Professors Of Biology Who Claim They Only Accept Facts Will Always Tell You What They Believe Has To Be True

Which Fool Has The Smallest Intellect Of All

There is no greater fool than one who has an intellect so small that he or she refuses to acknowledge the truth.

Ken Ham: Evolution Of A Bully

Just recently, I was reading a post on Heresy in the Heartland entitled Ken Ham: The Evolution of a Bully. As is evident by the title, the article is not a favorable endorsement of Ken Ham.

Ken Ham heads up a creationist organization known as Answers In Genesis, which runs a museum and publishes literature arguing for a literal 96 hours (3rd to 6th day) of labor by the Creator God to create the Universe. Ham believes that the complete six days of Creation recorded in the first chapter of the Bible are each of twenty-four hours duration. However, this is contrary to what the Bible states.

One Day Of Creation Could Be A Thousand Years Or More

The Bible clearly states that God made the Heavens and Earth in one day, and a day with the Lord could be a lot longer than the 24 hr days that came about after the fourth day of Creation, when the Sun was made. This is what the Bible states:

This is the history of the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that Yahweh God made the earth and the heavens (Genesis 2:4)

But don’t forget this one thing, beloved, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. (2 Peter 3:8)

The Arrogance Of The Ignorant

In response to the article Ken Ham: The Evolution of a Bully, one commentator, Stephen McKerracher  writes:

And without the Bible, there is no other rational reason for me to believe in God. And trust me, it isn't for lack of knowledge. I have a 146 IQ, and I'm over a month into a drawn-out debate on Quora.com with a guy that has a MA degree in Christian Apologetics, and I found it sadly easy to debunk every reason he brings.

[Did you just see an ego swell with gas? Don't prick it with a pin.]

Whether Stephen McKerracher is a scientist, I do not know. But he displays the same arrogance as the ignorant who claim they are so smart that they know their intelligence and freewill originated out of nothing with the aid of nothing. They are unable to prove this, but trust them; it is a fact, because they say so.

McKerracher further goes on to say that faith is not evidence based and the Bible is unreliable. The Bible tells us that faith is based on evidence, which it is. Indeed, without true knowledge there is no true faith. What most people confuse to be true knowledge is often a belief system (like the Theory of Evolution) into which they put their faith.

The Significance Of Being An Ant

For instance, on another site, we learn in what Stephen McKarracher has faith. He claims that living this life alone, and then ceasing to be, is a very meaningful experience. Based on this logic, the life of every ant is very meaningful too. But too whom? It might be very meaningful to an anteater, but not for long. An anteater needs more than one ant to survive. But, then, we are assuming that an anteater has the capacity to attribute meaning to its experience of eating each ant.

The only hope for an ant to have any meaning for its existence is if there is a Creator who created it for a reason. If there is no Creator, then there is no meaning for the ant's existence—or for that matter, to life itself. Life becomes futile possessing no hope of any meaning at all. 

Moreover, the idea of the simple evolving into the complex is incredibly naive and contradicts (the yet to be debunked) scientific second law of thermodynamics, which basically states that life forms, rather than build up, diminish as energy breaks down and it is impossible for the simple to evolve into the complex. If it is impossible for the simple to evolve into the complex, how is nothing capable of producing anything. For from nothing, the only thing we can obtain is nothing.

The Snowflakes Of Microbiology

Joel Duff is a professor of Biology at the University of Akron and blogs on Naturalis Historia. He is a Presbyterian and a lover of Reformed Theology.  He believes in the Theory of Evolution and does not accept the Young Earth Hypothesis. Like all scientists, he claims he only accepts the facts.  Regarding diatoms, Duff states:

Diatoms, which are single-celled organisms that live in glass-houses in almost any moist environment, are visually stunning, and so I thought I might use them to illustrate the typically unseen diversity of creation....There are more species of diatoms than there are of mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians combined: about 100,000! There are so many shapes and sizes you can think of the as the snowflakes of the microbiological world. By most estimates they account for one quarter of the oxygen produced on Earth.  They also account for 40 to 50% of the primary food production in the oceans.   Clearly, diatoms are essential components of the Earth’s ecosystem as it functions today.

