It’s probably safe to assume that most organizations devoted to influencing public opinion openly promote one set of positions while privately nurturing longer term goals for which the world at large is not yet prepared.  Not that there is anything particularly sinister in holding such dichotomous policies.  Governments and businesses do it all the time; certainly other organizations are entitled to do the same.

 Now whether or not the good members of The Institute for Creation Research have a privately-held agenda of their own, I have no idea.  Nevertheless, as an avowed opponent of creationism, I cannot help musing on the possibility that they might have such an agenda and, presuming that they do, speculating on its contents.  The following, then, is my version of how a memo, between members of the institute’s inner circle, might read.  It is, I emphasize, of no authenticity whatsoever-purely a product of my biased, and quite possibly fervid, imagination.

“Hi George.  That was a great presentation you made before the state’s textbook selection committee last night.  I could tell by the look on their faces that you’d scored.  Hit the nail right on the head.

“Your talk had an impact on me as well that I’ll get around to in just a bit.  First, a little background.  Lately I’ve been thinking a lot on what I call “the big picture”-the hole we believers are in and how we can get ourselves out of it.  The first part is easy enough to understand.  The plain fact is that the secular elements of modern society have anointed scientists as the sole authorities, the final arbiters, the stewards over the ultimate repository of truths.  And, sad to say, we believers have done precious little to refute them.  Our reticence, our natural humility, our inherent good-nature, and our Christian charity have conspired to practically invite these scientific oracles to substitute their truths for God’s and to take over his rightful domain.

“Oh, I know.  Few scientists actively oppose religion.  Why should they?  From their standpoint, things are working out fine as it is.  So for the most part, they myopically focus on their narrow specialties and avoid publicity.  Nevertheless, their indifference to religion is well known.  Hardly a propitious example for their legions of followers.

“I don’t have to remind you of the results of these travesties.  Over the last several decades, science’s stature has risen while ours has fallen accordingly.  People’s attention has been diverted from their spiritual needs to the worldly matters science proffers thus opening the doors to moral relativism.  In many countries, church attendance has declined precipitously and in others it has virtually disappeared.  And I’m afraid that, as bad as our situation is now, it is bound to worsen if present trends persist.  Obviously, we cannot keep standing idly by and see the holy ground on which we stand relentlessly erode beneath our feet.  Not when religion’s very survival is at stake.

“So how do we get out of this hole we’re in?  By getting our act together, that’s how.  Shedding our passivity and start turning back the insidious tide of secularism.  Seizing the offensive, driving the scientific heathens off the high moral ground, and reclaiming our rightful place on it.  Sound like a big order?  You bet it is.  People have been indoctrinated with this myth of scientific infallibility for years and disabusing them of it will be like pulling teeth.  But what choice do we have?

“Fortunately we have a powerful weapon in our arsenal that will be a big help in the struggle ahead.  As you so aptly demonstrated last night, creationism can change people’s minds by revealing the falsity of scientific doctrine and pointing the way to God’s declared truths.  It’s provided a devastating opening salvo so far against the establishment’s ramparts.  All we have to do now is beef it up for the larger war ahead.  Heavier armor, more firepower.  It has to be broadened into a refutation, not only of the mistakes science has made in the history of the earth, but in the countless other ways science’s theories have contradicted biblical truths.  Once we’ve updated creationism-creationism-plus, I like to call it-we can roll it out and start blasting away hitting science where it hurts.

“I’ve been throwing these militant terms around because they reflect how I feel.  Publicly, though, we have to be careful how we frame things.  Need to appear quiet spoken, rational, thoughtful.  Here’s the way I think we ought to state our case.  Emphasize that we’re not Luddites intent upon rejecting science and technology out of hand.  Recognize the attendant benefits science has brought to our standard of living.  Make it clear that we see scientific advancement as yet more evidence of God’s gift to mankind.

“Then go on to explain our understandable fear that scientific findings, when misinterpreted-as is often the case-can conflict with the word of God and therefore lead away from the truth instead of towards it.  We have to contrast our posture as reasonable men, informed of God’s wisdom, and open to all theories as to how the world works as opposed to the scientific fanatics who permit no deviance from their man-made precepts no matter how often they’re revised.  In other words, as far as the public is concerned, we’re the ones keeping scientists honest.

“Thanks to these kinds of arguments that creationism-plus raises, we ought to be able to reverse the current anti-religious momentum and calmly, but steadfastly, gain the initiative.  My suggestion in this regard is that we choose a point of attack that will assure us victory in the fastest, most decisive manner-that is to say, striking at the heart of the scientific establishment, their citadel of power, the very core of their pretense of authority.  I am speaking of course of physics.  Whereas science’s supposed tower of strength may seem invulnerable, it is, in fact, more like a sand castle resting uneasily in the tidal zone.  Indeed, there is not, in my opinion, an area of science better suited for our purpose.

