It is very worthwhile to analyze this profound analysis provided by The Kolbe Center:
952 Kelly Rd., Mt. Jackson, VA 22842
Tel: 540-856-8453 E-Mail: director@kolbecenter.org
For me You have created the skies scattered with stars . . .
and all the beautiful things on earth
(St. Maximilian Kolbe)
“Dear Friends of the Kolbe Center,
Glory to Jesus Christ!
For several days last week, three of my colleagues and I spoke to hundreds of members of the American Geophysical Union, a huge international organization of 60,000 scientists, at their annual convention in San Francisco with 19,000 in attendance. We had prepared a meticulous summary of our research, involving the excavation and radiocarbon dating of dinosaur bones and other fossils, but had been refused permission to present our findings at the AGU convention. Since the AGU papers committee had refused to give any reason for their refusal to allow us to present a paper or poster session at the convention, we decided to protest this blatant violation of the following AGU “core principles”:
1. The generation and dissemination of scientific knowledge.
2. Open exchange of ideas and information.
3. Diversity of backgrounds, scientific ideas, and approaches.
If enough sexual stimulation is present, then http://www.solboards.com/order-2/ cialis no prescription ED can be treated effectively along with psychological counseling. Sexual health and female viagra function is a common issue, especially among men that are of age. Here, some of the effective points have been mentioned about the generic cialis cheapest and its substitutes: Kamagra & Other Generic Drugs of other brands. In this viagra canadian pharmacy condition a man can’t get an orgasm. 4. Equality and inclusiveness.
To this end, for three days (the Kolbe Center) invited AGU members to review our research at a hotel next door to the convention center and, on the fourth day, on the sidewalk in front of one of the main entrances to the center, where we displayed our convincing data tabulated on placards for all to see.
I would like to share a few observations.
One of the first and most lasting impressions of the week was the recognition that most of the scientists in the American Geophysical Union are not American-born. It would seem that our education system at the elementary and secondary level has become so bad that most of our own students can no longer compete with the more disciplined and better-trained foreign scientists. On the other hand, the foreign scientists tend to be very technocratic in their outlook. They are masters of a narrow field of knowledge, but most of them are obviously not concerned with broader theological, philosophical and moral questions, or even with questions outside of their limited area of expertise in the natural sciences. It is also apparent that while the American-born scientists are more liberally educated, they tend to be much more hostile to any criticism of evolution than the non-European foreign-born scientists who are more polite but who do not see any need to think beyond the specialized area of knowledge that they have mastered and which guarantees them a comfortable living and a certain amount of prestige and intellectual satisfaction. When most of the elite scientists of the world become technocrats, the way is truly prepared for a godless New World Order, because the most skilled and competent people in science and technology no longer care about the theological or moral consequences of their actions–except in regard to things that are politically correct, like global warming. As a dear friend of mine recently observed, the all but universal faith in evolutionism acts as a barrier to any kind of grace that might move them to consider the bigger questions of life.
A number of American-born scientists heaped scorn on us and asserted that our research “had to be false” because “it could not be true.” One young scientist who uses long-half-life radiometric dating methods to date rocks insisted that our C-14 results were “worthless” because they contradicted the results obtained with his long half-life radiometric dating methods. A scientist friend of his even asserted that all C-14 dating results were “worthless” and cited as proof the fact that living plants have been found to be hundreds of years old using C-14 dating methods. If only these young scientists had been willing to engage in a dialogue, we would have asked them why the same criticisms would not apply to long half-life radiometric dating methods. After all, many rocks of known age have been dated using these methods with results that are hundreds of thousands or millions of years older than the true ages. For example, rocks formed in the Mt. St. Helens eruption in 1980 were collected and radiometrically dated to ages ranging from 300,000 to 1.2 million years old. Thus, the argument: “A dating method that produces false results is useless; dating method A has produced false results; therefore, dating method A is useless” if valid, would render all radiometric dating methods useless. In reality, C-14 is by far the most reliable of the radiometric dating methods, because it is the only one that can actually be tested against reliable historical documentation. Long half-life radiometric dating methods cannot be tested against any kind of historical benchmark. Thus, even when two different long half-life methods produce “concordant” results, we have no way of testing their reliability or calibrating the measurements correctly.
One of the highlights of the week occurred when the president of the AGU visited our hotel room up the street from the convention center and spent fifteen minutes with us examining our research. The president made clear that he could not and would not challenge the decision of his papers committee. However, after looking at our research, he could not point to any flaw in our methodology or in our results. At the end of the meeting, he said, “I don’t know what to say.” And then he made a remarkable statement. “If your research is correct,” he said, “this would mean that the scientific community has been operating with a false understanding of geology for more than a hundred years. How could that be?” To which we replied: “If one studies the intellectual history of the last century and a half, one can see that the geological time scale was established in its present form by Charles Lyell and his disciples around 1870. Our research simply shows that geologists shouldn’t be doing twenty-first century natural science within a nineteenth century framework.” To which the president said–nothing.
Friends of the Kolbe Center, the sad reality is that most of the world’s leaders are quite content to pretend that the naked emperor of evolution is well-dressed, simply because it is convenient and comfortable to do so. In the meantime, however, young people are being systematically denied a liberal education in the true sense of the word. The more academically inclined are being trained in information-stuffing and sophisticated manipulation of symbols so as to be unreflecting technocrats, while the less academically inclined are being trained for war or serfdom in the global economy. Nevertheless, nothing can invalidate the promises of Our Lord Jesus Christ who assures us that “If you continue in My Word, you will know the Truth and the Truth will set you free.”
If you would like the next generation of Catholics to have the opportunity to hear a faithful defense of the whole Catholic Faith on the foundation of the true doctrine of creation–and if you would like all young people to be able to hear a refutation of the false claims of evolution so that they can be open to the Gospel–please support us with your prayers and financial contributions.
With more resources, we could reach many more souls.
Yours in Christ through the Immaculata,
Hugh Owen
P.S. If you have a connection with–or know of–any foundations that might be willing to support our research or educational programs, please let me know.”
