|
|
|
|
British Accent - The only Difference between Madalyn O'Hair and Richard Dawkins by Rev Michael Bresciani, Feb 2, 2008
Richard Dawkins not surprisingly is emerging as the world's most famous atheist at a time when the fundamentalism of secular science is in debut.
The American penchant for anything British has seen its peaks in Shakespeare, the Beatles, the Queen, Elton John and perhaps even Tony Blair just to name a few. Being enamored of the pomp and perfection of all that is akin to Elizabethan english does not necessarily prove that a speaker is endowed with exceptional intelligence and by no means does it say anything of their character. Americans don't seem to know this, just like dogs don't know it isn't bacon, but even worse is the inclination to accept anything spoken with a British accent as initially more intelligent right out of the gate.
Dawkins has taken to his circuit of documentaries and university speaking engagements with a religious fervor that can only be described as…religious! Youtube now fancies many of Dawkins lectures including one of the most recent ones given at Randolph-Macon Woman's College in Lynchburg Virginia in October of 2006. Only those who are not deafened yet by secularisms bellowing priests of empiricism could fail to hear the circus like nature of Dawkins speeches.
The audience gushes with applause and laughter when Dawkins suggests that one way to deal with Liberty University's assertion that dinosaurs are just 3000 years old is to resign from Liberty and look for a "proper" university. It would seem that empiricists have taken to theatre to make a point that is failing to capture anyone but the dyed in the wool secularist and an ever growing army of pseudo-intellectuals. An army of conscripts rather than volunteers formed as a result of restricting anything but the secular view from being taught in public education for the last 40 years.
Mr. Dawkins failed to mention that many Christian universities see the dinosaurs and the world as much older (the gap theory) yet still maintain that God did create everything in seven days. After all, his son (Jesus Christ) produced enough bread and fish in a millisecond to feed over 5000 people. Oh, those pesky miracles and creation stories! Most Christian universities are content to believe that the God of truth is telling the truth and that the Apostle Paul included Mr. Dawkins when he said "let God be true, but every man a liar" (Ro 3:4)
You would have to wonder if the scientist of today were actually present and resultantly lost their hearing at the "big bang" for their inability to hear anything contrary to their own conclusions including the voices of some from their own ranks. Darwin's voice must seem louder than their own contemporary physicists who have not merely espoused another view but have proven the laws of entropy or what is otherwise called the "second law of thermodynamics."
Science has proven that all things always go from a more complicated state to a less complicated state but that must seem too complicated for the empiricists who insist in Darwin's highly touted "Origin of Species" which because of entropy stands defiantly against every major discovery of physical science in the last century.
Even empiricisms best wizards seem altogether helpless to stave off a growing exodus of scientists because of their colleague's refusal to consider the folly of the evolutionary model against new discoveries and the lack of evidence to support old assertions. The question of why science won't take another more honest view is not new to our world. Generations of those who bled to death from scientific intolerance have already asked such questions and echoes are yet resounding.
How long will they keep blood letting until they see it is wrong, it's hard to say? Maybe they think the earth is still flat and blood letting saves lives or that phrenology is an exact science. Perhaps they should complain a little less about how the church mishandled the genius of Galileo and center in on how some of their own misguided assumptions caused the mishandling of entire generations who were misdiagnosed or bled to death in the name of science. Does science need to be reminded that the death toll for believing that the earth revolves around the sun is zero while thousands of lives were lost to blood letting?
That some can't accept the yet missing remains of millions of specimens from years of alleged evolution seems to be saying that the hard line evolutionists may be able to count more skeletons in their closets than science has produced for any real time investigation.
It would seem that to even make a cursory examination of the reams of new evidence emerging from "creation science" might be considered treason or defection from the petted secularist view of how things all began. Once again the secular scientist disregards the unspoken howbeit no less important element in the definition of true science which is to uncover the truth. One truth is that creation science has moved parallel to the secular evolutionary model in growth and discoveries. The Scopes monkey trial will go down in history as secular science's only win but since that was another theatre piece staged before all the facts were in, it will count for little.
Science insists man came from the caves and is headed to the stars. The Bible insists that man came from the stars (created by a celestial being) and is going to the caves (Isaiah 2:19) at the second coming of Christ. The difference in these matters has not to do with science but in the perception of mans problems and mans general direction. To science the lack of reason is the problem and the direction is endlessly higher once we reckon that simple truth. To the scriptures the problem is a moral one and only an intervention by God's grace can head man off from going feet first into wholesale perdition.
Perhaps the response to one sound and not the other is not based on discoveries or conclusions at all. The definition of science is limited to repeatable observable phenomena. What is coming out of Darwinism and the theory of the universe crowd is anything but repeatable or observable. Even without an English accent to make it sound sophisticated, what modern science is depending on to make swelling statements about what took place millennia ago and cannot be repeated or observed is nothing more than "prior philosophic postulate."
To break that down into what us country folk can understand that is "faith." Yes, it takes faith to believe in what a scientist says about an event that neither they nor anyone else ever witnessed. If more people would be honest with themselves they might see it takes a great deal more faith to believe, than the witnessed and historically recorded events of the life of Jesus Christ.
In a population of 300 million, America may be able to produce a few thousand truly intellectual people. Educated people number in the millions so what is the difference? It may be said best in a recent remark by CSI Grissom on the hit CBS series CSI Crime Scene Investigation. While scolding a youthful suspect for selling drugs on a crowded spring break beach full of college students the drug dealer said "kids knew how to find their way around." CSI Grissom replied with "Most of these kids couldn't find their butts (expletive deleted) if they had a road map." This is the crowd that Dawkins appeals to and we might say is pandering to in some respects.
Madalyn Murray would be delighted if she could see that atheism is almost completely in vogue. With Britain's staunchest secularist ally, brandishing a marvelously seductive accent and engaging crowds of university disciples of modernity with impeccable use of the English language she would undoubtedly be elated. That notwithstanding, it could not be enough to raise Ms Murray from the dead.
I would stand convicted as charged if someone accused me of repeating this saying too much. On the other hand I still hear the ring of the advice I once heard from a friend who said "if something is really worth saying then it is well worth repeating." So what is my hackneyed saying? "The Bible is the book of why and does not conflict with science, which is the book of how."
To put these two books at odds with each other is not wise. In fact to even suggest that they are not compatible is to lower our own expectations of both God and man together or independently. The Apostle Paul was no slouch when it came to understanding human nature and by the Spirit of God he was additionally infused with a wisdom that as Jesus said "his enemies could not withstand" (Luke 21:15) Paul knew that the most immediate outgrowth of intellectualism would not be enlightenment but rather it would be arrogance and pride. It is that arrogance and pride that stands in the way of mans enlightenment not the word of God. Let's see.
"For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent." (1Cor. 1: 18-20)
"For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness. And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain." (1Cor. 3: 19-20)
"Knowledge makes arrogant, but love edifies." (1Cor. 8:1b NAS)
http://www.americanprophet.org has since 2005 featured the articles of columnist Rev Michael Bresciani along with news and reviews that have earned this site the title of The Website for Insight Millions have read his timely reports and articles in online journals and print publications across the nation and the globe.
 A Special Invitation to You 
|
 
|
