It’s Redacted Part 2

Last week we talked about how there is a similarity between the redactions of political documents and the culture withholding or (redacting) information about the character and nature of God. Both are withholding information in order to elevate one side of the issue over the other. That is the common thread.

We talked about the naturalist scientists not willing to divulge the factual information that the probability of the universe coming into existence by either chance or necessity is impossible. There had to be a creator. They also have chosen not to inform the public that the complexity of linguistic information found in DNA could not have come about without some form of extreme intelligence behind its creation.

Today I would like to dive into the arena of our educational system with regards to the idea of withholding information. You see, the naturalistic approach to science has a monopoly on what is being taught in the classroom. This is particularly true in the area of three big issues. They are 1) origins of the universe, 2) the fine tuning of our universe, and 3) the intricate design aspects of DNA.

The classroom is filled with discovery of how these things work. And for that, I am grateful. There is no problem with this; we all should be passionate about this type of discovery process. However, there should be some credence to the aspect of why things are the way that they are. Currently the why question is only answered by a naturalistic explanation. Random chance, necessity or a combination of the two is the only game in town. There is no credence given to the notion of God’s creative ability in the discussion. I believe that the students are only getting half of the story. Why not give them both sides, and then let them make their decision based on all of the evidence.

Opponents of this idea commonly use the excuse of “if we say that God did it, then the discovery process of how things work would be short circuited or even shut down entirely.” That simply is not true. The early scientists were mostly composed of theists that wanted to discover the glory of God’s creative abilities. Scientific endeavors are to be explored and studied  with gusto, whether or not a person is a Christian.

Therefore, what are we to do about this redaction of information of God’s creativity? I think it is important for our young people to get the whole picture somehow. It just blows me away that young people end up leaving the church because they are thinking that Science has somehow disproved God. The reality is that nothing is further from the truth in this regard. In fact the opposite is much more likely. The more that we are learning from Science as to the complexity of multiple systems, the more likely that the inference of design is present.

Let us be passionate about informing the next generation about this. This is part of what being strong and courageous is all about.

Also, I you feel that I have touched on a sensitive topic without providing adequate information on this area, I would encourage you to invest your time in the video link listed below. It provides much more information on why this post is true.

Video Link:

Dr. Stephen C. Meyer: Return of the God Hypothesis