The momentum against logic and facts

Would we come up with the same theories if we started with
today’s facts and a blank theory slate? Yes, I know this is impossible, because
much of what we "know" is stated in terms of support for one theory or another.
But allow me to press on:

When Roe v. Wade occurred in 1973, the womb was a black box, and what was
actually going on in there was anybody’s guess. It was easier to talk in terms
of a woman’s rights as being the only rights involved. Today, with new
technology such as 4D
Ultrasound, we can literally see the live baby in motion, and the question
of rights is broadened. If we had had 4D Ultrasound in place before 1973, would
the case have been determined differently? I suggest that is quite likely, so
the next question is, why doesn’t it simply reverse the case now? The doctor who
agreed to allow filming that became The Silent Scream, after viewing what he had done, never again performed
another abortion. Perhaps some day there will be enough back lash to recognized
the rights of the yet-born, but there is a huge momentum to overcome. Think of
all the men and women who in ignorance, or upon the insistence of well-meaning
friends and family, or because of their own personal predicament "exercised
their rights." How are they to reconcile with themselves this evidence? To say
the law must be changed is to say "I have been wrong all these years." With
every abortion there is pressure to never look back, regardless of the mounting
facts. This is not necessarily intentional, it may not even be conscious; it is
just human nature. (It is not my point here, but I cannot go on without saying
that the only solution to this cognitive dissonance is the acceptance of
total forgiveness from a loving God.) It is not simply a latter of logic and
facts.

The same question could be asked of Darwinian evolution: If
the theory had not been proposed until today, with today’s facts, would the
theory be the slam dunk that evolutionists claim? It might have some traction,
but it could be well argued that it would not have the grip it now has on
scientific thinking. When Darwin published Origin of the Species, 
the cell was a jelly ball with a hard center, easily conceivable as just a hop,
skip, and a jump away from mud. Today we know that no cell exists without an
instruction booklet of no less than 400,000 letters. So, why not just drop it?
Because of the investment in the doctrine by huge numbers of scientists whose
reputations are on the line. How easy is it for scientists around the world to
simply say, "Oh well, I guess the last 30 years of my publications were wrong?"
The evidence for evolution is not overwhelming. It is just non-negotiable. This
is not necessarily intentional, in may not even be conscious; it is just human
nature. Will the tide some day turn? I really don’t know, because the problem is
not one of logic or facts.

This entry was posted on August 31, 2008 at 11:37 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response or trackback from your own site.