Comment on Emory University “Welcomes” Commencement Speaker Dr. Ben Carson by Art Chadwick.
Compare the attitude of the dogmatists at Emory with this quotation in a lesson on “Science and Pseudoscience” from an interactive educational program by Steven K. Lower:
“Psuedosciences are based largely on dogma and uncritical belief, and hence tend to resist change once they have been developed. Their advocates and practitioners generally regard attempts to alter them as hostile.
In contrast, skepticism is the very lifeblood of science; it is only by questioning and testing its ideas and theories that new questions are revealed and the science can advance.
Pseudosciences tend to be fairly static in this regard; the small amount of research and experimentation that is carried out is generally done more to “justify” the belief than to extend it.
Sciences advance by accommodating themselves to change as new information is obtained.
“In the pseudosciences, a challenge to accepted dogma is often considered a hostile act if not heresy, and leads to bitter disputes or even schisms. In science, the person who shows that a generally accepted belief is wrong or incomplete is more likely to be considered a hero than a heretic.”
If evolution were a good theory, its promoters would not want it called a “fact”, since theories are far nobler things than “facts”. The attempts by some faculty at Emory and others to dogmatize evolution as a “fact” are indicators that evolution is closer to a religious belief than many of its promoters would wish to acknowledge.
Richard Feynman in “The Meaning of it All” (p. 28) discusses the importance of understanding the tentative nature of science.
“This freedom to doubt is an important matter in the sciences and, I believe, in other fields. It was born of a struggle. It was a struggle to be permitted to doubt, to be unsure. And I do not want us to forget the importance of the struggle and, by default, to let the thing fall away. I feel a responsibility as a scientist who knows the great value of a satisfactory philosophy of ignorance, and the progress made possible by such a philosophy, progress which is the fruit of freedom of thought. I feel a responsibility to proclaim the value of this freedom and to teach that doubt is not to be feared, but that it is to be welcomed as the possibility of a new potential for human beings. If you know that you are not sure, you have a chance to improve the situation. I want to demand this freedom for future generations.
Doubt is clearly a value in the sciences. Whether it is in other fields is an open question and an uncertain matter. […D]oubt is not a fearful thing, but a thing of very great value.”
Recent Comments by Art Chadwick
Southern Adventist University opens Origins Exhibit
Since you asked, typical Carboniferous plants were 30 or more times as large as modern equivalent forms. Yes, they were “many times as large”.
Interesting that you mention an eye witness account to the flood. There are such accounts. Check out for example Luke 17:26 ff.
Revisiting God, Sky & Land by Fritz Guy and Brian Bull
I know that Brian Bull and Fritz Guy are intelligent, articulate people. I also know that neither of them have any professional experience or special training in old testament theology or Hebrew. Therefore the scholarship of their book is no better than it would be if any lay person had written it. Thus they are trading on their reputations in promoting this as a scholarly work. And as far as the “translation” of Genesis is concerned, please tell me this was done in gest, and was not intended to be taken seriously.
And as far as Bull and Guy knowing what Moses knew, that stance reveals a whole lot more about their own ignorance, I suspect, than it does about the state of Moses’ knowledge. Had they spent 40 years communing with God in the wilderness, I suspect they might have more than a passing knowledge of the so-called science of today.
And for that matter, just how good is today’s science, that “Moses didn’t know?” Consider this: during a decade as head of global cancer research at Amgen, C. Glenn Begley identified 53 “landmark” publications — papers in top journals, from reputable labs — for his team to reproduce. Begley sought to double-check the findings before trying to build on them for drug development. Result: 47 of the 53 could not be replicated. Note this is not a random sampling. It represents what the head of Amgen research thought was “the best of the best” in cancer research.
“….part way through his project to reproduce promising studies, Begley met for breakfast at a cancer conference with the lead scientist of one of the problematic studies. “We went through the paper line by line, figure by figure,” said Begley. “I explained that we re-did their experiment 50 times and never got their result. He said they’d done it six times and got this result once, but put it in the paper because it made the best story. It’s very disillusioning.”
Southern Adventist University opens Origins Exhibit
As one who has carefully vetted the entire exhibit, I can say without equivocation that Dr. Snyder and his staff have done a masterful and credible job of marshalling resources and information in a way that brings credit to the Creator God we serve. Anyone who takes time to visit the exhibit will be blessed and informed by state-of-the-art presentations on issues of origin that deals fairly with the science and presents in a pleasing and informative fashion, a landscape of beauty and wide appeal that tells the story of our earths history in harmony with the biblical account. Go see it.
I’m sorry, but your effort to support the secrecy that has been taking place at LSU is not in line with the God-given rights of parents… a right which far surpassed whatever rights a teacher might have to privacy within the classroom setting…