Breakpoint: "Censoring Science" by Chuck Colson

This serves as Chuck Colson’s view of the evolution and education controversy in Kansas. Here we have more of the Ad Hominem (see previous entry) fallacy by the Secular Humanist camp.

Colson makes the following comment in his commentary concerning the controversy being about philosophy rather than about science: “They (students) will not be told that the teaching of origins is controversial because really it is not science, but about the philosophy of naturalism. There is no verifiable science (incomplete fossil record) about how life began- something students will not be told.” What does Colson mean by such a comment? Naturalism believes that knowledge of the universe comes not only from evidence but also observation and testing of that evidence. The problem naturalists face is that there is no such clear evidence that their view of reality is true therefore it logically follows that the controversy is not about science but is about philosophy which at times works with assumptions or presuppositions when it comes to acquiring knowledge of reality. Philosophically speaking naturalism must make certain assumptions about how the universe began without the existence of clear evidence which is the very thing that they criticize Christian theism for having to do. Let us provide an accurate and balanced presentation of the evidence for the origins of the universe and I would say, if this were to take place, the side of creation and intelligent design would be the hands down winner- Scientifically and philosophically speaking.