What Is Science? (Illustrated Version): Illustrated Serial Antidisestablishmentarianism, #3

Illustrated What Is Science

by

Michael J. and Mary C. Findley

© Michael J. and Mary C. Findley 2010

Findley Family Video Publications

Illustrated Antidisestablishmentarianism

by Michael J. and Mary C. Findley

© 2010 Findley Family Video Publications

No part of this publication may be reproduced in whole or in part, or stored in any retrieval system, or transmitted in any form by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without permission of the publisher. Exception is made for short excerpts used in reviews.

Speaking the truth in love.

Scripture references are as follows: The Bible: The King James Version, public domain. The New International Version, from the HOLY BIBLE, NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION Registered. NIV Registered. Copyright 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society. Used by permission of Zondervan. All rights reserved. The New American Standard Version: Scripture quotations taken from the New American Standard Bible Registered, Copyright 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1995 by The Lockman Foundation Used by permission.

Table of Contents

Preface: Disestablishmentarianism

Introduction

Section One: What Is an Establishment of Religion?

11. What Is Science to a Secular Humanist?

12. What Is True Science?

13. Does Science Conflict with Religion?

14. What Does the Scientific Evidence Prove?

15. What Is the Scientific Evidence for Intelligent Design?

Appendixes

Appendix One: Court Cases

Appendix Two: Supplementary Material for Section One

Appendix Three: Supplementary Material for Section Two

Appendix Four: Recommended Reading

Bibliography

Other Books and Products from Findley Family Video Publications

Preface: Disestablishmentarianism

… When they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools…

Romans 1:21,22

The Most Religious People on Earth

The most religious people on earth are those who claim not to have any religion. Dogmatic, intolerant, and bigoted, they refuse to allow anyone to so much as speak their opposition. Yet these same people demand political power and tax support. The mildest opposition, such as the mere mention of Intelligent Design (not God), has blacklisted tenured professors. Just two parents in a middle school in Texas made the national news by objecting to Gideon Bibles placed, without comment, on a table outside the school office.¹ Such people dishonestly claim that they are not religious and religion is a group of mythologies. The truth is that they are the ones promoting mythology. In every aspect of life they promote this mythology with unproven dogmatic assertions under the guise of Science vocabulary. After hijacking the word Science, they use the courts to elevate their misuse of the term to an established religion.

Science is the study of the world around us, the use of the experimental method and the improvement of our lives through the application of technology. It is divided into various academic disciplines such as Chemistry, Physics, Mathematics and Biology. However, what the federal courts, the Academic community and the mainstream Western media mean by science is uniformitarianism. It is the cosmological foundation of the religion of Secular Humanism. Since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation (II Peter 3:4). This concise description of Uniformitarianism clearly shows that it is completely and entirely a religious belief in antiscientific myths.

Secular Humanists use words which have been in the English language for hundreds of years but give them new meanings. However, there is no new thing under the sun (Ecclesiastes 1:9, KJV). The words believe, faith and trust are all historic judicial terms and they also form the foundation of the true scientific method. What Secular Humanists promote as their version of the scientific method consists of preconceptions, presuppositions and assumptions. It is the opposite of an open mind.

A true open mind is founded in belief, faith and trust. The historic meaning of believe is to perceive or understand with the mind and then make an informed decision.² The most basic use of the word believe which the average American would understand is that of a juror in court. Which witness do you believe? Which piece of evidence is believable? A synonym would be the word credible. When we believe something or someone and then act on that belief, that is faith. The active part of belief is faith. The passive part of belief is trust. Suppose your brother says that he will drive you to the doctor. If you believe him, then you understand what he says and you make a decision to get ready. If you get in the vehicle with him, that is faith. You act on your belief. When you sit in the vehicle as he drives, that is trust, a passive reliance on what you have proven true. You trust in his driving skills. You trust in the vehicle. You trust the roads, etc. Everything we do is a combination of belief, faith or trust. By restoring their historic definitions, belief, faith and trust re-emerge as the clear language of true experimental science. These terms were deliberately segregated from science to deceive people into believing Secular Humanism.

