ESA Return to ESA

Open Letter to ICR
< Prev  TOC  Intro  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Concl.  A  B  C  Next >

Part III

The search for what the Bible teaches about creation: How it relates to the fallacious basis of radiometric dating.

In Isaiah 1: 18 the Bible says, "Come let us reason together says the Lord . . . ." Here the us is generic, applying to all of humanity. So we know from this text that God intends to reason with people from all walks of life on all the major topics of our existence, including, of course, what God tells of about His great works of creation.

And to insure that the common man's reasoning would be without fault, God did something special for us so that no one would be indebted to just the few who, like those trained in geology, would tell us, as the evolutionary geologists have done for the past two centuries, that they are the only ones capable of deciphering Earth's history and giving us the truth about its origin and development. I refer to the fact that, aside from the parts that are couched in symbolism, on the whole the Bible is written for the common man in language and terms that can easily be identified with objects and events of everyday life. Indeed, the Bible says that in Christ's day the common people heard him gladly, the obvious reason being that he not only spoke their language, but He also uttered the grand truths of eternity in words whose meaning they could easily comprehend. Indeed, in reading the accounts of Jesus' ministry in the four gospels, it is repeatedly stated that it was the leaders of Israel — the priests and scribes — who caused the rejection of Christ because they confused the common people with false and spurious meanings of His words, thus leading the Israelites to reject Him as the Messiah. More on this later.

Likewise, virtually all the confusion, disinformation, and direct and subtle attacks that atheists, agnostics, evolutionists, theistic evolutionists — and other adversaries — have launched against what the Bible says about the Genesis record of creation, both in Genesis and in other parts of the Bible, comes from the fact that, in one way or another, they all either flat-out ignore, outright deny, or very cleverly attempt to cast in doubt, the literal meaning of the commonly-understood terms that God used to describe His creative acts in calling the heavens and the Earth into existence during creation week. Stated differently, these adversaries, whether believers or unbelievers, or geologists or paleontologists or geochronologists, or astronomers or cosmologists, would have all believe, to one degree or another, that the commonly understood words the Bible uses to describe both the Genesis account of creation — and the many other supporting references found therein — don't really mean what we commonly understand those words to mean.

Instead, they say, the common man must bow to them, the scientific authorities, to rightly decipher the history of the cosmos. In using highly technical terms that are characteristic of their specialty, these authorities know they are in effect speaking an unknown language to the common man. Thus, they are able to promote as truth whatever ideas or theories they wish, without the common man being able to discern or test whether it really is the truth. Then, as long as the common man can be kept in the dark; as long as he believes that the authorities are really just reporting on the progress of science, and that he would be backward and ignorant if he didn't accept the new views; as long as he doesn't suspect he is the victim of the Trojan Horse approach to get him to accept a cosmic history whose hidden assumptions are badly flawed; as long as he can be duped into believing he has been given a valid scientific basis for replacing biblical definitions with spurious definitions that badly contradict the plain words of the Bible, then there is no limit to the lies that the world can be convinced of. And this is exactly how evolution has been prospered.

It's easy for me to identify with the above scenario. As a physics undergraduate at a public university, I was the common man who was transformed into an evolutionist by the above process. I didn't even realize what was happening. It all seemed so logical. In responding to the challenge of learning the terminology of physics — a necessary component of any scientific discipline — I didn't realize my physics professors were also programming me to accept evolutionary geology's 4.5-billion-year history of the Earth — actually at that time it was presumed to be a billion or so less than now. I was shown — I thought — that its age was just as firmly established as conservation of energy. Never was it even hinted that radiometric dating does not really date anything. Never was it emphasized, or even admitted, that such ages are not ages at all, but instead only hypothetical constructs hinged on the fallacious assumption that the radioactive decay rate had always been uniformly the same during Earth's history.

The professors said it had been constant. Believing they had the truth about the rest of physics, I was so swept up with their eminent reputations that it never occurred to me to ask why they were so sure. They said it; they were the experts. I believed. The power of authority had taken over. I had been so brainwashed that I had lost the capacity to think rationally and ask the one question which might then have made me aware that I was being thoroughly duped into believing a huge lie.

It's a question that concerns the raison d'etre of all of physics. Physicists pride themselves as being the arbiters of scientific truth. Their claim is that why nothing in all of modern physics is accepted until and unless its underlying assumptions have undergone rigorous laboratory testing. That's what they claim. And in general it's true. But there are two extremely important exceptions. One concerns big bang cosmology, which I'll deal with later. The other is the assumption of uniformity of radioactive decay. I had very effectively been taught the party line about both.