The Rubbery Truth About Scientific Facts

One commentator, Paul Braterman, who found his article on diatoms interesting, posed two questions: Was the invention of the glasshouse a one-off event, or had it happened repeatedly but failed because of competition for available marine silica? Will we ever know?

Duff being a scientist only accepts facts, yet when answering the two questions of Braterman, we can clearly see how he justifies his claim regarding his belief that diatoms shatter Young Earth geology. If you get the impression that he is a spiritualist channeling the dead, he is not. He is playing the role of a serious scientist. You will notice the words “believe”, “assure”, “could have”,  “it is possible”, “think it is likely”, “but we cannot know for sure”.

Paul, I believe they do form a single clade but that doesn’t assure that the use of silica was discovered only once. There could have been non-silica using members of the clade for long period of time in which silica-use was discovered twice or more. Since some plant lineages have also learned to produce glass structures the biosynthetic pathways we know it is possible for them to evolve independently. I think it is likely in diatoms there is a single origin but we can’t know for sure. [Nothing like solid facts to convince the literati of their beliefs.]

 Theistic Evolution And Human Philosophy Equals Reformed Theology

Duff is a theistic evolutionist who believes in Reformed Theology, which is a human philosophical view of how to interpret the Bible by excluding scriptures that do not fit that system of thought and redefining the definitions of words.

For instance, in Reformed Theology, the world “all” does not mean “all”; it only means “some'.

Let us consider the following sentence: All the people in the world may not live in the glass house. Immediately, we identify "all the people" with "some of the people", but in Reformed Theology, all the people in the glasshouse are regarded as all the people in the world. 

 We can understand how they interpret the word “all” to mean “some” when we consider the word "all" in the following context of  this sentence: (1) All the people who are living in the glass house should not throw stones at those who live outside. 

Sentence (1) means the same as: (2) Some of the people live in the glass house and they should not throw stones at those who live outside. 

As we can see there is no difference in the meaning of the two sentences (1) and (2). Essentially, both sentences are saying: Every person in the glass house should not throw stones at those outside.

Therefore when the Bible says that all the people in the world are given the opportunity to be saved, Reformed thinking is  "all" actually means "some" similar to the "all" of  "all who live in the glasshouse". This is what they understand the word "all" means when written in the Bible. The word "all" does not mean "all" it means "some" and when the Bible states something that indicates a reference to ALL those for whom Jesus died and for whom God is concerned, this does not mean "all" as in "everyone", but "all" as in "some".

This ALL for whom Jesus died, according to Reformed philosophical mumbo-jumbo actually means "some" as in  "all those who were chosen" from everyone in the world. 

According to Reformed Theology, the idea, Jesus died for the sins of all the world (1 John 2:2), does not mean what it says from a simple and natural reading of the words. Neither does the scripture mean exactly what it states, where it is written, that God sent the Son into the world, not to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him (John 3:17).

The word "world" has to take on a new meaning, because it cannot mean "the realm of Earthly existence"  for then that would mean Jesus died for the sins of every person who was born into the realm of Earthly existence. If Jesus died for the sins of all who were born on Earth, this would contradict Reformed theology that Jesus only died for "all who were chosen"; that is, "some" of the people who were to be born, but not all of the people. Therefore the word "world" has to mean something other than "the realm of Earthly existence", so it can fit into Reformed theology.

Reformed philosophy acknowledges a Creator, therefore it is called "theology" and not "philosophy". However, Reformed thinking is flawed, just as all human thinking appears to be flawed when it rejects the truth. The problem not only with Reformed thinking but all human thinking is that it is easy for humans to fall into error. Human thinking becomes flawed as soon as a truth is rejected. 

Possessing Superior Knowledge

For some reason, rather than accepting the logical truth that the Creation had to have been created, people, who do not accept the truth about the need for a Creator, want to believe the lie that God does not exist. This is because they want to pride themselves in their own ability, and they like to think they have superior IQ's, or possess superior knowledge. Such are the fools who disregard the truths of God. However, as the proverb says, “Even a fool is considered wise when he sees the error of his ways.”

Not only are Professors of Biology deceived because they want to put their faith in what they believe, but so are others, because they put their trust in human ideas rather than truly seeking out the truth. 

True science is the quest for the truth, not an affirmation of personal statements of belief.