Liberals, Secular Humanists and materialists, however, use the word belief as a synonym for a philosophical position, just an opinion. Faith and trust to them are metaphysical words which mean different things to different people. And this is just the tip of an enormous iceberg. Secular Humanists have redefined hundreds of words to support their religion, such as sin, judgment and anthropology. A conversation with them can be very difficult since they use historical English words but mean something entirely different.

The traditional role of religion is to place priesthood as intermediary between God and man. The traditional role of an establishment of religion places the government in that intermediary role between God and man. In the Middle Ages the Roman Catholic Church put itself between man and God, as other religions have in the past. Johann Tetzel, a professional pardoner, sold indulgences representing forgiveness for sins in Germany. Indulgences were based on the storehouse of good works believed to exist because of the sacrifice of Christ and the good deeds and prayers of past saints. Tetzel was said to promise that, As soon as a coin in the coffer rings, a soul from purgatory springs.³

Selling indulgences was the final act of many which brought on the Reformation. People wouldn’t have bought them if they hadn’t believed the Catholic Church alone could placate God on their behalf. Martin Luther convinced the princes of Germany that they did not need to send their money to Rome because they could go to God directly. Rome sent armies to collect the money. Even Modern Roman Catholics who do not believe that their church today claims to stand between them and God have to admit that the medieval Roman Catholic Church did.

The combined power of Church and State restricted personal worship, scientific study and access to historical truth. Today Secular Humanism has done the same by removing foundational truths from education. It excludes study and discovery that contradicts uniformitarianism. It rewrites history to undermine morality and freedom of expression.

The union between the medieval Romanist church and the state came to an end in two ways. In Southern Europe during the Renaissance, art, architecture, literature, and learning opened up to all men, not just those who were part of the church and state system. The Renaissance left the power intact, however. In Northern Europe, the Reformation abolished the need for a church like Rome through the great affirmations of the Reformation: The Scriptures are the absolute authority; Justification is by faith alone apart from works; and every believer is his own priest with direct access to God. The Reformation made a special priesthood class unnecessary because men could pray directly to God and read His Word on their own.

The medieval Roman Catholic Church kept the Scriptures almost exclusively in Latin to prevent ordinary people from studying them, forcing people to come to the priest. The priest would not only tell them what the Scriptures said, but he also mingled that with the church’s interpretation. In order for ordinary people who did not know Latin to read the Bible for themselves, the Scriptures had to be translated into the language of the ordinary people. Translation work by Reformers was essential to enable ordinary men to read the Scriptures for themselves, even though it was punishable by death under the Church-State system. The Renaissance and the Reformation worked together in the development of moveable type to make printing and distribution of translations of the Scriptures easier. Renaissance scholars revived interest in studying forgotten manuscripts and making translations into the vernacular. Erasmus’s Greek New Testament provided a basis for more accurate translations of the Scriptures.

The Medieval Romanist Church-State system took away freedom by forcing man to rely on and accept its teachings. The Renaissance and the Reformation restored freedom by returning art, science, and all forms of learning to ordinary people. In particular the people were able to worship God as the Scriptures taught, without Church-State control. Modern western culture, and American culture in particular, was founded on this religious freedom. American culture is more Christian than European cultures, but neither of these cultures can survive if the foundation of religious freedom is destroyed.

It is this Christian foundation of religious freedom which is the real target of Secular Humanists. These Secular Humanists have taken outrageous liberties in their unrelenting quest to replace religious freedom with their established religion of Secular Humanism, which they incorrectly call science or Natural Law. Their major tool is the US court system. Sympathetic US courts have consistently supported Secular Humanism by using every possible opportunity to replace the word religion with the ancient concept of Natural Law. However, since Natural Law has been used so many different ways, the courts had to standardize the term Natural Law. Their version of Natural Law goes back to Plato’s Republic. Though Plato never used the phrase natural law in his Republic, translator Benjamin Jowett’s notes state that, Plato among the Greeks, like Bacon among the moderns, was the first who conceived a method of knowledge… ⁴ Plato’s Republic is at least the foundation of modern Natural Law, if not the detailed finished product. Together with Aristotle, Plato is supposed by secularists to have laid the foundation for learning and development of the Sciences. This is really is essence of Natural Law.