Being convinced about the uniformity of radioactive decay rates, I became just as convinced I had new truth about Earth's ancient history and the evolutionary development of life thereon. Thus I went forth to utilize the pseudoscience approach described above to convince whatever common man I might encounter that he was badly deceived if he accepted the literal reading of Genesis. Years later, I woke up to the fact that I had been badly deceived, and that in turn I had been badly hoodwinking others by conveying the impression I had the facts proving evolution.

This I had accomplished by learning to speak a language unknown to the common man. Such had no way to defend themselves because they couldn't speak the language; they didn't know enough to even inquire about the assumptions I was using. Indeed, I hardly understood them myself. Later I would realize this is exactly how evolutionists have gained control of the masses, and this is exactly the way they have managed to undermine and destroy the faith of Christians in the Bible. For me troubles began after I began to probe the decay rate assumption. I soon learned just how deeply it had become embedded in the psyche of modern physics — how it had become one of the predominant icons of modern physics, one that was not to be challenged. Physicists are trained to think objectively and diligently inquire — in theory, that is. But I soon learned there was a stringent, unwritten limit as to just how far this thinking and inquiring was supposed to go.

As I began studies on the question of the uniformity of radioactive decay I learned how strongly physicists in high positions can react against research that threatens to reveal the fallacies of this assumption. I experienced the fear that investigation of this topic engenders in the highest echelons of the physics community.

Years ago I enrolled in a PhD physics program at Georgia Tech, intending to do my thesis on this topic. After much discussion, the Department Chairman forbade it, saying that, even though the probability of my finding anything that could be published was microscopic, nevertheless he couldn't tolerate that minuscule chance of success. Why? Because, if I did find something significant, it would forever embarrass the entire faculty of Georgia Tech if I, as a faculty member, were to publish a serious challenge to evolution's long age of the Earth. He was truthful in saying this. But this doesn't fully explain why he was so willing to jettison academic freedom and the search for truth in order to prevent investigation of this topic.

And he never gave a full explanation. But the evidence points to the fact that he was gripped by the same fear that has been pandemic throughout the physics community for many decades. Specifically, in the deepest recesses of his mind — perhaps even subconsciously — I believe he may well have feared that my continued insistence in wanting to know precisely why every budding physicist was required to implicitly accept an assumption that had never been tested, just might, in the end, cause me to stumble onto to the realization that Earth's presumed ancient radiometric age was the prop the scientific community accepted for its support of biological evolution. In that case he could well have realized that if I did discover something that definitely exposed the uniform decay rate assumption as fallacious — something that in some way would strongly validate the Genesis record of Earth's fiat creation and young age — it would cause the collapse of both geological and biological evolution.

However, his concern was not that the physics community might long have been instrumental in foisting a vast deception on the world in support of these hypotheses. His concern was not for searching out the truth with the possibility of seeing this vast deception unveiled. Rather it was to suppress any original thinking and research that might threaten the status quo. It's a mindset that, over the past few decades, I have repeatedly encountered in getting my discoveries of Earth's rapid creation and its young age published in the world's leading scientific journals. Even more, it's a mindset that for over two decades has sought to either misrepresent those results, or to suppress them whenever opportunities arise for their wide distribution. And, yes, there are even some who are not evolutionists who have been just as much involved in this censorship as have the evolutionists. I do not know the reason for this. What I do know is that careers, reputations, publications, academic positions, respect as eminent authorities — in brief, everything that holds modern academia and its collective economic status together, will immediately begin to unravel once the scientific truth validating God's great works of creation is freely disseminated.

I've detailed my personal experience because I've found that it's not just the evolutionists who are often successful in using the unknown tongue approach to embed distinctly unbiblical scientific beliefs in the unwary. Just as in the days of Jesus, even now the common man — even though a minister — is often cowered by the prestige of those in authority, who employ the unknown tongue approach as a Trojan Horse to breach the barriers of the mind. As a result the world has lost its anchor in the Word of God, and it is filled with skeptics. Evolution with all its devious, man-made claims has come in to take its place, and the world spirals downward, all because people have been deceived into believing they cannot trust the commonly understood meaning of the words of the Bible. And what is one of the preeminent deceptions that evolutionists have convinced the world of as far as Earth's origin is concerned?

< Prev  TOC  Intro  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Concl.  A  B  C  Next >

The above page was found at on May 28, 2023.

© 2004
Earth Science Associates