I grew up as a science and technology enthusiast reading literally hundreds of journals and books on science, absorbing every article and television program on the subject with great zeal and interest. Unfortunately, through all this diligent interest and study I was never exposed to the problems with naturalistic views on origins. Imagine that, 20 years of diligent study fueled by sincere interest, but being shown only one perspective. You hear it often said that “science is unbiased.” Of course, nothing could be farther from the truth. It was the power of this epiphany that called me into the creation science ministry, and in fact is the reason why such a ministry is needed. If science were unbiased, I would be out of a ministry so-to-speak. Of course I am not alone. Many, many more like me are out there, some of which are notable scientists. Dr. Michael Behe, the principle advancer of the irreducible complexity challenge to the evolutionary paradigm completed a doctorate in biochemistry and had been a full professor at a university for many years before he found out about the science refuting Darwinism. In his testimony he states that he was angry and felt as if he had been indoctrinated in a particular view. Of course, he was right. In his book called “Darwin’s Black Box” he presents a compelling argument that the recent multiple discoveries of how microscopic systems work provides the most compelling argument against Darwinism that has ever been advanced (Behe Resources). This magical “black box” of Darwinism has been unveiled, and it is not simple chemistry as Darwin thought, it is nanotechnology.

I think it is important to understand that scientific investigation does not take place in a vacuum, but rather by individuals who all maintain beliefs and biases. Often you will find that some of the most narrow-minded, intolerant people are those who profess to be broadminded. The scripture tells us the haughty spirit of pride precedes great error (Proverbs 16:18Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.
See All...). I actually had a religious liberal tell me once that he didn’t like to talk to me because I was so closed-minded. My response was that was the key difference between him and I…..I was closed-minded and knew it. I continued by saying that I was so closed-minded that many liberals like himself didn’t even want to hear what I had to say. Of course I was having a little fun with this fellow, but in the process I was illustrating an underlying truth….nobody is completely open-minded. We all have biases. Being aware of them will certainly help you to investigate things in a more honest fashion, but your biases will be ever present in all that you do. We must beware of those who tell us otherwise, for they are either self deceived, or they are outright lying and have an agenda. Our educational system is currently almost completely dominated by this sort. Some have said the liberal viewpoint is the most appropriate for our universities since they are open to multiple viewpoints. Of course this is true, as long as each of those multiple viewpoints are exactly in line with what they believe. Senator Rick Santorum says of evolution, "Anyone who expresses anything other than the dominant worldview is shunned and booted from the academy." I personally know a creation science evangelist who is in the ministry because of being booted from a university for being vocal about his criticisms of evolution and providing evidence to support creation. He has all the right credentials and is extremely bright and personable, but has a belief in creation that is outside the tolerance range for these broad-minded people.

The agenda to hide the bias of secular scientists was made very evident in a recent interview on MSNBC with Chris Matthews. The Baptist Pastor at the center of the curriculum debate in Kansas was interviewed along with Eugenie Scott, the head of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE). The NCSE is essentially a group of people with atheistic viewpoints on origins that want to discredit a creation worldview and have people believe that secular people are unbiased. During the interview Matthews allowed the Pastor to give his viewpoint on the efficacy of the creation viewpoint. Later, when discussing Scott’s viewpoint, he asked her point blank “what do you believe?” She refused to answer stating that it was not germane to the discussion of science. Matthews asked her again. Scott refused a second time stating that was not the issue. Matthews pressed a third time saying to the effect “humor me, I’m just curious.” She still wouldn’t answer. In closing Matthews stated that even he found it hard to believe everything just got here accidentally. This interview really struck at the heart of this issue. Atheists, humanists, and apostate Christians would have you believe that the secular viewpoint is unbiased, but nothing could be farther from the truth. The myth of unbiased secular people is just that, a myth. It is a myth that must be exposed. There is no such thing as an unbiased person, and scientific investigation is performed by people. In other words, the creation viewpoint is no more biased than the viewpoint of naturalism, and its exclusion from class curriculums is indicative of how entrenched the secular viewpoint is in science, education, and our society as a whole.

With that said, we live in a very special time in human history. Our scientific knowledge has grown by leaps and bounds in the last 50 years. The false assumption made by Darwin and his contemporaries and predecessors that the fundamental unit of life, the cell, is just chemical Jell-O has been proven woefully false. This ignorance that led folks to be lulled into the belief that natural systems are simple and their change is an uncomplicated process has been crushed by evidence. Our adaptive capabilities are driven by complexly integrated, information rich, and systematized cellular mechanisms that are preprogrammed for adaptability within narrow parameters. Cell biologists are currently studying the advanced quality control systems that function at the cell level. There are actually molecular robots that check for translation errors when an RNA messenger segment is created from an unwoven section of DNA. But this is but one example of potentially thousands of different quality control type functions associated with cell development and function. So you see, there is a very complex molecular robotics system in place to prevent errors. In other words, mutation changes to the molecular structure are almost invariably harmful, and God deployed systems at the fundamental unit of life to prevent and correct these problems. Random mutational change does not produce evolution, but rather critical damage to the cell if it is not discovered and corrected by the underlying quality control systems.

Nanotechnology at the microscopic basis of life is a reality. The ultimate damning blow to naturalism is currently in the process of filtering its way into the popular culture of our country. Our understanding of physics and cosmology has pointed us toward the fact that our universe had an origin, and that the forces that bind it together are finely tuned in such a way as to provide a stable framework for life, something that randomness could never do. Recent geological and paleontological discoveries of cold spots in the mantle, rapid canyon creation and sediment stratification, dinosaurs with soft tissue, and short lived isotopes in materials like diamonds are shaking the very foundation of the widely held view of long geologic chronologies. While many scientists are turning their back on all this new evidence, many others are not, and the great majority of people who do not believe in evolution to begin with are having a field day with this new data.

As you can see, we who believe the Bible is the only authoritative book (scientific or otherwise) on the issue of origins have a great deal to be excited about today. Even the hardened atheist Antony Flew, who is a world famous author and champion of the atheist cause, has recently recanted his life’s work of over fifty years because the evidence for a creator is so overwhelming. This is the same information that is being withheld from students in our educational system at all levels currently. Could it be that some are afraid of the cultural ramifications of young people finding out that our 21st century scientific investigation all points toward a super-intelligent creator? We need to get this information out to a society that has become largely secular due to our scientific ignorance, and the apostasy of the Christian segment of society on this issue. As many sources are noting, both secular and religious, things appear to be changing rapidly in our society today, moving away from secularism and back to our Christian roots. I am fully committed to my piece of this struggle and will continue to reach out to people who are unaware of the amazing findings of science that demonstrate the existence of an all powerful creator, and moreover, that this creator is the one of the Bible, our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ.