knowledge (where by definition we do not yet understand everything and where
theories are indeed vulnerable) and textbook science that is known with great
confidence. …. In recent times, the courts have had much to say about the
teaching of the theory of evolution in public schools. In one instance the
school district decided that students should be taught the “gaps/problems” in
Darwin’s theory and given “Intelligent Design” as an alternative explanation.
The courts (Judge Jones of the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Pennsylvania) came down hard on the side of Darwin, ruling that “Intelligent
Design” was thinly disguised religion that had no place in the science
classroom.
…the word evidence is used much more
loosely in science than in law. The law has precise rules of evidence that
govern what is admissible and what is not. In science, the word merely seems to
mean something less than “proof.” A certain number of the papers in any issue
of a scientific journal will have titles that begin with “Evidence for (or
against) . . .” What that means is, the authors were not able to prove their
point, but are presenting their results anyway.[3]
The judge who ruled “Intelligent Design” to be a religion
was blatantly biased. According to Merriam-Webster dictionary one definition of
religion is: “…a cause, principle,
or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.” In every way evolution is
faith based and promulgated with great ardour.
Atheists fight against teaching creation in schools because the theory
of evolution is founded on speculative science. The Study by National
Academy of Sciences assures the
reader of the integrity of scientists by distinguishing between, “science
at the frontiers of knowledge (where by definition we do not yet understand
everything and where theories are indeed vulnerable) and textbook science that
is known with great confidence.” So the theory of evolution is science of “great
confidence”? Which is the same as saying that, scientists understand everything
about the formation of the universe –everything? “What’s that saying, fools
rush in….?”
According to Kanazawa modern scientists disagree with the
Study’s finding on evidence:
Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science.
Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions,
whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists. The
primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence,
not proof. All else equal (such as internal logical consistency and
parsimony), scientists prefer theories for which there is more and better
evidence to theories for which there is less and worse evidence. Proofs
are not the currency of science.
There is no way to convince evolutionists who believe they
are right, that evolution is faith based, even though it obviously is!
Evolution is on the frontier of knowledge, because it is impossible to know
everything which occurred in the beginning. There is no “knowledge” of what
took place, there is only one’s belief based on “evidence”, which is
interpreted differently by different scientists. If there was consensus there
wouldn’t be, micro-evolution, macro-evolution, and cataclysmic evolution.
Excuse my lack of faith in the scientists dealing with the cosmos. The science
of the cosmos is based on the same geological doctrine of uniformitarianism. Incredibly
everything started with a big bang initiated by an unknown event, and nothing
in the cosmos has changed or deflected in 13.8 billion years to sway the
straight line of calculations. Quite amazing; something comes from nothing and
stays constant ever after. The primal unknown event leading to the “big bang”
was never repeated, as instantaneously chaos became order. In an instant the
rules governing everything in the entire universe were established so that in
later eons scientists could by those rules determine whatever they chose. I
don’t think so!
I began writing in response to the religious fervour of
climate change prophets to Trump’s possible decision to pull out of the Paris
accord, which he did after I started writing. The point I wanted to make is
that proponents of climate changes self-righteously condemned Trump and everyone
else who disagrees with any climate doomsday prediction. For a moment I felt
quite isolated; until from the serenity of my aloneness, I called the climate gurus,
pompous idiots! That made me feel better.
It is difficult not to be affected by condemnation and scorn
dished out against Christians. It is also quite apparent that in western
society Christianity is the main target of ridicule. I question why as a Christian
I felt the bite of contempt from godless attackers. I guess it is because I want
to be accepted and respected for who and what I am. That is simply human, and
that’s the problem. I may be taking my commitment to Christ to casually, downplaying
that life is to be spirit led in this carnal world. Jesus spoke of storing
treasures in heaven, which should be my aim, more than seeking societal
approval. Jesus warned his disciples that they would be persecuted, that
doesn’t mean I will be persecuted like they were, but the principle is the same
for all believers today.
If the world hates you, be aware that it hated me before it hated you.
If you belonged to the world, the world would love you as its own. Because you
do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world--therefore
the world hates you. Remember the word that I said to you, 'Servants are not
greater than their master.' If they persecuted me, they will persecute you; if
they kept my word, they will keep yours also.[4]
Rather than being surprised by the attitude of atheists and
godless people toward Christians, we should be concerned if Christians are seen
to be just like everybody else. “Woe to you when all speak well of you, for that is what their ancestors
did to the false prophets.”[5]
Jesus’ statement does not suggest we should be obnoxious to invite insult; “that’s
plain stupid.” One must also bear in mind that criticism of a church is not the
same as criticizing Christ. Churches are fallible institutions, and in some
cases criticism may be justified. As human institutions, churches have done
some very bad stuff. The crusades are a prime example of gross evil perpetrated
and authorized by a church. Blanket scorn of “Christians” is not necessarily
scorn of Jesus. Some “Christians” do not behave as they should, but promote
their own agendas and causes. Each person is commissioned to be a light
reflecting God’s love through Christ. Each believer is a citizen of God’s
kingdom and a child in God’s family, the world can only see Jesus through his
disciples.
…through Christ all believers are freed
and reconciled with God and their neighbour. The limits set by nation, race,
class and - one may also add - property no longer stand. In the community the
believer has restored to him the lost image of God, so that there is no longer
Greek and Jew, circumcised and
uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian (the allegedly sub-human race in antiquity,
see above p.5), slave, free man, but Christ is all and in all (Col.3.11; cf.
Gal. 3.28).
The revolutionary force of statements
like this, which founded a new community in antiquity, can hardly be measured.
Boundaries were overcome here which hitherto had been regarded as impassable
throughout antiquity. But precisely because in reality they are already free,
slaves are now not to seek to become freemen quickly, nor are Gentiles to go
over to Judaism and vice versa. Were they to do this, they would be giving
recognition to the old forces of this world, which have been robbed of their
power and whose end is imminent.[6]
The Word resides in believers, it cannot be institutionalized.
Churches have to shed the pretense of being a path to God. Jesus commissioned
people –individuals to carry the message of hope to those who need to hear it. If
churches are not careful they get in the way and rob people of their right to
live their lives as God’s message. The power of belonging to God’s kingdom
energized the first converts to live the message as they went throughout the
world. The apostles and others set things in motion, Paul travelled to distant
places, but it was slaves, merchants, ordinary people, and Roman soldiers who
carried the Word with them to the far reaches of the first century world.
Looking back to the early centuries of this era, it is obvious those
Christians, living at that time in those societies, were a small minority.
Their primary citizenship was in God’s kingdom, which made all the difference. I
want citizenship in God’s kingdom to mean more to me than being accepted in my
society. I want to realize that the approval of God is a much greater treasure
than the approval of man. I want to experience the all-surpassing freedom found
in Christ. I want to grow in confidence that God’s grace and love placed me in
his kingdom.
[1]
Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming
Crisis, www.forbes.com
[2]
Common misconceptions about science I: “Scientific proof”, by Satoshi Kanazawa,
www.psychologytoday.com
[3]
Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence: Third Edition National Academy of
Sciences
[6]
Earliest Christianity, by Martin Hengel, p.188
No comments:
Post a Comment