Academic bias

Many scientists do follow the evidence wherever it might lead, without subjectivity or bias, as required by the Scientific Method. However, there are others who are more zealous in defense of atheism than religious fanatics are, in defense of their faith. When faced with evidence pointing to intelligence in creation, they side-step the facts and cling to unsubstantiated hypotheses so as to bypass the evidence, principles of logic, innate knowledge and the collective human experience.

According to Dr. Douglas Axe, Director of Biologic Institute in Seattle and author of the 2016 book, Undeniable: How Biology Confirms Our Intuition That Life Is Designed:

“Once an embellished view of science becomes established, active suppression of dissent becomes inevitable, with predictable consequences. Everything that opposes the institutionalized agenda is labeled ‘anti-science’ by those working to protect the agenda, and the fear of that label quickly enforces compliance among the timid.” (p. 54)

To give some examples of this unscientific bias against design, we turn to Dr. Franklin Harold, emeritus professor of biochemistry and molecular biology at Colorado State University (1989-2000).   In his 2003 book, The Way of the Cell: Molecules, Organisms and the Order of Life, he describes in detail the incredible complexity of life at the cellular level, but stresses that intelligent design should not even be considered:

“We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity; but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.” (p. 205)

So, as a matter of principle, Dr. Harold puts “wishful speculations” over any consideration of intelligent design.

How scientific!!

They follow only speculation and what [their] souls desire. (Quran 53:23)

Similarly, the famous American evolutionary biologist, mathematician and geneticist, Richard Lewontin (see also Part 5),  says:

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. ( https://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/a_divine_foot_in_the_door/11956, para. 1)

Sir James Jeans (1877-1946), at the end of his book, The Mysterious Universe remarked:

 “Our modern minds have a sort of bias in favor of the materialistic explanation of the facts.” (p. 189) ( https://www.thesciencefaith.com/dawah/answering-atheism/the-reality/)

Proponents of biological determinism —which is the claim that many organism traits are determined primarily by their genetic makeup— argue that evolution and adaptation can explain complex human social behaviors such as altruism and morality. They create evolutionary stories without any evidence about how traits actually evolved.  Even leading biological evolutionists, such as Stephen Gould and Richard Lewontin, describe this as making up “just-so” stories. ( https://embryo.asu.edu/pages/spandrels-san-marco-and-panglossian-paradigm-critique-adaptationist-programme-1979-stephen-j, para. 4)

For some, science fiction is more credible than creation by a Creator. In an interview with Ben Stein, Richard Dawkins ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins) a leading British evolutionist and renowned atheist, fantasizes about “alien seeding” as a source of life on Earth:

Well, it could come about in the following way; it could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved by probably some kind of Darwinian means to a very, very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto, perhaps, this planet. Now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. (Interview with Ben Stein, “ Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed,” Documentary (2008-04-18).)

Some atheists contradict themselves and each other in their attempts to deny the obvious. While Thomas Huxley (1825-1895), a defender of Darwin’s then new idea of evolution —nicknamed “Darwin’s bulldog”— tells us that science is common sense at its best ( https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/thomas_huxley_118633), Dawkins tells us to ignore common sense when considering the beginning of the Universe, then states that the combined “common sense” of humanity (not religion) should serve as a good indicator of morally correct behavior. To add to the confusion, he concludes with the caution that humanity’s common sense does actually let us down because it has evolved over time.( http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=2452)

Moreover, despite his admitted “unreliable common sense”, he ridicules other points of view. According to Dawkins:

“It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that.” ( https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/273975-it-is-absolutely-safe-to-say-that-if-you-meet)

Dr. Scott Todd, an immunologist at Kansas State University, expresses openly the bias against intelligent design:

“Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.” (Todd, S.C., correspondence to Nature 401(6752):423, 30 Sept. 1999)

We also see a fanatical resolve to keep some theories alive despite overwhelming discrediting science. Darwin’s original theory for biological evolution stood on the following pillars:

• Random change
• Unguided natural selection
• Gradual evolution
• Slowness (development over millions of years)
• Innumerable transitional forms

We will discuss each of these points in more detail later on in this series (see Parts 15, 16, 17), but the summary below demonstrates the bias and dogmatism of some evolutionists. As pillar after pillar of Darwin’s theory collapsed, they rushed in to plug the holes and preserve it at all costs: ( https://youtu.be/KatbjWZmVhY)

• The expected innumerable transitional forms were not found in the earth’s geological record. Instead, evolution scientists found species that appear suddenly and persist to this day.
• Once scientists observed the sudden appearance of new species, the third and fourth Darwinian pillars of gradualism and slowness came tumbling down.
• Natural selection: When it was discovered that various species living in different environments develop similar systems, and that a species “develops” into almost identical varieties despite its varying environments, many evolutionists abandoned “randomness” in natural selection and started talking instead about “guided” selection.
• The last pillar left to defend was random change. Many studies now show that cellular variation is not random, so terms like “non-random” and “directed mutation” started appearing in evolution literature.

With the last pillar of Darwin’s original theory gone, did the evolutionists abandon his theory?

Never! Because it still retained its most important pillar:

Godlessness!

God by Any Other Name

Wherever they turn, scientists are faced with evidence of design, fine-tuning, encrypted language, intelligence, intent, complex systems, interrelated laws, —which cannot be explained randomly or materialistically. To avoid the obvious implications —even though they would never admit it— scientists refer to the Creator by other names (Mother Nature, the laws of the universe, natural selection, etc.)

They are not but [mere] names you have named – you and your forefathers – for which God has sent down no authority. They follow nothing but speculation and what [their] souls desire, and [even though] there has already come to them from their Lord guidance. [Quran 53:23]

While calling God by any other name is convenient for non-believers —as it removes the “stigma” of faith— it is a form of self-deception which is very limiting to the concept of God. Any name other than “God” ignores His absolute Attributes and opens up more questions. For example:

• Referring to the Creator as Mother Nature steers clear of the intelligence and perfection in design. In this case, to avoid mentioning God, they attribute —to dumb inanimate nature— intention, intelligence, design, planning and creation of live conscious creatures and complex biological systems. How is that possible?
• Attributing creativity to the laws of the universe, or saying that gravity caused the existence of the universe makes no sense. Laws have no creative power, no intelligence within themselves; “laws” simply describe the pattern found in repeated observations. Laws do not have any ability to act, nor can they If someone deposits 100 dollars into a bank account every month for a year, the bank cannot claim that the law of multiplication (12 x 100) created or grew the account!

According to Stephen Hawking:

“Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. [italics added]” ( https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/stephen_hawking_627115)

Note, the contradictions here:

Did the universe come from nothing or from gravity, which is “something”)?

Did the universe create itself or was it created by gravity? (Lennox, John, God and Stephen Hawking, Whose Design Is It Anyway?, Lion Hudson, 2011, p. 31, para. 2)

Even if we allow such a confusing, illogical, circular claim, it leaves wide open the question of who or what created gravity and the other laws of the universe.(Regarding infinite regress, see Part 3)

• Some Darwinists speak of natural selection (a non-rational physical process) as a unique creative force that solves all the difficult evolutionary problems such as morality and free choice without any real empirical basis.
• Upon discovering the complexity of design in the structure and operation of bacterial cells, evolutionists started using phrases such as “intelligent” bacteria, “smart” bacteria, “microbial intelligence,” as well as “decision-making” and “problem-solving” bacteria, thus making physical bacteria the new idol.

Regardless of the elaborate and misleading names, the fact remains that you cannot give what you do not have.

• How can mathematical equations create a physical universe?
• How can our intelligence, morality, consciousness, instincts, innate knowledge and free choice come from dumb matter?
• How can life come from dead chemicals?
• How can our vision and hearing come from blind and deaf sources?

Why don’t these self-sacrificing blind, dumb, unfeeling, dead, unconscious material processes start with themselves before giving out these amazing miracles?

Only the word “God”—referring to the One True God—gives the Creator His full Attributes without limitation, and provides a comprehensive explanation for the wonders that surround us.

According to Dr. George Wald, PhD, as published in the Scientific American, The Origin of Life, 191:48, May 1954:

“When it comes to the origin of life there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation. There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved one hundred years ago, but that leads us to only one other conclusion, that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds; therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance!”

So, we can add another term: “spontaneous emergence,” to the mix of misleading labels.

Really?

Why not call it by its real name: Creation!

And when God is mentioned alone, the hearts of those who do not believe in the Hereafter shrink with aversion, but when those [speculated forces or powers] other than Him are mentioned, immediately they rejoice. (Quran 39:45)

…To be continued in Part 9