Modern science (read it as scientific community) describes the universe as a system originated by itself by chance with no purpose to serve. Origin of life on this planet is hypothesized as âemergent phenomenonâ (with no evidence whatsoever for such phenomenon) that occurred through chance encountering of chemical molecules in a primitive aqueous milieu. Evolution of biological species is also treated as chance event via modification of the existing species and not creation by God. There are several theories advanced to explain all these phenomena as products of chance. Today, atheist lobby in the scientific community has established its unquestionable hegemony and authority in scientific arena. It is atheist scientists who shape science and decide its future. Obviously the product comes out wrapped in atheism.
The rivalry between religion (more correctly, theism) and science is centuries old. The controversy, which started between the Christian Church and scientific community, reached its peak in 1859 following the publication of Darwinâs book Origin of Species, which proposed the theory of chance-driven evolution of organic beings demolishing the need for Creator God. The fight still goes on unabated. A resolution passed by the National Academy of Sciences, USA, in 1981 states: âReligion and science are separate and mutually exclusive realms of human thought whose presentation in the same context leads to misunderstanding of both scientific theory and religious beliefâ . A declaration signed by 67 national academies of science under the united banner of the Interacademy Panel on International Issues blasted the scriptural teaching of biology as a potential distortion of young minds (âWorld science academies hit back at creationistsâ, Cosmos News, June 22, 2006).
Several verbal battles and confrontations between the clergy and scientists had taken place in the past. Scopes case or âmonkey trialâ of 1925 in the USA marked the beginning of legal battles. After the Scopes trial, the laws banning the teaching of human evolution remained in effect for more than 40 years. But teaching students about Darwinâs general principle of evolution with reference to non-human organisms has never been illegal in the United States. In 1968, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned an Arkansas state law banning the teaching of evolution. And in 1987, it ruled against balancing evolution lessons by teaching creationism.Attack on evolution is however on the rise once again in the USA. School boards in Kansas, Pennsylvania and other states had either restrained the teaching of evolution in science classes or introduced alternative explanations that were essentially religious in character. Creationism took a different form under the new name âintelligent designâ (ID). Teaching of ID in classrooms was legally challenged in 2005. Intelligent design lost the legal battle because the court ruled the idea was not scientifically sound (âUS judge rules against Intelligent Designâ, ScienceNOW Daily News, December 20, 2005).
Evolutionists even go to the extent of ridiculing scientists who believe in God and religion. When biochemist Michael Behe questioned Darwinism in his book Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution in defense of intelligent design, evolutionists countered: âBeheâs knowledge of evolution is suspect. His knowledge of his own area of science is suspect. And the same is true when he moves into philosophy and theology.â . Pierre P. Grasse is the most distinguished of French zoologists, the editor of the twenty eight volumes of Traite de Zoologie, author of numerous original investigations, and ex-president of the Academie des Sciences. His knowledge of the living world is encyclopedic. But when he made a frontal attack on all kinds of âDarwinismâ by building a detailed and strong empirical case against it in his book âLâEvolution du Vivantâ, Darwinists called him wrong. Grass has not gone wrong due to ignorance but as a well-known neo-Darwinist Dobzhansky observed, âthe most distinguished of French zoologists did not understand the rules of scientific reasoning!â (exclamatory mark added) . This remark speaks volumes about how evolutionists look at the critics of Darwinism.
Geneticist Francis Collins who headed the famous Human Genome Project has also come under attack of the atheist lobby recently. Collins is a staunch believer in Christianity. When he was appointed the director of the US National Institutes of Health, the scientific community could not tolerate it. An article published in Nature deplored it. âThe recent nomination of Francis Collins to direct the US National Institutes of Health does more than raise the question of the agency's future direction. It poses another question. Can a scientific career go hand in hand with religious belief? Put another way, can a great scientist be deeply religious? Collins is well known as one of the architects of the Human Genome Project. He has also achieved notoriety as a highly respected scientist with deep-seated religious beliefs. An evangelical Christian since the age of 27, Collins detailed his views on reconciling religion and science in his 2006 book The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for BeliefâŚ. And in a 2006 Time magazine debate with noted atheist and evolutionist Richard Dawkins, Collins suggested that God could on rare occasions choose to "invade the natural world in a way that appears miraculous" â a peculiar outlook for a biologist.â . When Collins published a religion book in 2010, there was again uproar in scientific circles. âNational Institutes of Health Director Francis Collins is again riling some scientists by publicly sharing his religious beliefs â this time by publishing a new book about faith. A debate has broken out in the blogosphere about whether Collins is misusing his position with a collection of essays on religion that he compiled. When Collins took the helm of NIH last summer, many assumed he would curtail such activities. For example, he resigned from a foundation he started to explore religion and science. It took some people by surprise when a press release appeared on Tuesday from Harper Collins (the publisher) announcing Belief: Readings on the Reason for Faith, which addresses the question "Is there a God?" It follows a 2006 book in which Collins described how he became an evangelical Christian.â .
