Basic HTML Version
pulled back from the brink of
oblivion?
One symposi um devoted to
epistemics-a new science de–
voted to the human knowledge
process and the human brain–
tried to tackle this critica! area.
Of course, the perspective from
which the examination was made
was that of evolution, the frame–
work of science ioday. The chief
conclusion reached was that man
must somehow evolve still further
to insure his own survival!
The program study guide to the
symposium stated that "the rich–
ness of our system-forming activi–
ty has resulted in the development
of nuclear weapons that threaten
the survival of the species. Unless
an evolving of the human knowl–
edge process occurs, our prospects
for survival are slim."
William Gray, associated with
the Massachusetts Department of
Mental Health, stressed that it is
abundantly clear that the "normal
operation" of the human thinking
process "lacks sensitivity" for
other humans and for their envi–
ronment-the "natural ecology."
According to Dr. Gray this
defect in the brain's normal oper–
ation can only be remedied
through what he called "knowl–
edge evolution"-so that a "hu–
man, humane and humanistic
ecology can develop." And only
through this "self-evo lution of
the human knowledge process,"
he maintained, can humans reach
the point where "the heart of
each will be pure of envy and
greed and therefore all mankind
will be without matice."
Dr. Gray believed that this "self–
evolution" was both urgent and pos–
sible, since, he said, "man is essen–
tially an unfinished business."
Man is indeed an "unfinished
business." And man certainly needs
to turn from bis self-centered
approach to life. But does man have
it within himself to redirect bis own
thinking processes?
The real answer to these ques–
tions-which we'll examine be–
low- lies in the Bible, that
despised source of
revealed
knowledge that in fact predicted
6
our very age of knowledge explo–
sion. The prophet Daniel foretold
"the time of the end"-this 20th
century-when "knowledge shall
be increased" (Daniel 12:4).
Freed from "Bondage"?
Unfortunately, learned men of
science do not want to take a
fresh look at the Bible. The "bat–
tle" between evolutionary science
and what is labeled "religious
superstition" is supposedly
over- with science the undis–
puted winner.
As one Harvard paleontologist
recently said,
" lt
is absurd
beyond words that in 1981 we
have to defend the conclusions of
science."
Ervin Laszlo, a United Nations
official who addressed one AAAS
seminar, emphasizes that science
has been "fully liberated from
bondage to medieval dogma....
Not only science and technology,
but the institution of society
(have been] divorced from reli–
gious authority."
In throwing off "medieval dog–
ma," however, science has also
discarded the true message of the
Bible- which was not, as they
assumed, the basis of the dogmas
so opposed and discarded .
It
was
the proverbial case of throwing
the baby out with the bath
water!
As a result modero man is cut
off more than ever from his Cre–
ator.
"Science has a lot of faults,"
said biologist William V. Mayer
at the AAAS, "but tutning to the
supernatural is not one of them."
He was speaking at a news con–
ference preceding a symposium
dealing with the creation-versus–
evolution controversy raging in
public school science classrooms
across the United States. Science,
added biologist Mayer, is not
atheistic, but "not-theistic by not
proposing supernatural explana–
tions for its phenomena."
"In
the Beginning"-What?
Nevertheless, certain phenomena
examined at this "world series of
science" convention are getting a
bit difficult to explain without
resorting to the supernatural.
There was considerable discus–
sion of the age of the universe,
and of various dating methods
used to arrive at the presently
accepted figure.
Most astronomers and physi–
cis ts ascribe to the "Big Bang"
theory- an incomprehensibly
awesome point in time when,
according to this explanation,
matter exploded in all directions
from one incredibly huge and hot
fireball.
Earlier concepts such as the
"steady state theory" or the "os–
cillating universe theory" are no
longer generally held to be feasi–
ble.
The Big Bang theory raises
interesting questions however .
Astronomer David W. Schramm
noted in his paper, " That our uní–
verse has a finite age is
philo–
sophica/Jy intriguing."
Lest anyone leap to theological
conclusions, however, fellow as–
tronomer Milton K. Munitz went
to considerable lengths to explain
the difference between "t he
beginning of the universe," as
scientists view it, and " the cre–
ation of the universe." The latter
phrase is not preferred by science
since it implies a
creator.
By choosing to use the phrase
"the beginning of the universe,"
emphasized Dr. Munitz, the
scientist is "sayi ng something
about the built-in limitations of
the scheme he is presenting."
Beyond that point in the distant
past other conditions may have
prevailed that we do not know of,
indeed may never know of.
The term "creation of the uní–
verse," on the other hand
reported Dr. Munitz, is a reli–
gious term always associated with
a "world picture." Sueh a "world
picture" represents a "fixed
bedrock" of beliefs concerning
the nature of the universe, revolv–
ing around a purposeful, powerful
Creator-Designer.
"Science," Dr. Munitz told
this author, "is not devoted to
formulation of a 'world view,' "
(Continued on page 44)
The
PLAIN TAUTH