Presuppositionalism: The Worship of Deep Time — Post by Michael J. Findley

coa cover for blog

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” John Adams
Here is a brief list of certain facts routinely ignored by Secular Humanists.
1) Secular Humanists worked hard for more than one hundred years for recognition as a religion in the USA. Now they can organize as a 501c3 (charitable organization), as a religion if they so choose.
http://www.irs.gov/Charities-&-Non-Profits/Charitable-Organizations/Exemption-Requirements-Section-501(c)(3)-Organizations
http://firstchurchofatheism.com/
“The United States Supreme Court has held that secular humanism is a religion. Belief in evolution is a central tenet of that religion.” Antonin Scalia, in the case Edwards v. Aguillard, U.S. Supreme Court, 1987
2) Gratuitous Assertions do not prove, validate, or authenticate your point in any way. Just because you choose to believe something does not automatically make that belief true.
3) Most Creationists are not scientists, just like most Secular Humanists are not scientists. But denying that Creation Science is legitimate simply makes the denier a religious bigot. Refusing to look at a creationist site for the sole reason that the information disproves your belief system is the standard definition of religious bigotry.
That is the opposite of reading articles, documenting (not asserting) the errors and assuming that the same editorial process will continue to produce the same errors. I have done this for http://www.talkorigins.org/. One example is included in our book Conflict of the Ages Part Three: The Flood and the Ice Age.
4) There is abundant scientific evidence for a young earth. Gratuitously asserting that the evidence does not exist or that the evidence is false is neither honest nor does it make the evidence go away.
https://elkjerkyforthesoul.wordpress.com/2011/09/30/chapter-fourteen-from-antidisestablishmentarianism-what-does-the-scientific-evidence-prove/
Some examples of this evidence are rapid formation of coal, diamonds, petroleum, petrified wood, and fossils. These are now produced by commercial operations. The modern fossils are of such high quality (so much like geologic fossils) that even National Geographic purchased some modern fossils as geologic fossils.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2001/dinofool.shtml
Even the USGS and the US Parks service admit that evidence points to catastrophic formation of much of earth’s crust. This includes the formation of the Grand Canyon. The only serious disagreement with Creationists is when these catastrophes occurred.
http://www.amazon.com/Earths-Catastrophic-Past-Geology-Creation/dp/0932766943
http://www.nps.gov/grca/photosmultimedia/rangerminute.htm
With honest geologists there is no question about how, but only about when. We simply hold that the many well-documented catastrophes in the earth’s past occurred during or soon after the flood.
5) Galileo, Isaac Newton, Gregor Mendel, and thousands of other scientists were either Christians or believers in Intelligent Design. Throughout history Intelligent Design has been the majority position among scientists. This has only changed in the last half of the twentieth century. When Arabic Muslim scientists are included along with South American and African scientists, Intelligent Design might still be the majority position.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_thinkers_in_science
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html
6) Denying the possibility of a global flood is dishonest. Many of the imagined problems, such as the amount of water and construction of the ark have been answered in detail.
Noah’s Ark: A Feasibility Study
http://www.amazon.com/Noahs-Ark-A-Feasibility-Study/dp/0932766412
http://worldwideflood.org/ark/safety_aig/safety_aig_comments.htm
Number of animals the ark could hold
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/10740451/Noahs-Ark-would-have-floated…even-with-70000-animals.html
Water; how much and where did it come from? And where did it go?
http://www.amazon.com/Earths-Catastrophic-Past-Geology-Creation/dp/0932766943
7) Secularists often mock Creationists for raising their own funds by selling books, DVDs, charging for events, and asking for donations. These same Secular Humanists have no qualms about living off of government-funded schools and research projects. They complain about Creationists raising their own support while at the same time they live off of money taken by force through the police power of the government.
8) The final, and most important point, is a willingness to examine the evidence honestly.

7 Comments

Filed under Bible Teaching, Current Issues, Politics, Education, History, Scientific

7 responses to “Presuppositionalism: The Worship of Deep Time — Post by Michael J. Findley

  1. Thank you Jon Findley. We welcome any other comments you might have.

  2. “The United States Supreme Court has held that secular humanism is a religion. Belief in evolution is a central tenet of that religion.” Antonin Scalia, in the case Edwards v. Aguillard, U.S. Supreme Court, 1987

    I find it strange that you continue to state this as fact when someone has already clarified that this is not correct information.

