Secular Scientists are Shocked

Articles written by secular scientists on the topics of geology and paleontology seem to have a modern theme and that theme is one of shock. Most of the articles being published today have the secular scientist stating their shock at the results of their research. This shock can be simplified into one of two general cases. 

The first case of shock results from the secular world view they hold not allowing for the result they obtained. Soft tissue and organic material which has now been found within many dinosaur bones, is an example. For a secular paleontologist, the dinosaur bone is “known” to be 65 million years old but there is not a known process by which tissue could survived even a fraction of that amount of time. Since these two beliefs are not compatible, the secular scientist writes that the results are shocking. The reader of the article is left with the impression that since this smart paleontologist is shocked, there is no explanation for the results. The statement of shock is used instead of offering that the finding supports the Biblical World View.

The second case of shock appears in articles where the secular scientist has invented the data to support their theory. The procedure goes like this. The secular geologist or paleontologist dreams up an idea of support for evolution. Since their field of study all happened in the past, they can’t perform any kind of empirical scientific experiment to validate their theory. So, they write a computer model to give them the “data” needed to support their theory. Almost without fail, the secular researcher will state shock at the outcome. The statement of shock is intended to give the reader the impression that the outcome of the computer model was unknown. But how could they possibly be shocked when they wrote the computer model and it produced data matching what they wanted?

Computer models can be powerful tools. Engineering uses lots of computer models but these are empirical models. For empirical models, engineers are modeling real behavior. Data is collected from the actual item and compared to the prediction from the model. When the model does not match the data, the model is adjusted to more closely reflect the real data. Models written by secular scientists to support their particular theory of evolution, the reference data for the model is their own theory. The researcher’s model is adjusted until it matches the researcher’s theory and thus “proves” the researcher’s theory. This is not science but rather circular logic!

Next time you are reading an article on paleontology or geology in support of evolution, watch for the statement of shock. Then ask yourself two questions to determine the cause of their shock. Is the author denying the world view as presented in the Bible? Did the author actually create the data and is pretending they did not know what the result would be?