Jowett goes on to say that Plato provided for a means to spread his method of acquiring knowledge. In the ideal State which is constructed by Socrates, the first care of the rulers is to be education.⁴ Jowett makes it clear that Socrates meant to impart much more than mere academic knowledge, just as Natural Law means to teach more than mere Science. Socrates promoted the conception of a higher State, in which ‘no man calls anything his own,’ and in which there is neither ‘marrying nor giving in marriage,’ and ‘kings are philosophers’ and ‘philosophers are kings;’ and there is another and higher education, intellectual as well as moral and religious, of science as well as of art, and not of youth only but of the whole of life.⁴

Many know that Plato in his Republic based his state on a philosopher/king. Few, however, are aware that he believed in communism and free love and that these two natural principles were to be foundational principles of the state.

Though the preceding condensation by Benjamin Jowett is an excellent job, as you can read for yourself, the actual words of Socrates, as quoted by Plato, are much longer and more difficult to understand. None of them will have anything specially his or her own. … Their legislator, having selected the men, will now select the women and give them to them [the legislator gives selected women to selected men]… they must live in common houses and meet at common meals … they will be together … And so they will be drawn by a necessity of their natures to have intercourse with each other… … Until philosophers are kings, or the kings and princes … have the spirit and power of philosophy, and political greatness and wisdom meet in one … cities will never have rest from their evils.⁵

The philosopher/king, according to Socrates, was to lay these foundational ideas through education. Though he did not use the phrase establishment of religion, Plato clearly advocated an established religion. It was to be put in place by a philosopher/king through education based on a state where no man calls anything his own and where there is neither marrying nor giving in marriage. Though this education would begin with children, it would continue throughout a person’s entire life. This is the Natural Law which the US Court system has imposed.

The US needs to disestablish its Establishment of Religion and reestablish religious freedom. In the 1800’s churches which tried to break away from the Church of England were called disestablishmentarians. The people who fought against the disestablishment of those churches within the Church of England in the 1800s were called Antidisestablishmentarians. Today, the mainstream media, liberal politicians, the academic community, the liberal courts and all others who file lawsuits, blacklist, fire, refuse to hire, tax, legislate against, libel, slander and do whatever is necessary to maintain their positions of privilege and power are modern Antidisestablishmentarians.

____________________

1 (No author) Parents Fuming as Texas Schools Let Gideons Provide Bibles to Students, Tuesday, May 19, 2009, Fox News.com. "A spokeswoman for the school district said that a number of materials are made available to students this way, including newspapers, camp brochures and tutoring pamphlets. College and military recruitment information is available all year long. The Gideon Bibles were made available for just one day. ‘We have to handle this request in the same manner as other requests to distribute non-school literature — in a view-point neutral manner,’ Shana Wortham, director of communications for the district, wrote in an e-mail to FoxNews.com.

2 Alexander Hamilton, in an 1802 letter to James Bayard. I have carefully examined the evidences of the Christian religion, and if I was sitting as a juror upon its authenticity I would un-hesitatingly give my verdict in its favor. I can prove its truth as clearly as any proposition ever submitted to the mind of man.

3 Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Volume 7, The Reformation, Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1910.

4 Plato, The Republic (c. 360 B.C.), translated by Benjamin Jowett over a period of 30 years until his death in 1893, completed posthumously by Lewis Campbell. (Introductory material (in double quotes) and paraphrases of Plato’s ideas (in single quotes) were written by Jowett.)

5 Plato, The Republic, Book Five Dialogue excerpts among Socrates, Adeimantus, Glaucon and Thrasymachus have been placed in parentheses within Jowett’s introductory material.

Introduction

Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.¹

John Adams

Sometime in the early twentieth century, Secular Humanist indoctrination convinced almost everyone in the United States that an establishment of religion in the first phrase of the first amendment of the United States Constitution is vague and can mean just about anything. The state of the facts and evidence, as John Adams so eloquently put it, is the exact opposite.

Section One of this work documents what the founders meant by the phrase an establishment of religion. The Founding Fathers made as clear a statement as the English language permitted. The Constitution of the United States is founded on English law and to a lesser extent, various European laws, especially German and Dutch. In each of these countries, an Establishment of Religion was the collection of taxes to support education, welfare and public worship. The various governments appointed the teachers, welfare workers and pastors and expected these people to support the government in turn.

The original state constitutions not only permitted, but openly encouraged establishments of religion, especially in the areas of welfare and education. The foundation of the US Constitution is the fact that federal government was to have no control whatsoever in these areas. Their concept of a separation of Church and State was the exact opposite of what the courts have rammed down our throats for the past hundred years. The church should have the right to pray and teach without any federal intervention whatsoever. Judges should have the right to post any Scriptures they want. The courts should have no authority whatsoever to comment. Removing a state judge from office for posting the Ten Commandments is not merely an Establishment of Religion. It is the Inquisition.

Section Two documents the foundations of Secular Humanism and how it grew to become America’s Establishment of Religion. The words Secular Humanism come from various groups in the 1950’s. The phrase Secular Humanist is found in court documents to describe this set of beliefs. Secular Humanism is as old as civilization, but the primary foundation of twenty first century Secular Humanism is Plato’s Republic. In America, Secular Humanism can be said to have originated with Thomas Paine. Secular Humanism has specific beliefs which are written down in various manifestos. Like Christianity, Islam and Judaism, Secular Humanism has many variations. Though Secular Humanists do not like the term, the most accurate words to describe these variants are sects or denominations. Like Christians, Muslims and Jews, many Secular Humanist denominations do not get along with one another. Therefore, we have attempted to point out the beliefs which have the greatest agreement.

Section Three defines science, since Secular Humanists claim that science separates them from all other religions. Since true science is founded in the belief, faith and trust of the Bible, all of these words are defined carefully and in detail. In the Bible, belief, faith and trust are legal terms. Believe means to examine the evidence and come to a reasoned conclusion. Action taken on that belief is faith. Trust is the passive version of faith.

The Scientific Method is the biblical version of belief, faith and trust applied to the material world which God created for us. In the Bible, the Scientific Method recognizes that God is the creator, that we are required to be responsible managers of the material world God has given us and that there is a final judgment after death which will include how well we managed the gifts God allowed us to use.

Our book concludes with Section Four, the results of having Secular Humanism as an Establishment of Religion. With the exception of America’s founding documents and the ancient documents such as Plato, Plutarch and Genesis, hundreds of other quotes could easily be substituted for the quotes that appear here. There is nothing new or unique in this book. It is a combination of what used to be common knowledge in America before Secular Humanism took over and destroyed the education system and current events. If we were to start over today, we would pull different stories from the daily news. Though the individual stories would be different, the points would be the same. There is nothing new under the sun (Ecclesiastes 1:9). Or to state the same thing another way, the more things change, the more they stay the same.

America’s Established Religion is Secular Humanism. This work is dedicated to exposing, defining and disestablishing it.

____________________

1 John Adams, Argument in defence of the [English] soldiers in the Boston Massacre trial, December 1770.

2 Alabama’s Judicial Ethics Panel removed Chief Justice Roy Moore from office Thursday for defying a Federal judge’s order to move a ten commandments monument from the State Supreme Court building. Friday, November 14, 2003. Posted 6:56 AM Eastern time. CNN.com

11. What Is Science to a Secular Humanist?

The sign of a natural law must be the universal respect in which it is held … we would undoubtedly obey it universally … Instead there is nothing in the world that is not subject to contradiction and dispute … there is nothing that is strange and unnatural that is not approved in many countries …¹

Pierre Charron

All science is secular, and it did not originate in any supernatural faith.²

Charles Watts

What is the relationship here of men to women? Albert Einstein inquired during a 1921 visit to a Kibbutz in Israel. "Herr Professor, each man here has one woman. Answered the blushing female guide. Einstein quickly reassured her. Don’t be alarmed at my question - by ‘relationship’ we physicists understand something rather simple, namely how many men are there and how many women."³

The meanings of words can vary and so result in misunderstandings. Here relationship can mean a domestic arrangement as well as a ratio or comparison. The word green is an adjective which describes a color. This is commonly understood among English speaking people. Although green, like relationship, has other meanings such as envious, or inexperienced, or even ecologically friendly, few will misunderstand the sentence, My shirt is green.