    * Footnote (5) of the dissenting opinion in Edwards v. Aguillard (written by Justice Scalia) states, “The United States Supreme Court has held that secular humanism is a religion” and that “Belief in evolution is a central tenet of that religion.”
    * However, as indicated within the actual footnote, Scalia attributes these two quotes to Senator Bill Keith, a Louisiana legislator who was instrumental in writing the bill just found unconstitutional by the Edwards v. Aguillard decision.

    • I have no idea what you mean by “this is not correct information.” It is a direct quote of Justice Scalia. We provide the case so anyone who is interested can cut and paste into google or any other search engine and get a list of legal libraries with this case on file, then look at the exact words in context. If you wish, you may go to a law library and read the case. If you understand how the SCOTUS works, you will understand that this in the background section of his decision. This is neither a ruling nor an opinion of Justice Scalia. He is simply stating historical background.
      There are many cases, dating back over 100 years in a variety of courts, local ordinances state laws giving secular organizations the rights and responsibilities of religion.

    • Here is the complete paragraph from Justice Scalia’s dissent. The top of the section preceding point one says.
      “Senator Keith and his witnesses testified essentially as set forth in the following numbered paragraphs:”
      These are the notes of Justice Scalia on the testimony of several witnesses.
      (5) The censorship of creation science has at least two harmful effects. First, it deprives students of knowledge of one of the two scientific explanations for the origin of life, and leads them to believe that evolution is proven fact; thus, their education suffers, and they are wrongly taught that science has proved their religious beliefs false. Second, it violates the Establishment Clause. The United States Supreme Court has held that secular humanism is a religion. Id. at E-36 (Sen. Keith) (referring to Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488, 495, n. 11 (1961));1 App. E-418 (Sen. Keith); 2 id. at E-499 (Sen. Keith). Belief in evolution is a central tenet of that religion. 1 id. at E-282 (Sen. Keith); id. at E-312 – E-313 (Sen. Keith); id. at E-317 (Sen. Keith); id. at E-418 (Sen. Keith); 2 id. at E-499 (Sen. Keith). Thus, by censoring creation science and instructing students that evolution is fact, public school teachers are now advancing religion in violation of the Establishment Clause. 1 id. at E-2 – E-4 [p625] (Sen. Keith); id. at E-36 – E-37, E-39 (Sen. Keith); id. at E-154 – E-155 (Boudreaux paper); id. at E-281 – E-282 (Sen. Keith); id. at E-313 (Sen. Keith); id. at E-315 – E-316 (Sen. Keith); id. at E-317 (Sen. Keith); 2 id. at E-499 – E-500 (Sen. Keith).

    • The Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 US 488 – Supreme Court 1961 case which was referenced by note by Justice Scalia reads in part.
      “The appellant Torcaso was appointed to the office of Notary Public by the Governor of Maryland but was refused a commission to serve because he would not declare his belief in God. He then brought this action in a Maryland Circuit Court to compel issuance of his commission, charging that the State’s requirement that he declare this belief violated “the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States . . . .”[1] The Circuit Court rejected these federal constitutional contentions, and the highest court of the State, the Court of Appeals, affirmed…”
      The important part are the last words of this next paragraph:
      ” Appellant also claimed that the State’s test oath requirement violates the provision of Art. VI of the Federal Constitution that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” Because we are reversing the judgment on other grounds…”
      You may look up the the case for yourself, but the important part is that SCOTUS did not rule on the basis of “no religious test” but instead found Secular Humanism (not using those exact words) to be a religion.
      Here is the exact wording of the 1961 ruling;
      “This Maryland religious test for public office unconstitutionally invades the appellant’s freedom of belief and religion and therefore cannot be enforced against him.”
      The exact words of SCOTUS; a refusal to “declare his belief in God” is “the appellant’s freedom of belief and religion.”
      Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 US 488 – Supreme Court 1961
      http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17484916405561277413&q=torcaso+v.+watkins+367+u.s.+488&hl=en&as_sdt=6,45&as_vis=1

    • Torcaso v. Watkins is just one of hundreds of cases, most of them on state and local court (magistrate) levels. However, the most remarkable feature is the amount of agreement with Torcaso v. Watkins.

We welcome your comments!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s