Scientists are baffled!

My friend and brother, Missionary to Honduras Mike Pettengill, sent me a series of articles with a single theme: Scientists Baffled! I've added a few of my own. Here you go:

1. Voyager 2 is now sending back signals in an unknown data format. What is it saying to us? Scientists are baffled!
2. The fakir is not a fakir! An Indian religious-type guy went 10 days without eating, drinking, or eliminating, in a tightly-controlled environment. How did he do it? Scientists are baffled!
3. How did the statues on Easter Island get moved around? Nobody knows! Scientists are baffled! (Money-quotation: " like many other archaeologists, he was so swayed by his cast iron belief that the roads were for transportation – he completely ignored them.”)
4. A grey whale off the coast of Israel, when they are only known to roam the Pacific Ocean? How did that happen? Nobody knows! Scientists are baffled! (Money-quotation: "The best guess from Scheinin is global warming played a role.")
5. A rooster named Gianni used to wake up his owners with his crowing. Then a fox killed all the hens. Then Gianni started laying eggs. Huh? Yep. He'd become a hen. How'd that happen Nobody knows! Scientists are baffled!
6. The planet Jupiter has all these stripes, right? These bands? Yeah, well now it suddenly has one less! Huh? How'd that happen? Nobody knows. Scientists are baffled! (Oh, and btw: it wasn't a professional scientist who noticed it. It was an amateur astronomer.)

Golly, there's so much scientists don't know, don't understand!

Well, except evolution, of course. Stung by years of folks pointing out that evolution is a theory incapable of demonstration or falsification, they have officially elevated it to a Fact. Not just a Fact, but a Fact without which absolutely no science of any sort can be done. So there! They're sure about that. And that the Bible's wrong about... well, about whatever. And that God is irrelevant to the most important areas of thought. About those things, they're dead-sure.


For instance: brand-new study "finds" (not guesses, speculates, or hypothesizes) that all life came from a single-celled organism. Well, not only that... but creationism is an "absolutely horrible hypothesis." And creationists are weenies who won't respond when given a chance. So... so there! Will you religious people please go back into hiding and cede us the floor?


Same time I saw that article, I saw another listing six more things scientists can't explain. (Not linking, because that site contains too many offensive images and invitations.)


All very interesting, isn't it? When they're off-guard, you see a constant flow of stories about scientists being "baffled," or divided, or revising their long-held certain and sure theories.

But here's the thing. Without admitting it, many scientists commit to a religious philosophy called Materialism, which assumes God out of existence. So assuming, they lose the claim to speak with authority on anything.

Was that a leap? Not at all. Scientists cannot claim to be omniscient. They cannot claim access to an authority in complete command of all facts without exception. They just hypothesize, guess, speculate, from atom to atom.

Therefore they cannot (with credibility) make a unified theory of anything. How do they know that one of these "baffling" phenomena does not contain a fact that will undo everything they think? They don't. How do they know that such a fact does not exist in the thousands of acres of Earth not yet explored, let alone in the universe? They don't.

But you say, they proceed empirically, by experimentation. Correct — experiments resting on mountains of unproven and unprovable assumptions. The whole notion of "experimentation" assumes a continuity to the universe that they have no right to assume, on their premises. Do a test, and X occurs. What have you proven? That X occurred once. Repeat the test 300 times, and X occurs each time. What have you proven? That X occurred 300 times. Nothing more, nothing less.

Further, you don't really know what caused X to occur. The whole notion of causation is itself an assumption, unproven and unprovable.

So next time you read, "Scientists baffled," just think to yourself, "More than you know, buddy. A whole lot more."

The Christian's stance is identical, and different. Natively, he does not possess one grain, one atom more information. He's not a tick smarter nor brighter.

However, the Biblically-faithful Christian (A) admits the fact at the outset, (B) has recourse to a Source who actually is in command not only of all conceivable facts, ever, but also of the significance of all conceivable facts, ever. That is because He created them. And (C) He has taken the initiative to reveal everything we need to know to have a relationship with Him.

And that is the Christian's stance.

30:1 The words of Agur son of Jakeh. The oracle.

The man declares, I am weary, O God;
I am weary, O God, and worn out.
2 Surely I am too stupid to be a man.
I have not the understanding of a man.
3 I have not learned wisdom,
nor have I knowledge of the Holy One.
4 Who has ascended to heaven and come down?
Who has gathered the wind in his fists?
Who has wrapped up the waters in a garment?
Who has established all the ends of the earth?
What is his name, and what is his son's name?
Surely you know!

5 Every word of God proves true;
he is a shield to those who take refuge in him.
6 Do not add to his words,
lest he rebuke you and you be found a liar.

(Proverbs 30:1-6)

UPDATE: M'man Frank tag-teams, which is always a good thing in my book.

The uncommon candor of a famed evolutionist

Thomas Huxley, "Darwin's bulldog," wrote this:

The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before.

Now, I don't pose as a Huxley-scholar. Huxley did go on to argue somehow that ethics indeed needs to strive against evolution, in order to sacrifice and help and show self-restraint.

But why?

This is the point that drives atheistic evolutionists (a near-tautology, but not quite) nuts. They say that it is because it is such a dumb question. That isn't it. It drives them nuts for the same reason the slippery-slope progression drives "gay" "marriage" advocates nuts: because it is irrefutable and dead on-target.

If two guys or gals committing serial-perversion can be called "marriage" simply because they feel like it, then there literally is no limit to what might be illegitimately so labeled. It's a fatal flaw in the argument, and bringing it up simply undoes advocates.

Same way with bringing up that the atheistic evolutionist is unable to argue for any transcendent ethics or morality.

Except that isn't strictly true, is it? Strictly, while an atheistic evolutionist could not argue that it is "good," he could argue that crushing the inferior is both imperative and advantageous. However, he cannot make an argument that either drive or advantage are "good."

Which exposes a fatal flaw in the system.

Which drives them nuts.

Science, the Bible, and Presuppositions: a parable

A man once went into a room, in which he found a thin layer of dust and a jumble of furniture.

He moved all of the furniture exactly where he wanted it, then sat down and wrote a note. The note read:

I am the owner of this room. Over the space of one hour, I moved all of the furniture into the current arrangement.

He taped the note on the door into the room. Then he left.

Days later, a group of men came by and noticed the room. Glancing briefly at the note and shrugging, they walked into the room.

The men immediately gasped at the beautiful and complex arrangement of the furniture. They sat down and began making notes.

Another man walked by, paused at the door, read the note carefully, recognized the signature, and entered the room.

"What's going on?" he asked.

Eagerly the men responded, "We've been studying this room, and it's absolutely fascinating! Look at how intricately this furniture arranged itself! Look at the drag-lines! In a stationary room, we've calculated that movement of this sort had to have taken billions of years! Maybe kazillions!"

Puzzled, the man replied, "But the note on the door says the room's owner came in and arranged it. It only took him about an hour."

The men looked at the intruder with pity. "Owner?" they asked. "Do you see an 'owner' in here? Besides, if there were an owner, why would he deceive us all by this evidence, that clearly took billions of years to come into the current arrangement?"

"Huh?" the visitor returned. "How is it deception? Didn't you see the note? How is it deception when he tells you exactly what he did, and you just ignore it?"

Sadly, with an expression of infinite, condescending pity, the men say,

"Ah. You're not being scientific."



UPDATE: now, this is interesting. I've had this idea for some time, wrote it a bit back, and published it on the given date. Now today (2/13/09) I read for the first time this essay, dated January 30, 2009. Kevin T. Bauder, president of Central Baptist Theological Seminary, does an excellent job of developing the same point along similar lines. Check it out.