Without this simple, basic agreement on the meaning of words, language and any other form of communication, is impossible. Precise technical definitions of green in scientific fields, such as the exact wavelength in the electromagnetic spectrum that humans see as green, clarify and help avoid misunderstandings. This technical knowledge, however, is not necessary to understand what green means in ordinary conversation. The problem, not only with Secular Humanists, but also with liberalism in general, is that they use the same words as the rest of us, but change the meaning of the word. When a Secular Humanist uses the word science, he does not mean the same thing that a conservative does, and it is not a matter of mere misunderstanding.

To a Secular Humanist, science is defined by natural law. So we must understand what a Secular Humanist means by natural law before we can understand what he means when he defines the word science. To a Secular Humanist, natural law is similar to the idea of the laws of nature. That is, they are simply principles universally held to be true. This concept of natural law goes back at least to Plato and Aristotle. The problem with this view of natural law is that it is an erudite form of circular reasoning. Charles Watts defined truth as that which the best knowledge endorses, the largest intellects accept, and the widest experience vouches for.² Put another way, something is true because it is universally held to be true. And that something is universally held to be true because they were able to convince, cajole, browbeat or force enough people to agree with them.

Secular Humanists also believe that truth is fluid and changeable. After they forced people to agree with them on their idea of truth, Watts went on to say, Many so-called truths are liable to be corrected, modified, or superseded by more accurate power of judgment, or more perfect experience.² Allowing for changeable truth removes all necessity for plan or purpose in nature. Natural law becomes whatever the largest intellects decide it is at the time. George Gaylord Simpson, paleontologist, said Man is the result of a purposeless and natural process that did not have him in mind. He was not planned. He is … a sort of animal… akin nearly or remotely to all of life and indeed to all that is material.⁴ This foundational dogma must also be imposed on unbelievers. But unbelievers (Theists) are stubbornly unwilling to be converted.

Julian Huxley demands that the children of these unbelievers must be indoctrinated with the dogma of their redefined natural law with no absolute truth. It is essential for evolution to be-come the central core of any educational system, because it is evolution, in the broad sense, that links inorganic nature with life, and the stars with earth, and matter with mind, and animals with man.⁵ He insisted on indoctrination with evolution, wanted it central to education, because he demanded belief in progression from lower to higher, primitive to advanced. This is the dogmatic opposite of Christianity, which teaches that man was created in the image of God with the constant struggle to conserve the original creation or to degrade from it. Julian Huxley wanted to prove that animal nature and human nature were not distinct, that there was no soul or spiritual nature breathed in by God. Human history is a continuation of biological evolution in a different form.⁵ This is as purely a religious statement as it is possible to make. It is simply an expression of Secular Humanism with the power of an Established Religion. This is what a Secular Humanist means when he uses the word science.

These same people who say that reason is the supreme natural law, however, justify the most depraved behavior when passions overwhelm reason. To a Secular Humanist, a teenager has raging hormones with uncontrollable sexual drives. When reasonable people point out that this view of science strips away morality, Richard Dawkins explains: Scientific and technological progress themselves are value-neutral. They are just very good at doing what they do. If you want to do selfish, greedy, intolerant and violent things, scientific technology will provide you with by far the most efficient way of doing so.⁶ The presumption is that real scientists would only use it for good.

This, to Secular Humanists, is one of many natural laws which provide their foundation for a Brave New World of science. But if you want to do good, to solve the world’s problems, to progress in the best value-laden sense, once again, there is no better means to those ends than the scientific way.⁶ This arrogance is the opposite of the Natural Law of America’s founding fathers.

There is, however, one aspect of Natural Law with universal agreement. Natural Law should explain universal truths of nature. To explain all nature is too difficult a task for any one man or even for any one age,⁷ said Isaac Newton, a recognized proponent of Natural Law. ‘Tis much better to do a little with certainty, & leave the rest for others that come after you, than to explain all things by conjecture without making sure of anything.⁷ It is sad that Secular Humanists usually ignore this point of agreement and emphasize their doctrine of natural laws relying heavily on conjecture. The sign of a natural law must be the universal respect in which it is held … we would undoubtedly obey it universally …