From Mark Copeland... "THE CASE FOR CREATION" Difficulties With Evolutionary Scientists

                        "THE CASE FOR CREATION"

               Difficulties With Evolutionary Scientists

INTRODUCTION

1. In this series we have presented evidence...
   a. From scientists who argue for creation, based on intelligent
      design
   b. From scientists who question macroevolution, based on lack of
      scientific support

2. Yet we often hear from teachers, scientists, and the media that
   evolution is...
   a. No longer a theory, but a fact
   b. A good reason to reject the Biblical account of creation

[If the issue is still debatable, then why do so many want to squelch
open discussion in our schools, scientific journals, etc.?  That such is
going on should be evident, but in case not, consider some...]

I. PROBLEMS WITH EVOLUTIONARY SCIENTISTS

   A. EVIDENCE OF MISCONDUCT...
      1. Misleading - "Present-day ultra-Darwinism, which is so sure of
         itself, impresses incompletely informed biologists, misleads
         them, and inspires fallacious interpretations." - Grasse,
         Pierre-P., [editor of the 28-volume "Traite de Zoologie,"
         former Chair of Evolution, Sorbonne University and ex-president
         of the French Academie des Sciences], "Evolution of Living
         Organisms: Evidence for a New Theory of Transformation,"
         [1973], Academic Press: New York NY, 1977, p. 6
      2. Fraudulent - "...we have proffered a collective tacit
         acceptance of the story of gradual adaptive change, a story
         that strengthened and became even more entrenched as the
         synthesis took hold. We paleontologists have said that the
         history of life supports that interpretation, all he while
         really knowing that it does not." - Eldredge, Niles, [Chairman
         and Curator of Invertebrates, American Museum of Natural
         History], "Time Frames: The Rethinking of Darwinian Evolution
         and the Theory of Punctuated Equilibria," Simon & Schuster:
         New York NY, 1985, p. 144
      -- Evolutionary scientists have been known not to be truthful
         about the evidence

   B. EVIDENCE OF DISCRIMINATION...
      1. Serious and widespread discrimination against creationists is
         well documented - Jerry Bergman, Contemporary Suppression Of
         The Theistic Worldview
      2. Over 100 active creationists employed in academia experienced
         one form or another of the following discrimination:
         a. Derogatory and inappropriate comments
         b. Refusal of admittance to graduate programs
         c. Refusal to award degree
         d. Denial of promotion
         e. Denial of tenure - ibid.
      3. Similar discrimination against students; what some educators
         have suggested:
         a. That professors fail any student in his class, no matter
            what the grade record indicates
         b. Retracting grades and even degrees if a person espouses
            creationism after passing the course or graduation
         c. Not awarding creationists with advanced degrees (e.g., PHDs)
            - ibid.
      4. Other articles one might read
         a. Quick, Let's Discriminate Against the Creationists!
         b. Bias In Higher Education
         c. Science Magazine Refuses To Hire Creationist
         D. Biologist Fired For Beliefs, Suit Says
      -- Evolutionary scientists have been known to carry out
         inquisitions against creationists

[Opposition if not outright persecution by evolutionary scientists is
certainly not universal.  Some possess true scientific integrity, and
have no problems with allowing opposing views to be taught and held.
For those who seek to silence critical examination of macroevolution,
let me offer some...]

II. REASONS FOR SUCH BEHAVIOR

   A. PEER PRESSURE...
      1. To succeed in the scientific field, one requires peer approval
      2. The results of one's research must be submitted for peer review
      -- While peer review has its merits, it can easily become peer pressure

   B. POLITICAL PRESSURE...
      1. Opposing theories have their ardent advocates
      2. Universities compete for research grants
      3. Science organizations vie for media attention
      -- Like politicians, scientists must often subscribe to popular
         opinion to succeed

   C. PECUNIARY PRESSURE...
      1. Scientists are supported by public and private institutions
      2. They must answer those who support them
      3. If research counters their benefactors, pressure is applied to
         change the results
      -- Scientists run the risk of being fired, having their funding cut off

   D. PERSONAL PRESSURE...
      1. Personal motives can be a factor
      2. Such as a strong desire to prove there is no God, no right or wrong
      3. Twisting evidence, overstating one's case, to justify one's
         immoral behavior
      -- Some love darkness more than light because their deeds are evil
         - Jn 3:19-20

CONCLUSION

1. My point is simply this:  scientists are human...
   a. Subject to failings common to us all - Ro 3:23
   b. Often corrupt, like many politicians, lawyers, car salesmen,
      preachers - cf. Ro 3:9

2. We should not be quick to place our faith in man...
   a. It is better to trust in the Lord - Psa 118:8-9
   b. It is better to trust in the Creator - Psa 146:3-6

I hope this series will encourage more careful and critical study in the
case for creation...

Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2011