Why do so many scientists believe in evolution?

The obvious reason that so many scientists endorse the theory of macroevolutionary process as the best explanation for life origins and development here on earth is because they really believe such to be the case. But is that true, really? Is it possible that there's a lot more to the story than meets the eye?

Wayne Friar, Ph.D., AIIA's Resource Associate for Science and Origins, says this:

Polls have shown that about 40% of scientists acknowledge a supernatural power. But the majority of the scientific community, especially evolutionary leaders today, hold an atheistic worldview. As support for their anti-supernatural worldviews, these scientists need mechanisms for the origin of life, especially humans.

Atheism needs evolution to escape from any implications regarding a creator. If one starts with Darwinism, certainly it is easy to escape from any obligation to God. Those opposed to their reasoning are branded as obscurantists who are trying to intrude religion into science.

Dr. Emery S. Dunfee, former professor of physics at the University of Maine at Farmington:

One wonders why, with all the evidence, the (Godless) theory of evolution still persists. One major reason is that many people have a sort of vested interest in this theory. Jobs would be lost, loss of face would result, text books would need to be eliminated or revised.

Evolutionist Richard Lewontin in The New York Review, January, 1997, page 31:

We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of the failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so-stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

Columnist George Caylor once interviewed a molecular biologist for an article entitled “The Biologist,” that ran on February 17, 2000, in The Ledger (Lynchburg, VA), and is in part reprinted here as a conversation between "G: (Caylor) and “J” (the scientist). We joint the piece in the middle of a discussion about the complexity of human code.

G: "Do you believe that the information evolved?"

J: "George, nobody I know in my profession believes it evolved. It was engineered by genius beyond genius, and such information could not have been written any other way. The paper and ink did not write the book! Knowing what we know, it is ridiculous to think otherwise."

G: "Have you ever stated that in a public lecture, or in any public writings?"

J: "No, I just say it evolved. To be a molecular biologist requires one to hold onto two insanities at all times. One, it would be insane to believe in evolution when you can see the truth for yourself. Two, it would be insane to say you don't believe evolution. All government work, research grants, papers, big college lectures—everything would stop. I'd be out of a job, or relegated to the outer fringes where I couldn't earn a decent living.

G: I hate to say it, but that sounds intellectually dishonest.

J: The work I do in genetic research is honorable. We will find the cures to many of mankind's worst diseases. But in the meantime, we have to live with the elephant in the living room.


G: What elephant?

G: Creation design. It's like an elephant in the living room. It moves around, takes up space, loudly trumpets, bumps into us, knocks things over, eats a ton of hay, and smells like an elephant. And yet we have to swear it isn't there!

Dr. John Morris, president of the Institute for Creation Research:

[Scientists] see the evidence for creation, and they see it clearly, but peer pressure, financial considerations, political correctness, and a religious commitment to naturalism force them to look the other way and insist they see nothing. And so, the illogical origins myth of modern society perpetuates itself

Biblical worrying.

Biblical Worrying (7)

This actually was not one of the lectures but I decided to talk about it today.

Is it biblical to worry?
My first inclination is to say no. It must not be because it says to worry about nothing:
Matthew 6:27, 34
Philippians 4:6,7,19
1 Peter 5:7
Luke 12:29
John 14:1

A closer look at these verses changed my mind. I separate worry and concern. (I'm just using these for what I'm saying, not for their actual definitions...)
Worry is noticing that you have no bread for tomorrow and staying up fretting.
Concern is knowing that your son is out fighting in Iraq and feeling anxious about him.

I think that it is biblical to be concerned about other's welfare, although it should not become a distraction that prevents a perfect relationship with Christ. As it says in 1 Peter 5:7 you should cast your concerns and anxieties on Jesus and let him handle the stress.

Worry is always wrong. It shows a lack of faith in God's providence and ability to provide for your needs. This is strongly supported by the verses above.

Image of the Logos

The Image of the Logos (6)
Being a word eater, part 1.

Key verses: But he answered, "It is written, "'Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.'" (Matthew 4:4 ESV)
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (John 1:1 ESV)

The most significant event of the 20th century was the decline of the age of typography and the ascent of the age of television.

Why is this significant?
Because with no words you can not think. With no way to organize your thoughts into things with meaning you do not think. This is shown by Helen Keller.

She remembers when she didn't know how to communicate everything was just black nothingness in her mind. There was no meaning to anything. It was only on March 3, 1887, when she learned her first word that she said that she first had a thought and was excited for the next day to
come. She calls that day her soul's birthday.

The imago dei---what is it?
(Image of God)
We have five basic non-physical attributes of a non-physical God.
This is also what separates us from animals. Animals have the first three but to a lesser degree because of the lack of words.
•Intelligence- Language enables a much higher level of intelligence. With no language Helen Keller would have peaked at a low level of smarts. As it works out she was a genius.
•Personality- Animals have a certain level of personality but it is more in their breeds then the individuals. Golden retrievers are more friendly while terriers are more fierce.
•Gregariousness- (a fancy way of saying we like to hang out with other people). Animals form groups too but it is mostly for survival purposes. We group together because humans are attracted to each other.
•Morality-We have innate morality while animals do not. They have no problem killing each other.
•Creativity-We are the only creatures that create for our pleasure alone.

We should consume words.

For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart. (Hebrews 4:12 ESV)

Being a question asker (part 2)

Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so. (Acts 17:11 ESV)

When we are consuming words we should not always do it by ourselves. Sometimes we must have discourses with others.
There are three ways we should do this:
•Language acquisition-hearing words.
•Oral discourse-Asking questions of people.
•Literary discourse-Having conversations with authors and books by reading them.

We are a generation raised by appliances. We are raised more by computers than by people. This is not a good set up for learning. The messages might be true but there is no room for questions.

So what is the difference between images and words?

Images:
-Communicate immediately and intuitively.
-Are impressionistic
-Are scanned subjectively
-Can not be judged true or false

Words:
-Communicate through abstraction and analysis
-Are precise and exact
-Are read in linear, logical fashion
-Can be judged as true or false.