By now you've probably heard of Ben Stein's movie "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" and the intellectual lockdown perpetrated by apostles of evolution theory.
Well, origins may not be the only area where adherents to one scientific theory are orchestrating an Orwellian effort to silence the opposing view. Climate research seems to be the latest front where opposition to the dominant theory is declared verboten and quashed by the establishment.
From Fox News comes the story of Dr. William Gray, a hurricane forecaster, says Colorado State University will no longer be promoting his forecasts because he's not a "believer" in Al Gore's man-made global warming fantasy.
The university says it is cutting back because of resource constraints, but Gray and others insist the move is ideologically driven:
"Bill Gray has come under a lot of fire for his views," former director of the National Hurricane Center Neil Frank, currently chief meteorologist at Houston's KHOU-TV, told the Chronicle. "If, indeed, this is happening, it would be really sad that Colorado State is trying to rein in Bill Gray."
Gray isn't the first to be censured for blasphemy against anthropogenic global warming. Last year, University of Washington climate scientist Mark Albright was fired from his position as associate state climatologist after he exposed false claims of shrinking glaciers in the Cascade Mountains.
As in the debate over origins, the Left seems incapable of (or unwilling to) distinguishing the difference between objective facts and the interpretation of those facts. These so-called scientists develop a theory, find a way to make the facts fit their theory, and call it "science."
If there is any area of scientific inquiry more devoid of objective proof and filled with ideology than origins, it may well be climate research.
Contrary to a mountain of evidence that the climate change has been happening for thousands of years or longer, and is happening on other planets where there are no SUVs, and is based on unreliable data, claim that any warming of the earth cannot be laid at the feet of the sun or natural cycles, but at the feet of SUVs, power plants and Western civilization.
If things continue, Stein may need to do a sequel to Expelled.
9 comments:
Mr. Ellis,
What is your take on announcement today of the The Anti-Defamation League who blasted the film Tuesday, saying in a statement that it “misappropriates the Holocaust and its imagery as part of its political effort to discredit the scientific community.” The ADL adds, “Hitler did not need Darwin to devise his heinous plan to exterminate the Jewish people.”
Briefly, my take is that the ADL, like most liberal organizations, is closing ranks to protect an ideology even more important to it than its own Jewish creationist faith (as expressed in the Torah): evolution theory. Genocide and evil are certainly not new, but the theological and genetic implications fostered by Darwinism are certainly harmonious with Hitler's methods and goals, and tended to lend an air of scientific credibility to his actions. Hitler's actions are a logical end to the implications presented by Darwinism.
But this post is primarily concerned with global warming and freedom of scientific inquiry and opinion, so you should stick with that focus here.
I understand your topical guidance, but your comment is provacative. Let me get this right... you are saying that protecting the "ideology" of evolution is more important to the Antidefamation League than their own core Jewish faith? I'm curious if Mr. Stein would agreed with that premise...
I don't know if Stein would agree or not, but apparently it's true.
The Torah teaches that God created the earth--including life on it--in six 24 hour days, and that they reproduce according to their own kind.
So if the ADL accepts evolution theory (which they do, given this statement and other pro-evolution positions they've taken) over their own Torah, then obviously my statement is correct.
Now back to the topic at hand...
Uh, I was browsing through some of your old articles and found this comment. Where exactly does the Torah say that God created the world in six 24-hour days??
The Hebrew word for "day" in Genesis 1 is yom. In the vast majority of uses in Genesis, yom means a literal 24-hour day. Also, as with any communication, context is the key to understanding. So what is the context of the word "day" or "yom" in Genesis 1? It's pretty obvious.
In order to make it even more clear, Genesis 1 uses the language of "evening" and "morning" denoting the light and dark cycle of a 24-hour period. Everywhere these two words are used in the Old Testament Hebrew, they always mean a literal evening period and a literal morning period. Also, in Genesis 1 yom is used in connection with a number (e.g. the fourth day).
