Science Nazis: Part Deux

I ordinarily try to keep my posts to about two typed pages. You might think that sounds easy because whenever I write on a topic, I seldom have trouble deciding what to say about it. Instead, I usually have trouble deciding what to leave out. The consequence of this is that no matter how well I may (or may not) have made a point, I'm usually unsatisfied with the end product. There's always more I wished I'd said. I had not intended to make this a two part post but it seems I've stirred up little controversy of my own with my first post. So, I'm going to add a few more comments that I could have said in my first post.

For what it's worth, here are some of my thoughts about global warming. First, I'm a little puzzled why some scientists are so alarmed about a slight increase in the average global temperature over the last century or so. Don't most of these people also believe the earth is 4.5 billion years old? If that were true, then a century or two isn't a long enough period of time to be statistically significant. It's less than blip. Such a small sample is not sufficient to establish a trend but even assuming we can identify a trend how confident should we be in the measurements anyway? 100 years ago we had no satellites, no weather stations in Antarctica, or a fraction of the technology available to us now. Bill Clinton once said the 90's was the warmest decade of the last 500 years. Really? So when Columbus arrived in North America in 1492, did he ask the natives to begin recording temperature changes? I'm sure Captain Cook got the Aborigines busy in Australia but who was measuring the temperature at the poles about this time? Any warming trend seen in our measurements could be nothing more than more accurate measurements.

Secondly, I would like to point out that most people agree there was at least one ice age in the past. Do global warming alarmists lament the disappearance of glaciers from the lower 48 states? Certainly that warming trend wasn't the result of human activity – or did the Neanderthal equivalent of Al Gore run around telling other people to stop cooking their food because the fires were melting the ice? If there have been periods of cooling and warming in the past, why are some people surprised to see it happening now (assuming that it is happening)?

And speaking of Al Gore, this brings me to my final point: Al Gore once said that the earth was sick – “it has a fever”. Doesn't such a statement presuppose that we know what the ideal temperature of the earth should be. Well, what is it? Was the earth at its ideal temperature 100 or so years ago before the supposed trend began? Is it what the temperature is right now? Was the earth at its ideal temperature at the peak of the last ice age? Maybe the earth is heading toward the temperature it is “supposed” to be. And, of course, if warming and cooling is the usual condition of the earth over its (alleged) billions of years history, then our herculean efforts to reverse the current warming trend is for naught. Our efforts would be better spent preparing for life in a warmer world.

By the way, maybe a warmer world wouldn't be so bad. I hear people talking about “greenhouse gases” but do they understand that plants grow like crazy in greenhouses? Perhaps we could grow more food all year around. Maybe a more temperate climate would help us turn uninhabitable deserts into lush gardens. Maybe the polar caps could be turned into farm land.

Of course, many people disagree with me. I know because they've told me so; rather, I've been called, “a stupid, ignorant, lying, science-hater.” But tell me the truth: in spite of our disagreements, am I really being unreasonable by just asking these questions or having these doubts? I've asked these questions before and so have many others and I've not heard satisfactory answers. In many cases, I've not been given any answer. So is there something wrong with doubting? Even more than that, what is wrong with disagreeing?

This then, brings me back to the point of my post – the regime of the science Nazis. You see, to them, discussion is only allowed in the scientific community. Lay people (i.e. the masses) must comply with scientific consensus. You cannot question the establishment. You cannot hold personal beliefs contradictory to their agenda.

Ask yourself this: why exactly have they cast their lot so strongly one-sided in this debate? This isn't a matter of “religion in schools,” which is a criticism that has been raised against creationism. People who are suspect of climate change are objecting to the conclusions of some scientists but they're not objecting for religious reasons. There are things they're not convinced about. Some people don't believe there's a warming trend, or that it's man-made, or they may believe spending billions of dollars to reverse what is occurring naturally would be a huge waste of resources. These are scientific questions. These are political questions. They're not religious questions. Then why does the quasi-scientific group NCSE and others like them seek to squelch the debate?

Remember that the Nature article said, “25–30% of [surveyed] respondents reported that students, parents, administrators or other community members had argued with [educators] that climate change is not happening or that it is not the result of human activity.” Assuming that statistic is 100% accurate, what is the controversy? Are these educators so elite that they feel they must bring in the big guns to figure out how to keep people from disagreeing with them? Scott said their group is not a political think-tank. That's a lie. Their group is nothing else but a think-tank seeking ways to advance a liberal agenda. In the case of climate change, they have thrown their hat into the ring of a controversial, political issue and seek to equip educators with arguments to silence opposition. Would we stand still if an economics teacher sought advice from China on how to deal with his students who feel capitalism is superior to socialism?

