Former Public Information Project Director at the NCSE, writes out a blueprint to be passed on to future followers of evolution which has been used as a tactical approach to fight creationism. Let’s begin with this common thread that one hears from those who defend evolution…
“Creationist movements consist of an organized group of creationist authors, speakers, activists, and fans who bandtogether in support of a more or less coherent program. The program typically includes a societal goal, a set of strategies to reach it, and an elaborate, though jerryrigged, apologetic argument constructed out of a hodgepodge of claims about science, history, philosophy, law, and theology. The argument is meant to explain why the creationist view is correct despite near-universal disagreement from the thousands of academics with direct expertise in the relevant fields.”
The disagreement in which he refers to is stacked by governments around the world and goes by a philosophy which Dr. Scott Todd, of Kansas University has told about this very thing in nature magazine..“Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.” So we know numbers of academics disagreeing or agreeing is not relevant to the outcome rather how the information is interpreted. Another example from a previous post concerning a proposal which was elevated to a ‘theory’ not because the majority of academics embraced it but because it was interpreted by using evolution.
As far as relevant fields as Matzke’s points out, Charles Darwin considered himself a geologist not a biologist, yet his relevant field isn’t questioned when he came up with his version of evolution. But I have seen evolutionists knock ideas from those who are critical of Darwinian evolution but not evolution in particular. This co-evolutionist, who used to promote his blog by only writing in popular ones is flawed in his ideas about the origins of life which are unique, he is disregarded for various reasons.
“Figuring out what flavor(s) of creationism you are dealing with is particularly important in secular forums such as academia, public policy disputes, and court cases, in which creationists usually attempt to hide their underlying theology.”
Matzke’s attempt (with the NCSE) to reconcile Christianity and religion with evolution for the sake of special interests evangelizing for evolution is also flawed. Evolution argues against engineering in the designs of nature from a highly advanced Creator, namely God. As far as hiding underlying theology, he’s referring to the modern intelligent design movement which has great arguments against neo-Darwinism but is not the same as creationism.
It’s good for Christians to learn how Christianity is being attacked by a secular philosophy that is at war with your faith.
Thomas Jefferson who is one of the founders of the United States, once said, “I hold (without appeal to revelation) that when we take a view of the Universe, in its parts general or particular, it is impossible for the human mind not to perceive and feel a conviction of design, consummate skill, and indefinite power in every atom of its composition.”