by Bill Cook
Interestingly, once we had drawn our conclusions, it was accepted that we would believe our results. No one was expected to deny the existence of the ‘truth’ of our conclusions. That is, if we were to test for bromides in our sample, it was accepted that if I got a reaction of a white cloudy precipitate (or whatever the reaction was supposed to be for that particular anion-it has been a long time since that class!) that I would agree that it was a substance that contained bromides. There was not a possibility that I might say I did not believe that there were bromides present. It was accepted that once I was confronted with the evidence that I would believe that it had bromides.
The expectation that I would just automatically agree that the sample had bromides since the evidence seemed to indicate it is something that bears investigation. Where did this expectation come from? Is it irrational to expect that behavior from another as it is expected of me?
Could it be that the more intelligent people become, the easier it becomes to forge new belief systems? Could it be that the more intelligent people become, the more they trust in self and not on another? Could it be that the more intelligent one becomes, the easier it is to deceive others about one’s own belief system; that perhaps, it is they, who wish to hide among the elites, who do so under the guise of intelligence? I don’t think this is true in all cases. Making generalizations can be a dangerous activity. But, I would submit that the Telegraph article seems to indicate that the intelligent unbelievers tend to congregate (I used this word intentionally) at institutions of higher learning. I submit that they have an agenda, a purpose, a motive-to ‘preach’ unbelief to the masses (oops another religious term)-the typical college student. Where better to spread their ‘doctrine’ of unbelief? I would submit that is they who commit intellectual dishonesty.
But all intelligent unbelievers are not necessarily dishonest. They may still be searching (for truth) and not know it. The scientific community has many ‘champions of unbelief’ (those that the unbelievers would put forth as a champion-those who they would hope represent their ‘cause’). Many of these scientists become quite excited with any new discovery. They may even believe that their discovery would show a non-God explanation to the beginnings of the universe.
Consider the case of George Smoot, noted Nobel Prize winner. He is a brilliant scientist, a physicist. He won the Nobel Prize in physics in 2006 for the discovery a background microwave radiation observed by the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE (pronounced ‘coby’)) satellite in 1992. In his Nobel Lecture in 2006, he has quite a different demeanor than when he was first interviewed in 1992 after the discovery. In 1992, he was quoted in newspapers all over the world, “If you’re religious, it’s like looking at God.” Later, while being interviewed by Fred Heeren for the book, Show Me God, Smoot was questioned by Heeren about this statement that was so widely quoted. In this interview, Smoot says,
“…Not only did we find what are the seeds of the modern day structure-and that is the galaxies and clusters of galaxies-but we also found evidence of the birth of the universe, I believe, because I think that if you look at these fluctuations and ask, “How could they have gotten in there?,” some of them are so large-that is, they stretch across billions of light-years back at a very early time-that means they hadn’t changed-if you move matter and energy around at the speed of light, you can only cross a teeny fraction of them. And so these are primordial-they’re in from the moment of creation.
And so it’s really like looking back at creation and seeing the creation of space and time and the universe and everything in it, but also the imperfections of the creation, sort of the fingerprints from the Maker, if you understand what I mean, or the machining marks from the machine that tooled the universe, and those things very neatly turn out to be the things that caused the universe to be very interesting to us; namely, creating galaxies and stars and so on. So, to me, the implications were really quite profound, the idea that not only do we understand where we came from, but those things were actually like the machining marks, the manufacturing marks, from the creation of the universe.”
The Nobel site and the lecture that Smoot gave at Nobel in 2006 is nothing like this. Of course, it is full of scientific jargon which is to be expected. But, the tone is not anything like the tone with Heeren. It is a 54 page pdf if you want to read it. I do not suggest that this is dishonest, just that it is what you would expect when you hear someone speak in front of an audience of unbelievers. Much of the lecture is a recounting of the things he learned along the way which led to the discovery, which is good. It is a scholarly lecture. It is scientific. It is interesting, but it is rather high-level reading. But, the implied thought is that everyone believes in assumptions as fact. That is, they believe the Big Bang is fact. And, that’s fine. I really am not offended at it as some Christians are. To me, it simply demonstrates that Science now admits what Christians have been saying for years-that the universe and everything in it had a definite beginning-something Science has tried to deny for years.
But, I believe it is equally likely that he would not have been allowed to speak in his lecture for long if he had said the things to that group as he did in the interview with Heeren. Smoot knew where the line was and dared not cross it. It is this tendency that is bothersome. Scientists, who claim to be all about what can be proved, being coy. And, yet, for them to even admit that there was a beginning is a big admission for them. The environment that they have to live within, trying to obtain research grants, is highly competitive and political-an environment ripe for tailoring one’s opinions and conclusions to fit a particular point of view. I am not saying dishonestly, but omitting certain things and adding certain things to make points with certain ones in the audience. This is a normal part of speech-making. But, if it is tailored to fit an agenda, that would be cause for concern in other circles. And, he has to maintain interest in his speech and so must omit those things that do not pertain to the subject. Again, I am not suggesting that he did anything dishonestly. But, consider that it took 14 years to be recognized and voted to receive the Nobel. Could it be that he was made to amend certain opinions to be acceptable by the committee?
Many in the scientific community were no doubt thrilled of the discovery because it represented to them a ‘Non-God’ solution to the origin of the universe. But I am thrilled as well. It makes my faith even stronger to know we can see so far in the past and can show that indeed there was a beginning, that the Bible’s account of creation has been corroborated by Science. This no doubt would infuriate many in the scientific community because they would seemingly shout that we are too stupid to realize that this does away with God once and for all. However, I think it makes God more of a problem for them to deal with. Because they also have to admit that the universe was created within such tiny parameters that it had to have a Someone driving that ‘machinery’.
…to be continued