Metaphysical Naturalism and Scientism Being Imposed On Education and Culture.
Atheists and Darwinians claim they are about reason and science. When in fact they are committed to "METAPHYSICAL ", or philosophical naturalism and scientism, rather than Methodological naturalism and empirical science.
As stated by the Encyclopedia of Philosophy, (Macmillan, 1996 Supplement, p. 372-373 ):
Naturalism: is the metaphysical position that "nature is ALL THERE IS, and ALL basic truths are truths of nature."
Scientism: The precept that science is the foundation of ALL knowledge and that ALL truth
can be arrived at by the empirical method.
Atheists and evolutionists, of necessity, operate on the assumption that the above two statements are true. As all atheists operate on the UNPROVEN ASSUMPTION that ALL REALITY is solely the result of natural processes and material causes alone. Along with the unproven "metaphysical", or philosophical, assumption that science alone can, and will, define the ultimate nature of reality.
No atheist or hard core evolutionist can believe otherwise. For to believe that the cosmos and life is the result a cause other than the natural causes is to technically endorse that a higher creative power actually exists "beyond" the universe, And thus endorse theism.
On Peer Review.
Re Peer Review: What of "peer review"? The process of fellow evolutionists evaluating and validating claims made in relation to historical data and its meaning. Here again evolutionists run into problems. For how does one peer review data relating to "historical theories" that happened in the unrepeatable and unobserved past. How do those engaged in peer review verify "historical events" based on subjective criteria as to what "supposedly" happened in the unobserved distant past. With no possible way of ever empirically verifying that events happened one way, and not another way, or even whether such evolutionary events happened at all.
Especially when the valuation of the historical data involves personal and group opinions based entirely on subjective interpretations, inferences, assumptions, conjecture, self fulfilling predictions, circular reasoning, and contrived "explanations". None of which can be tested and verified by the scientific method using experimentation and observation.
More important, what value is the peer review evaluation process when naturalism and evolution start and finish with "unproven conclusions". Namely, the unproven "philosophical" assumption that naturalism is true. And that evolution is an assumed "fact", until proved wrong.
Thus, what would be the point of creationist scientists submitting their theistic interpretation of the data to a scientific community fully committed to "philosophical" naturalism and godless materialism - atheism.
This would be comparable to the U.S. government submitting a "human rights" charter to North Korean leader, Kim Jong-un, and his military regime for validation and approval.
Re: Scientific Affiliations Endorsements.
Moreover, what is one to make of the fact that the major scientific affiliations have issued statements in support of evolution, and against the teaching of creation and intelligent design. Here again the facts are clouded, for several reasons. Firstly, in sharp contrast to the theistic worldview held by the vast majority of Americans, these affiliations represent a minority within the atheist minority. Members are largely atheists. And thus the default worldview of these institutions and mainstream science itself is "philosophical" naturalism and godless materialism. As we have seen, another name for this is SCIENTISM.
Secondly, the vast majority of members of these affiliations, selected at random, would be hard pressed in presenting a case as to why they believed evolution was true. This was well demonstrated when 72 Nobel Laureates were approached by Humanist to endorsed evolution in support of legal proceedings. When in fact none was capable of writing their own brief. It had to be written for them by the Humanist lobbyists. (New Scientist, 11 December, 1986. p.48)
More important, what testable and verifiable empirical science are all these Scientific affiliations actually supporting? None, it seems!
It's not just the origin of life that evolutionist have a problem with, but EVERY essential element of the evolutionary continuum. There is NO verifiable experimental or observational "scientific evidence" for ANY of the phases of the supposed evolutionary continuum: Not the origin of life! Nor the origin of the DNA double helix. Nor the origin of consciousness. Nor the origin of mind. Nor the origin of complementary sexual reproduction biology. Nor the origin of vastly complex genetic coding and highly structured information. Nor the origin of language and music. Nor the origin of reason and intelligence. Nor the origin of conscience and morality. Nor the origin of the religious instinct. Nor the origin of a vast multitude of other life-form characteristics. In fact, as acknowledged by the National Academy of Sciences, even speciation remains a mystery.
None-the-less, evolutionists still believe that dead dumb lifeless matter brought "itself" to life. And over time transformed "itself" into everything. From "lifeless" matter to a "living" Einstein. Meaning, the "effect" is not only far greater than the "cause", but actually OPPOSITE to the cause. None-the-less, Darwinians simply believe that "Evolution did it" rather than God - on the basis of "blind faith". And thus believe that all these natural miracles occurred without a "miracle worker" - which we would all have to concede is "really miraculous". Making, in comparison, belief in the resurrection and the Biblical miracles a mere walk in the park.
NO INTELLIGENCE ALLOWED
To further their anti-Creationist, anti-ID objectives, the Humanist movement spawned the U.S. National Centre for Science Education (NCSE), and other affiliated bodies. The NCSE has played a decisive role in also mobilizing the scientific community and affiliates, and fanning legal action to ensure that Darwinism was the only option ever allowed or discussed in science education. Thus, extensive legal battles were launched to ensure that intelligent causes (ID) and theistic views of origins. Such that alternatives to "philosophical" naturalism and Darwinism where excluded from all discussion.
In Dover, Judge Jones ruled against Intelligent Design. His ruling not only parroted the anti-Creationist ACLU brief, but all pretense of judicial impartiality evaporated when Judge Jones later admitted that he had long believed in evolution. And subsequently received an award from the anti-Christian Humanist movement for his contribution to their godless cause.
In 2008, Judge Jones was awarded the American Humanist Association’s Humanist Religious Liberty Award at the World Humanist Congress in Washington, DC. More accurately titled the "Freedom from Religion" award. Jones' ruling effectively declared that "No intelligence was allowed" in science. It was a hollow victory. As science had effectively sawn off the limb it was sitting on. Revealing the extent to which mainstream science itself had been seduced by "philosophical" (or metaphysical) naturalism and godless materialism - scientism
COSMIC DESIGN & INTELLIGENCE: THE FOUNDATION OF SCIENCE
Intelligent design is not only science, but the foundational principle on which all of science functions, and without which it is impossible to do science. Every scientist functions on the principle that the universe is both rational and "intelligible". No scientist truly believes that they apply their reason and intelligence to a irrational non-intelligent universe. Nor does the scientific world copy the designs discovered in nature and apply these to technology in the belief that this is only "apparent" design. Scientists are copying what they regard as "real" design, and they know it is "real" because it works in the technology they produce. And as the technology they produce necessitates a designer, so does the design in nature. As an intelligent effect always demands an intelligent cause. And all the courts and scientific affiliations in the world opposing ID cannot change this "self-evident" reality.
Thus, the issue of our time is not "is it science", but whether mainstream science itself now lives in a surreal world of its own making, far removed from reality. So, blinded by "metaphysical" naturalism and godless materialism that it is now living in denial. Denying that the universe is intelligible and that real design exists. Thus, sawing off the limb science is sitting on. That is precisely why ID will not only survive, but ultimately prevail.
What mainstream science has done is create its own imaginary world: Extending the "tentative" finite boundaries of science to now encompass and define ALL REALITY as being solely the result of natural causes alone. Which, of course, is the definition of "scientism".
Thus, we now have mainstream science operating on scientism, rather than science. And ignoring the TENTATIVE nature and limits of "methodological" naturalism and the scientific method. Which functions on testable, repeatable and verifiable science, using experimentation and observation,
Mainstream science has now fully embraced the unproven and "unverified" dogma of "metaphysical" naturalism and godless materialism. A reality affirmed by the fact that it is fully engaged in the quest for the godless "Theory of Everything". However, this is proving to be the never ending story. An illusion founded on the delusion of naturalism. It turns out that the godless TOE is composed of unresolved problems, unverified assumptions, hypothetical theories, theoretical "mind experiments" and fancy math. Leading to unresolved paradoxes, irregularities, invisible and undetected entities, uncertain models, and ever more mysteries. The finite mind trying to define the infinite.