If you are not convinced, let me ask also why educators believe it is a “threat” that school boards ask that they “teach the controversy”? If up to 1/3 of the teachers have been challenged about a controversial issue, then obviously a sizable percentage of the public questions it. As I asked in my reply to Steven J's comment, “Is it really better to teach kids to simply trust the overwhelming majority of scientists rather than teach them to consider both sides of an controversial issue like global warming?” Apparently these schools think so and so are not interested in presenting the evidence but rather want to allow kids to hear only a single view of the evidence. I would expect schools to be objective and noncommittal in such divisive issues. For school boards to ask teachers to present both sides of a controversial issue is only a threat if someone is afraid of students hearing both sides. Let me also remind you that it is precisely the job of the school boards and parents in the community to establish school curriculum. No matter how enlightened they think they are, it is not a “right” of the establishment to demand students be taught only what the scientific elite deems to be correct.

I don't mind having a discussion about global warming. I very much mind schools resorting to Scott and her ilk to figure out ways to end discussion. That's not an education. It's indoctrination.

Science Nazis

That's right. I said it. Some people are science Nazis. They are Nazis in the sense that they are militant about their scientific conclusions and feel perfectly just in forcing the “ignorant” masses into compliance through propaganda or whatever means possible. The Joseph Goebbels of the movement is Eugenie Scott, director of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE).

Before I begin, let me say that I may be annoyed but I am not unhinged. Many times in the past, I have read comments by evolutionists who, I am sure, were foaming at the mouth as they wrote. It's typical for people with this attitude to argue by insult. That's not what I'm trying to do here. I sincerely believe that Eugenie Scott is a propagandist as are many others like her.

OK, now to the meat of my “rant.”

Nature.com recently published a piece titled, “Evolution advocate turns to climate change.” The subtitle of the article says, “Education centre known for battling creationists aims to help science teachers convey understanding of global warming.” It's interesting that they use the term, “battling creationists.” I think the subtitle conveys the general impression held by the scientific community of the NCSE's true agenda as being militantly anti-creationist. They are not just concerned about keeping “religion” out of science education in schools, they are battling creationists wherever they are found. This has long been demonstrated by Scott's years-long crusade against the Creation Museum and Answers in Genesis.

AiG has always admitted that they are not interested in changing public school curriculum. Like myself, they do not want public school teachers (especially those who might be unbelieving) teaching the Bible to our kids. This is the job of parents and the Church. Also, the Creation Museum is a private institution. It was built entirely with donated dollars and does not receive – nor ever received – any type of public grant or funding. Why then does Scott, and others of her ilk, concern herself with them? The reason is simple: it's because she loathes the idea that anyone anywhere believes in creation.

In the Nature article, reporter Susan Young highlights the same attitude toward global warming. Young begins her article lamenting that, in the same way some students have rejected the theory of evolution, some students are also rejecting the idea of global warming (or man-made global warming). She says that Scott has chosen to intervene because of the “entreaties from educators and textbook authors.” The article quotes Scott as saying, “I think we can make an important contribution. If teachers understand that there is a place that they can go to for help, we can use some of the expertise that we’ve gained over the years dealing with evolution to apply to this related problem.”

Well, first off, one might ask how is evolution related to climate change? During any discussion, if a creationist happens to mention something like the Big Bang, the evolutionist is quick to point out that the Big Bang has nothing to do with evolution (cosmology v. biology). Here, though. Scott says two unrelated sciences (biology and meteorology) share a related problem. In her mind, the “problem” is that there are people who don't fall lock-step into established, scientific consensus.  Her's is a political agenda - not a scientific one.

According to the article, “25–30% of [surveyed] respondents reported that students, parents, administrators or other community members had argued with [educators] that climate change is not happening or that it is not the result of human activity.” What is even more alarming is that “[s]ome school boards and state legislators have threatened to require educators to ‘teach the controversy’ about climate change — a term coined in relation to evolution that amounts to presenting a scientific theory as one of various possible viewpoints.”

Oh my goodness! You mean there are actually school boards out there who want educators to tell their students that some people – maybe even some scientists – disagree with their theory?! I can see why Scott is up in arms. (I am using sarcasm in case it isn't obvious).  Honestly, I can't see a "controversy" in teaching students to be skeptical.  In the case of global warming, I believe there is more dissent among scientists about the issue than there is concerning creation.  However, Scott is a propagandist and she sees it as her job to sway the masses to the desired point of view.

Scott believes the solution to this imagined problem is “helping people to understand the reasons why scientists overwhelmingly accept climate change.” This is the crux of the issue. It's the elitism of the scientific establishment or “truth by consensus.” Scott believes that the science is settled. Since the overwhelming majority of scientists accept climate change, we know that it's true so dissent is no longer allowed. Her approach is cleverly worded but it's little more than a thinly veiled “appeal to authority.”

I wonder how Scott might have behaved a few centuries ago when Galileo was introducing ideas that upset the scientific establishment. Would she have said, “Look people, the science is settled on this – Ptolemy was right”? Even well established science can still be wrong. Most scientists will admit this. Still, certain elitists only allow debate within the scientific community. Lay people are not allowed to have an opinion other than then current consensus of the establishment.

What is most amusing about the article is this disclaimer:

The statement also says that the NCSE will not take a position on what, if anything, should be done to counteract global warming or mitigate its effects. “What to do about it ranges widely and gets outside of the strict science and into policy issues in which many, many variables are going to have to be considered,” says Scott. “We are not a policy think tank; we don’t have expertise in this area.”

Wait a minute! They don't have expertise in this area? Why exactly, then, is she taking a side on this issue? On the one hand, they claim not to know enough to recommend a solution but on the other hand, they know enough to know it's absolutely true and students don't just need to be taught about it but need to believe it. I know why they are interested. Even though their expertise is not in global warming, Scott is still commenting on her area of expertise – propaganda!

Hell: Hades, Sheol, Paradise, and Gehenna

To my last post concerning the “gates of hell,” a frequent visitor, Steven J, asked some interesting questions. While I was forming a reply to his comments, I realized that a lot of people might have similar questions so I thought I'd add a few more details and make it a post. As I began writing it, though, I realized the subject is a little more broad that I originally considered and wasn't sure I could keep it to a reasonable post length. It seemed that anything I wanted to omit seemed necessary to the whole post. I finally decided to scrap the whole thing and write an abbreviated version from scratch.

I say all that to say this: My views about hell probably reflect those held by the slight majority but opinions still abound. Consider this a disclaimer - the Bible gives us much detail about the lives of the characters it mentions and also give us instructions on how to conduct ourselves now. It gives surprisingly few details about hell and even fewer about heaven. The popular ideas of a “fire and brimstone” hell are not entirely wrong but they're not entirely right either. What I include here is correct to my best understanding of the Bible but I remain open to correction if I am convincingly persuaded by Scripture.

By the way, for the purpose of this post, we will stick primarily to the New Testament.

The English word “hell” invokes images of fire, brimstone, flames, and eternal torment. Many people are surprised, though, when I tell them the Bible does not use the word “hell” at all. The Bible was originally written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. There are different words that have all been rendered as “hell” in the English translations. For a few of those words, the fiery judgment is the correct understanding but not in every instance.

In the New Testament, the word most often translated as “hell” is the Greek word ᾅδης (hadēs). In general, Hades refers to the abode of the dead. It includes all the dead, regardless of their faith while on earth. However, within Hades, souls are segregated into two groups – believers and non-believers – to await the resurrection. Hades is the functional equivalent of the Old Testament, Hebrew word שׁאל (sh^e'ôl). Sheol literally means “grave” or “pit.” Oh, and if you haven't noticed already, for the sakes of ease of typing and reading, I am referring to these here as Hades and Sheol.

In John 5:28-29, Jesus makes it clear that the “grave” (μνημεῖον (mnēmeion) is the Greek word in this passage) holds both the believing and unbelieving:

Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation. (KJV)

Those who die while believing are taken to a place of rest in Hades. This has also been called “the Bosom of Abraham” (Luke 16:22) or“Paradise' (Luke 23:43, 2 Corinthians 12:4). Those who died while outside of the faith are taken to a place of torment. It is also referred to as Gehenna (Matthew 5:22), Tartarus (2 Peter 2:4), or the abyss (Revelation 9:1).

Sometimes, this realm of the damned is also referred to as Hades (Luke 16:23) or Sheol which leads to a little confusion. Let me see if I can offer an analogy that could clear up the confusion. I live in Louisville, Kentucky (KY). Louisville is the city and it is in the state of KY. While I am in Louisville, I am simultaneously in KY. So, I could say, “I live in Louisville” and just as correctly say, “I live in KY.” Likewise, a damned soul in the place of torment (like Gehenna) can simultaneously said to be in Hades.

We see a good contrast between the place of rest and the place of torment in Luke 16:19-31 – the account of the rich man and Lazarus. The Bible says that when Lazarus died, he was carried by angels to the Bosom of Abraham. The rich man died and “was buried.” Then, in “hell” (Hades), he lifted his eyes and saw Abraham with Lazarus “in his bosom.” It is frightening to read as the rich man says he is being tormented in flames. Abraham reminds him that he received good things in life while Lazarus suffered evil things. Now the rich man is “tormented” while Lazarus is “comforted” (KJV). In the passage, Abraham also describes there is a gulf or chasm that divides the two areas. While Abraham and the rich man are obviously able to see each other and even converse, neither can cross to the other side.

When Jesus died, He descended to “Paradise” as is attested in His comment to the thief on the cross, “Today you will be with me in paradise.” When Jesus ascended, He took with Him all the saints who now dwell in the presence of the Father (Ephesians 4:8-10). Most people agree that Paradise no longer receives spirits. Now, when a believer dies, he is immediately present with the Lord (2 Corinthians 5:8).

Revelation tells us that there will be a final judgment of the lost. Revelation 20:13 says that “death and hell (Hades)” will give up the dead that are in them to stand before the white throne where their works are judged. At the end of the judgment, Hades, along with all those whose names are not in the Book of Life are cast into the Lake of Fire. This is the “second death” and is their final destiny for all eternity.

In many cases, a discussion of hell raises the criticism that God is cruel and unjust (the “argument of outrage”). Such a discussion will have to be for another post. Suffice it to say here and now that hell (the place of the damned) is a very real place and judgment awaits all who reject Jesus. However, salvation is available to all. Now is the time to decide.

Matthew 16:18: The Gates of Hell

“And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” Matthew 16:18

When Jesus uttered these words to Peter, it is the only recorded example where He used the term, “the gates of hell.” What exactly did He mean when He said, “the gates of hell shall not prevail against it”? Over the years I’ve heard various interpretations and there are at least three that warrant serious consideration.

The Minions of Hell:

In Biblical times, the gates of a city represented the seat of power. Most large cities then were walled and whenever visitors and traders would enter a city, they had to enter through the gates. Merchants and notable men of the city would wait there to greet them. An example of this appears in Genesis 19:1:

“And there came two angels to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: and Lot seeing them rose up to meet them; and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground;”

Another example is from Esther where Mordecai was often seen sitting at the gate with the king’s servants (Esther 2:19, Esther 2:21, Esther 3:2, et al).

In this light, the “gates of hell” could mean the powerful forces of hell (the Devil and his demons). They will not prevail against Christ’s church.

The Dominion of Hell:

As mentioned before large cities in the Bible were walled. The obvious purpose of this was defense. Whenever an enemy army attacked the city, they would try to breach the gate. Strong walls and a strong gate would thwart the efforts of the attackers and the city would be safe.

The Devil is the ruler of this world (John 14:30). He seeks to protect his domain and his gates are designed to hold off the true King. The gates of hell are his defense. But even the strongest gates cannot prevail against the power of Christ’s church.

Hades:

The Greek word used for Hell in Matthew is ᾅδης (hadēs). This is not the place of judgment or eternal torment but the place of rest for the dead until the resurrection. Other passages describe this as the Bosom of Abraham (Luke 16:22). It’s the same word used in Acts 2:31:

“He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.”

Gates are often used to keep things out; but they are sometimes used to keep things in. The gates of hell that admit the dead, also keep them in. When Christ died, His soul descended to hell (hadēs). However, these gates were not able to keep Jesus in. The gates of hell could not prevail against the Risen Savior and neither will they prevail against His church!

Whatever the meaning of the term, the promise of Christ is clear. The gates of hell, whenever they stand before us, either to keep us out or keep us in, they will not prevail. Amen!