As if this wasn't enough evidence to surmise that the days are literal 24-hour periods, Exodus 20:9–11 ties the the creation week together with the law of the Sabbath, stating that we should do all our work in 6 days and rest on the 7th, "For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy." Now if the days of Genesis 1 were periods of 1,000 years as some have claimed (or even 1 million or 1 billion, or whatever), would it make sense for God to tell finite human beings with a lifespan of 100 years or less that "Six thousand years [or six million years or six billion years] you shall labor and do all your work" but rest for the 7th thousand years? Of course not.
I used to seriously consider the day-age theory...until I took a serious look at both the language and the logic of the issue and found that the days can only mean one thing: a literal 24 hour period.
Thanks for the explanation. Now, why did God need to rest after creating the world? Isn't he omnipotent?
Just one more thing. According to 2 Peter 3:8, "With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day." If this is true, can't the word "yom" mean more than a literal 24-hour period? Is this verse from 2 Peter meant to be read metaphorically? How do you know?
Anonymous, I'm going to assume you're the same person who left the last two comments--both good questions, by the way.
Because God is indeed omnipotent, he had no need to rest on the seventh day, as you or I would need to rest after an arduous task.
Most scholars believe he did so in order to establish a pattern of organization, just as he did by spreading the work of creating the universe and all that is in it over 6 days (he could have done it all in a nanosecond). But perhaps the most compelling argument is that he knew we humans in our finite capacity would need a day of rest in which to recuperate...and he probably also knew our tendency to overwork--especially the Type A folks. So he established this as an example of how we as his children are to live our lives, and the fact that he ties our weekly routine in Scripture to his creation-week pattern strongly backs this theory.
As to 2 Peter 3:8, that is the primary reason I also used to believe in the day-age theory. Seems reasonable on the surface of it that--if we feel compelled to believe the creation week was longer than 6 24-hour days--God might be telling us here that those days were not 24-hour periods.
If we are to go down that route, however, it doesn't go very far when we examine it closely. For one thing, in any old-earth scenario (whether it's atheistic evolution or theistic evolution), a period of 6,000 years is totally insufficient for the processes alleged in either of those evolutionary settings. And again, when we return to the language used in Genesis 1, linguistically and contextually it really only points to a 24-hour period.
What I and most scholars believe God was trying to tell us with this reference is that God exists outside the parameters of time that we know in this universe (other passages in the Scriptures also point to this).
When God created the universe, he also created the natural laws that govern it and make it go. One of the components of this universe is time, specifically linear time where moments of existence follow one another in seamless succession. All you and I know has a beginning and an end, and a finite existence measured in lifespans (of about 100 years, give or take), and of epochs we can grasp from history texts.
Since God created time itself and exists outside of and independent of its effects, he does not experience time as we do. He doesn't grow old, he doesn't grow bored, he doesn't look at a particular period of time passing and say, "Boy, time sure is dragging" or "Wow, time sure flies."
If you look at that entire chapter--which helps with that contextual thing--we find that God is telling us through Peter here about the end of time for this fallen, sinful universe, and giving us some slight clue as to what to expect with regard to how long it may take to get there. He hearkens back to creation itself in verse 4 (some 4,000 years prior to Peter's time, according to genealogies ), the time of judgment in Noah's day (some 2,400 years before Peter's time), and a look forward to some unspecified year when the earth will be destroyed by fire. No we finite 100-year-living humans always want to know just when something is going to happen. Well, God seems to be telling us through Peter here back in the 1st Century AD that it's going to be quite a long time before that judgment by fire arrives, but not to worry that God has forgotten about his plan. By telling us "With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day," he is telling us God isn't going to get distracted and forget, or get bored and blow us up prematurely, or that it is impossible for God to wait thousands of years because, after all, he is timeless.
Sorry for being long-winded, but that's about as short of a "short version" as I know how to give.
I hope it's been helpful, though.
Post a Comment