11.3.12

Modern Science & It's Blind Faith in Nothing


From BlogandMayBlog.com (ma41 article highlight)

The world is becoming increasingly populated with people who view the Christian faith as the blind faith of intolerant dogmatists. To hold such a view, requires one to be biblically illiterate and considerably ignorant of orthodox Christianity. First, Christianity is anything but a blind leap of faith. It is a faith grounded in more than ample evidence, which provides the Christian apologist with an airtight case for the claims of Christ. All who readily dismiss Christ’s claims are closed-minded people who refuse to investigate the facts.

Second, coercion is excluded from Christianity by the Bible’s invitation to sinners: “Whosoever will may come.” Salvation is a choice that must be freely and individually made. Although Christians are commissioned to preach the Gospel and to be ready to answer people’s questions about it, nowhere are we told to coerce anyone into coming to Christ. Being a matter between the individual soul and God, no individual can be forced into the arms of the Savior. They must come of their own free will!

What is being translated today as coercion on the part of Christians is merely our unwillingness to surrender our convictions. When we insist upon our belief in absolute truth, as well as right and wrong, the world feels its arm is being twisted to surrender its relativism and amorality. Such uncomfortableness, which is actually the result of a guilty conscience or the Spirit’s conviction, is attributed to the unwillingness of Christians to succumb to today’s political correctness and join the universal chorus in a robust round of “I’m Okay and Your Okay.”

If you’re really looking for a blind faith that is adhered to by intolerant dogmatists, I suggest you look no farther than the faith of modern-day “science.” Much of what passes for science today demands unquestioning adherence to its every dictate. Debate is disallowed and discussion is forbidden, as is proven by the modern-day scientist’s demand that the theory of evolution be exclusively taught in our public schools as indisputable fact.

Now, I know the common disingenuous refrain, “Religion doesn’t belong in the public schools, but science does, since science is a matter of fact and religion is a matter of faith.” But how much of what passes for science today is nothing more than subjective faith without substantiating fact? Take for example cosmologist Lawrence M. Krauss’ new book, “A Universe From Nothing.”
In his New York Times review of Krauss’ book, Dennis Overbye makes the following statement: “Scientists may be at least theoretically able to trace every last galaxy back to a bump in the Big Bang, to complete the entire quantum roll call of particles and forces.” Notice, Overbye’s words, “may be at least theoretically able.” What do expressions like “may be,” “at least”and “theoretically able” have to do with fact? All of these expressions are diametrically opposed to fact and only suited for use in the realm of subjective theory. Thus, Overbye’s words betray the popular notion that modern-day science is strictly a matter of fact. The truth is; modern-day science is subtly becoming a false faith under the guise of an academic discipline.
According to Overbye, Krauss’ book is another in a long line of recently released volumes by physicists and cosmologists who argue for the removal of the Creator from the equation of creation. Krauss’ argument, however, is somewhat novel. He attempts to explain how “something—namely our star-spangled cosmos—could be born from, if not nothing, something very close to it.”
Krauss, whose previous books have stressed the sound physics of the old television show Star Trek and summed up the existence of the cosmos in a conjured up and undiscovered energy coined by him as the “cosmological constant,” argues in his latest release for the scientific equivalency of nothing to something.

According to Krauss, the point of his new book is “to illuminate how modern-science has changed the meaning of nothingness.” Consequently, we should no longer assume that “somethingness” is more natural than nothingness; in fact, Krauss even suggest that none of us can know for sure that there is something here at all. He proceeds from this preposterous point to preposterously propose that the whole universe may be nothing more than little bubbles of space-time popping-up into existence out of nothing.

Obviously, Krauss’ crazy intellectual contortions are intended to make the impossible sound plausible. Modern-day scientists have long found themselves in the untenable position of self-contradiction, holding simultaneously to the scientific law of cause and effect and the cockamamie theory of evolution. If every effect is the product of a greater cause, then, how did creation come into existence without a Creator? How did everything come from nothing?

Well, according to Krauss, “science” has now proven that nothingness is every bit as great as “somethingness.” Indeed, nothingness may be all that there is! The universe may be nothing more than an holographic illusion being driven by the negative pressure of nothing until all of the energy is suck out of it and it disappears, reverting back to nothingness.

I don’t know about you, but as far as I’m concerned, there’s nothing to this!

No comments: