Chapter 12: Conclusion - Part 6

I'm presenting the conclusions from my book (Chapter 12) in a series of posts. This is the sixth (and last) post of Chapter 12. Click here to see the first post (beginning) and here to see the prior post. Reactions or questions are welcomed.

I have suggested a few of the questions about the grand scheme of evolution to point out that there are plenty of reasons to doubt the truth claims from the scientists that offer evolution as fact. Evolution has become an undisputed fact, not from the evidence but by the declaration of the elites of the scientific community. Those who do question this assertion are not less knowledgeable concerning the evidence; they are simply not invited into the community. This exclusion of rivals is the way elites over the ages have always behaved.

True, science has given us a technological environment that is beyond what most of us older adults even imagined during the earlier years of our life. But the theory of evolution has had nothing to do with the development of these technologies. The truth is that science would do nicely without the burden of rationalizing the cosmology of the elites. The name given for this exclusive approach to science is “consensus science.” It is a contradiction in terms. Yet we have a great illustration of consensus science offered presently by the advocates of human caused global warming.

Our egalitarian heritage is under siege. We are increasingly marginalized as religious if we hold that the celestial Creator created us equal and endowed us with certain unalienable rights. Our nation has several cultures within it, yet only one now has control of public academic institutions to train our leaders, teachers, and journalists. Only one, through past propaganda, has been able to persuade even our court systems that materialism is science and any other metaphysical position is religion.

Some have offered that religion and science each function in its own magisterium. From the magisterium of science, we discover the factual character of nature; from the magisterium of religion, we find meaning in our lives and a moral basis for our actions. I have two problems with this. First, I live in one universe, and the Creator gave me a stewardship that included knowing and understanding his world. And, it is the magisterium of science that has offered this division. When there are differences of opinion, science’s magisterium is said to define reality and must overrule any dissent from the religious magisterium.

I do not know if we have the political will to keep our equality before God and the liberty that we still claim is ours as citizens. Many seem willing to trade their liberty for care from the state. This has always been the promise of idolatry, and it has always been a threat. I hope that this book has opened your thinking to a new understanding about prehistory. We have been taught that our present perspectives have evolved from the base thinking of a primitive mankind. However, mankind with an egalitarian social order successfully spread over the world. It is likely that he did this with the same equality before the Creator and rights from him that we have recently enjoyed in our nation.

If this is true, it seems that we have another chance to enjoy this knowledge, freedom, and provision. It is difficult to imagine that a move from these beliefs and ideals would bring us any good that could possibly repay our loss if we again separate ourselves from God.