“Never mind that the two high priests of physics had nothing but contempt for our traditional values.  Isaac Newton was a cultist and dabbler in alchemy who even refused to take the sacrament offered to him on his deathbed.  Albert Einstein, the other member of the prestigious duo, publicly boasted his atheism.  Never mind that only one rung lower in the esteem of physicists is an entire retinue of flawed characters.  Galileo, who formalized teachings in physics, had to be punished for his blasphemies by being put under house arrest.  Copernicus was a debaucher who hypocritically posed as a priest in order to sponge off the church while keeping secret his speculations regarding the motion of planets that he erroneously believed was circular.  Michael Faraday, a pioneer in electricity and magnetism, was an enthusiastic member of an esoteric-now thankfully forgotten-branch of the church practicing strange rituals that his contemporaries found highly irregular.  Never mind, in other words, that the halls of physics have been filled, then and now, by godless, eccentric men blind to the eternal verities as they doggedly pursued their temporal occupations.  It’s their hold on people’s minds we have to loosen.

“And that’s where creationism-plus comes in.  George, I can almost hear you demolish your physicist opponents in debate just as you’ve skewered evolutionists in the past.  I imagine you warming  up by forcing them to declare that their entire belief system rests on nothing more substantial than a batch of illusory figments of their imagination-extremely tiny, altogether invisible, particles supported by-you guessed it-nothing more than theory. (guess where we’ve heard that before) Then you ask them to give you a coherent explanation of the very innermost workings of what they claim to be a logical schema.  Lots of luck.  On the one hand they have one set of laws governing macro phenomenon and, on the other, a completely different set of laws applicable to their imaginary quantum particles.  And guess what?  After decades of tooth-grinding, hair-pulling effort, they still can’t reconcile the two.

“To give you an idea of just how confused physicists really are, latch on to this quote from one of their seers.  ‘If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don’t understand it.’  You’d think he’d be laughed out of the house, but instead that showed just how profound the idiot was.  Think of the ridicule we’d get if one of our leaders said, “If you think you know God, you don’t know him.’  The double standard is so blatant, George, you won’t have any trouble turning it in our favor.  People will catch on fast.

“And if that doesn’t force them to throw in the towel, George, there are lots of other points you can embarrass them with.  Like the fact they can’t agree on even the most basic things like the creation of the universe, its size, its future, or even how many there are.  One? five? ten?  Take your pick.  The one thing they do agree on is that the workings of the cosmos depend entirely on certain constants.  But just try prying from their lips that these perfectly designed numbers can be no other than of divine origin.  Again, lots of luck!  Then you can follow up quoting from some of their papers about their latest hallucination-the hair-brained notion of “strings.”  I’ll guarantee you it’s the craziest gibberish you ever heard of.

“Finally, George, I picture you summarizing our position-that modern physics is substantiated by nothing but a confusion of arcane calculations that only a precious few within the brotherhood pretend to understand.  If, like the flimsy financial derivatives on Wall Street, their paperwork had to be marked-to-market, it wouldn’t fetch a dime.  And that just like evolutionists have expanded history by impossible dimensions, so have physicists expanded the heavens beyond anything you can find in the Holy Bible.

“And how’s this for a closer?  ‘Compared to physics, even evolution seems believable.’

“It’s probably too much to hope, but, with prayer, there’s a chance scientists will come to realize that mankind invented neither mathematics nor gravity nor electromagnetism nor radioactivity.  It is to the Creator himself that they owe the implements in their cherished toolbox and it is to him they must look for whatever truths he deigns to reveal in the future.  It’s our duty, I feel, to help them understand that if they are to advance their art, they must recant their ways, be humble in his presence, and endeavor to deserve his favors.

“Anyway, George, by the time you’ve finished with them, physic’s reputation for certainty will have crumbled and taken the rest of the scientific establishment with it.  The seemingly invincible cloak of scientific orthodoxy will have been ripped off and the public will be forever suspicious of what lies beneath.  Publishers of physics textbooks will be scurrying back to their desks, scissors in hand.  Religion will have regained its authority and the church will have assumed its importance in the lives of men.  The high moral ground will once again be in our reverently folded hands.

“I’ll present these ideas at our next council meeting.  For now, George, it’s probably just as well if we keep them to ourselves.”

(Visited 45 times, 1 visits today)

Leave a Comment

six − four =