The stand of science journals in this issue is surprising. Scientists and science mediashould not be biased against theism. In the eyes of scientific community a scientist is no longer scientist if he is a believer in God! Although atheists declare there is no God, they appear to be the most scared lot about God. Even more surprising is the self-assumed role being played by science journals. The world has not authorized science media to be the custodian of science. Science should advance on the track of truth unaffected by any other consideration or bias. Unfortunately this is not the case. Science is what atheist lobby decides. This has undoubtedly corrupted the domain of science as is evident from the plight of several areas in science. We shall be discussing this issue later. The world should come out in the open against this biased attitude of the scientific community. What the world want is unbiased (neither for nor against God) science. The scientific community is misleading the public by propagating several theories of no scientific merit. A dispassionate analysis will reveal the deplorable situation in science particularly biology. Science is no longer factual as it used to be. It has become a commercial enterprise as any other sphere of human activity. Biology is the most affected area by pseudoscience.
Hidden agenda of the atheist lobby
It will not be difficult to find there is deep-rooted, well-organized conspiracy going on to promote atheism through science. In this context, it is necessary to distinguish technology-oriented domain of science from technology-not-oriented (or non-tech for short) domain. Scientific knowledge in the technology-oriented domain is self-correcting and directional as otherwise the targeted technology will not result. This domain has therefore factual content. On the other hand, the non-tech domain lacks mechanism for self-correction. Since this space does not contribute to the development of technologies, it does not attract much attention and remains not of immediate concern to people. Obviously, this domain can be easily manipulated and is being manipulated.It is the non-tech domain of science that nurtures theories against theism. People have immense trust in science and scientific community because science generates technologies for every kind of human requirement and they believe science is nothing but facts. It is this trust placed on the scientific community by the public, scientists exploit covertly.
There are several theories that have been planted by atheists in the non-tech space of science to promote atheism. Some of these are steady state cosmology (see post 3), molecular gene (genome) concept (see post 4), theories of origin of life (see post 5), and worse than all Darwinâs theory of evolution (see post 6). These theories sow the seeds of suspicion in the minds of people about theism. And through science atheists plan to demolish God and religion. The Creator puts it: ââŚAnd they (i.e., the unbelievers) plotted and Allah too plotted. And Allah is the best of plottersâ (Q. 3:54). It appears from this Quranic statement that in all probability Allahâs strategy is to prove His existence scientifically through atheist scientists. Failure of steady state cosmology, controversy over Darwinâs theory, hollowness of theories of origin of life, scientific inadequacies of molecular gene (genome) concept (see post 4), and failure of attempts to create life from non-life indicate point to that. Despite their inherent inadequacies and weaknesses, these theories are retained as scientific theories by the powerful forum-controlling atheist lobby with the sole intention of imparting credence to atheism and thereby labelling theism as blind irrational doctrine. This is not advancement of science but promotion of atheism in the garb of science. Entry of such pseudoscientific theories in science not only takes science in the wrong direction but more importantly misleads people. Non-recognition of such theories will not affect scientific and technological advancement. It will only help purify science.
1. Johnson, 1994. Science and Creationism: A View from the NationalAcademy of Sciences. 1984; cited in: Johnson, P.E. 1994. Darwinism and theism. Chapter 4. In Darwinism: Science or Philosophy. Eds. J. Buel and V. Hearn, Foundation for Thought and Ethics, Richardson.