The Strength of Delusion?

Strong bias leads to delusion. I learned very well about the strength of bias in former days as I was responsible for 30-year projections of a weapon class. I had to sift through factual data and often very biased data to ascertain what was accurate and what was not. That was not enough. I had to take a wealth of information from a much wider scope to put information in proper context. The results, depending on the people I had to brief, were all the way from popular to very unpopular. For those who found the results to be unpopular, they invariably had their heads too close to their own programs for too long. They could not see the larger picture with the elements and assumptions far wider than their view from their own pet program. It had nothing to do with their intellect. They were very smart people, but their limited view from their own long-standing program kept them from seeing the obvious. That was 30 years ago. Since then, what I told them came to pass.

A similar situation is occurring with regard to the Genesis Flood as scientists and specialists continue to analyze new information that strongly corroborates that the Scriptures are true in regard to the Genesis Flood or Great Flood. The findings are in direction contradiction to the naturalistic or evolutionary world view.

The Bible provides quite a bit of description of what happened in the Genesis Flood since God provides the record of it through several chapters of Genesis. The included record of generations and the plain words of the ‘Book of Beginnings’ speak of a very young earth compared to the deep time suggested from a naturalistic view. The date of the Great Flood is actually not too hard to fix in reasonable terms. And the recent date makes sense when one considers the numbers of discoveries regarding fossils at the “wrong” layers of rock or found in multiple layers at once. 2015-cross-US-3Many show violence or last actions before burial that show rapid change. Sedimentary rock has been cataloged as present on most of the earth’s surface. Fossils are found from under water to the highest mountains. Recently, it has gotten more interesting as DNA studies have been made from soft tissue found in remains of fossils that were supposed to be tens of millions of years old.

In a wider scope of discoveries that clash with a naturalistic view of origins, consider microbiology and genetics. When I was a child, everyone was taught that the cell was the simplest form of life, which ostensibly would make it easier as one tells the story about going from non-life to life in a naturalistic view (chemical evolution). The simple cell is by no means simple as recent years of analysis have shown. Furthermore, the information detail in the “simple” cell is incredible. Who wrote the code? It self-generated, according to the naturalistic story. Information theory agrees with practical results: complex information does not self-develop. The over whelming evidence is that the code had to be written. Oops! It’s not politically correct to suggest such a thing.

But one can go further in regard to discoveries. Solar system bodies, where volcanic and geologic activity has been confirmed repeatedly, should have long since been totally cold and dead in terms of deep time in a naturalistic view. Comets are short-lived also, and we now know a lot more about them from the last two decades. They have no magic source of origin in deep time. They are young and probably results of another catastrophe on a very large scale. The Bible points to events that could easily have caused these kinds of catastrophes.

How about missing links? So many discoveries of fossil sorts of things, but no missing links, unless the story telling tries to connect dots between kinds of life that, from the beginning and in fossil record terms, still stay “in” in their kinds.

If you are not aware of these things, investigate the reporting yourself. The bottom line: Genesis and, therefore, what the Author says, looks more reasonable all the time with many recent findings. But the more popular naturalistic and evolutionary world view is so dominant that consideration of of them in any world view that includes God is simply disallowed, as it has been for several decades.

Why restate this in this post? I just traveled across the SW US again, where dry climate has preserved a lot of landscape from what can reasonably be interpreted as the aftermath to the Great Flood. The effects of vertical tectonics, massive waters, and violence that occurred, according to the Bible, just a few thousand years ago, make sense as one observes contorted layers of rock, SW-and-Flood1petrified forests, sheets of flat land with sand/rock tens of meters thick, mountains with tops removed, and the list could go on. For someone sold on the assumption and world view of naturalism, it is utterly disruptive to consider what I am saying. It means that God involved Himself in our history and it can be seen in the earth. But it also means that we bear responsibility for what we see and what it means because the Bible explains what happened that led to the Great Flood. While the Biblical view of history is increasingly ridiculed and treated with contempt in many circles, the body of evidence is growing that so much of what we know about the earth is much more easily fitted with the biblical view of what happened. In a wider scope, origins, whether solar system or stellar, also have a story to tell. It would seem that what the Author has to say about them might be a tad wiser than suggesting it all happened by itself, without direction, and without any process other than random events with no known Initiator.

Why be concerned? 99% of the textbooks for daughters and sons are teaching, as they have for several decades in most institutions, continue to present the naturalistic view. The moral impact of a “dust to us” world view is without direction, hope, or solution. Like it or not, that effects people. But the bias is so entrenched that dozens of adjustments to minor parts of the naturalistic view continue with new discoveries, but the fundamental assumption of undirected  and random/by-chance development of all things remains unchallenged. And, more important, the suggestion that God is involved directly remains forbidden.

Are you puzzled? Are you young and trying to learn about all this? Learn the popular natural and evolutionary world view, because it is taught and tested. However, if you have not considered the biblical world view, please consider it. The interpretation of evidence from many recent discoveries are much more plausible and make sense in a biblical context. There are scientists and specialists around the globe that heartily agree with the biblical view, but the noise of naturalism and evolution often drowns their voices. 2010-sedimentary-rockWhen I travel and see some of the landscape that shows some effects of the Great Flood, it reminds me how important it is for people to seriously consider God’s view of the matter, and interpret things accordingly.

Want to read more? Go visit the creation.com site or the Answers in Genesis site or the Institute for Creation Research site. If you want to download a free study on the subject that treats some of these issues and is written for parents and students, get the Creation Study on the cwm4him.org site (under downloadable courses). Last, when you travel to see some of the sites that I have on my travels, bring the Biblical world view with you. It will change how you see things.

Share
Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *