. . . dogmatism, or “assertion without proof,” has no place in the kingdom of God or in the laboratories of science.
Dogmatism is defined as “1: positiveness in assertion of opinion especially when unwarranted or arrogant”; and “2: a viewpoint or system of ideas based on insufficiently examined premises” (www.merriam-webster.com).
Unfortunately, there is much dogmatism in the world of Christianity or there wouldn’t be hundreds, if not thousands, of versions, or sects, of said Christianity. Ideally, there would be one version as there was in the days of Jesus and the Apostles. Unity of thought, doctrine and action are common themes throughout both the Old and New Testaments.
Because of dogmatic arrogance, many wars and purges have been fought over the centuries in the name of Christianity, as well as in the name of other world religions—and still are. Countless millions have found early graves because of differences of opinion regarding religious dogma.
And it is no better in the world of science.
Just let any scientist in academia (or wherever grant money is involved) put forth the idea of intelligent design in the creation of the world and he or she is immediately ostracized by their peers and will likely result in the loss of any grant money previously obtained. Some are downright vilified and have even lost their standings in academia. Besides this, intelligent designers will never be allowed to present their papers in peer-reviewed publications, by which, among other things, they obtain tenure and meet academic obligations.
The arrogance that results in the clinging to the unprovable evolutionary dogma thwarts any serious scientific investigation into other theories of creation, including, but not limited to, intelligent design.
The same may be said for the so-called Big Bang theory. When all is said and done, there is no way to prove that theory, as it’s all based on conjecture as to what meanings may be attached to the data that is gathered. Basically, from what I have observed, the data is manipulated to fit the theory. But let anyone disagree and you have the same difficulty as the intelligent designers have, as noted above.
The truly sad part about the theories of evolution and the Big Bang is that they are treated as factual in academia—at all levels of “education.” And nothing can be taught in their place . . . or else.
This is the reverse of the situation that created the famous Scopes trial in 1925 when it was religion (i.e., Christianity) that held sway and would allow no other version of creation to be taught in the public schools but the one found in Genesis.
Christianity lost that battle and has since been booted out of the public education system. How ironic.
As far as the kingdom of God goes, if Christianity were truly the kingdom of God as all the churches profess, then, I believe, there would be no “assertion[s] without proof,” as all would be of one heart and one mind. Would they not? Well, maybe.
Revelation might bring forth some assertions without proof. Take John’s great Revelation, for example. Was he able to prove to the seven churches in Asia that he had, in fact, received great things from God?
No, not really. He only had his word and reputation as an Apostle to go on. However, for the existing churches, I’m sure that was enough.
The only way John’s Revelation could be proved was if another were to experience the same vision John did and stand up as another witness. This would certainly fulfill the ancient law, wherein
“It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true” (John 8:17).
Paul also taught this:
“In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established” (2 Corinthians 12:1).
Yet, what happens when two or three assert something that isn’t true, such as, in my opinion, the theories of evolution and the Big Bang? That would negate these two verses, would it not? What then?
Back to proof. In the meanwhile, you might choose to follow the money, as there is a lot of it tied up in these two theories.
Evolution cannot be scientifically proved as a true principle, nor can the Big Bang, as they are not reproducible. Reproducibility is one of the hallmarks of the scientific method.
Unfortunately, the Bible doesn’t offer a lot of proof, either, especially in the way some people interpret Genesis 1, such as believing the earth and its heavens were created in six 24-hour periods of time. Not only is it not reproducible, it is unreasonable.
So, what does Skousen really mean by the above quote? I’m assuming that he means that nothing in his book will include dogmatism or “assertion without proof.”
However, because of the subject matter at hand, Skousen will likewise make many assertions which cannot be proved. I defy anyone to put forth a scientific-based book on any subject without making assertions that cannot be proved. It’s just not going to happen. There’s just too many unknowns in the world of science.
Well, we shall see. I’ll keep an eye on this matter as we progress through this book.
No comments:
Post a Comment