"It is said that science will dehumanise people and turn them into numbers. That is false, tragically false. Look for yourself. This is the concentration camp and crematorium at Auschwitz. This is where people were turned into numbers. Into this pond were flushed the ashes of some four million people. And that was not done by gas. It was done by arrogance. It was done by dogma. It was done by ignorance. When people believe that they have absolute knowledge, with no test in reality, this is how they behave. This is what men do when they aspire to the knowledge of Gods.

Science is a very human form of knowledge. We are always at the brink of the known, we always feel forward for what is to be hoped. Every judgement in science stands on the edge of error, and is personal. Science is a tribute to what we can know although we are fallible. IN the end the words were said by Oliver Cromwell 'I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken'."

The Ascent of Man - Jacob Bronowski

I have often heard it argued that  we should allow equal time to Creationism and Evolution, because Evolution is not a law, it is 'only a Theory' and there are 'doubts' amongst the experts.

If that argument is followed we should also teach the Revisionist views about the Holocaust, because their are doubts raised about this ever happening amongst Scholars.

Reasons that I have personally seen used for revisionist works:

1. The evidence is there, the only difference is the way in which the evidence is interpreted.

2. People who weren't there are making judgements based not on personal experience.

3. Evidence has been fabricated.

Reasons for Creationism that have been used directly at me:

1. The evidence is there, but Creationists and Scientists just interpret it differently.

2. Only God was there, so no Man could ever know what really happenened.

3. Evidence such as Nebraska man/Piltdown man etc have been falsified.

A couple of examples:

1. Experts use terminology badly
   Revisionist website: "From the evidence they cite, Hitler, Himmler, Goebbels, et al., spoke about extracting, expelling, rooting out, and transporting the Jews as well as about annihilating and liquidating them. The former terms were used more than the latter."
   AiG: ReMine summarises the illusions created by evolutionists to encourage acceptance of naturalism: misuse of terminology (such as intermediate/transitional fossils),
2. Experts starting from a particular viewpoint:
   Revisionist website: Your opponents, however, do just the opposite. Beginning with the dogmatic assumption that there was a monolithic consensus originating from Hitler, they take all language to the contrary and interpret it as mere "euphemism" or "code" for extermination.
   AiG: It is the atheistic bias of modern practitioners of science that prevents them from seeing the abundant evidence, right under their noses, for the unseen Creator of life. There is more evidence than there ever has been for there being a Creator. Unbelieving scientists are in willfully ignorant denial (Rom. 1:20 ff., 2 Peter 3).

So, I can see that we should be teaching the alternative view to the Holocaust, that is the idea that the Nazi's didn't really kill Millions of Jews, only a few hundred thousand died (not murdered, just died). The Allied bombing campaign did the damage to the infrastructurce stopping the Nazis from helping the Jews, including Ann Frank. I have Really read this, and I will supply the URL for anyone to check on request. I do not want to generally advertise the page though.

Back to Essays page

Back to Home Page