I was thirteen years old, visiting relatives, and looking for a way to kill some time. In the living room was a circular foyer table with ring-pull drawers all round triggering my teenage curiosity. After rummaging through each drawer jammed with odds and ends, I finally returned to a booklet found at the beginning. This parchment paper publication would now be classified as a tract. As I recall, the title was Creation or Evolution—What are the Facts? I sat down and read it cover to cover. Now even though I was interested in science and mathematics, I don't remember once questioning the evolutionary worldview. Whatever insights I may have gleaned from this brief survey, I was now open to a creation view of origins. Thirteen years later, my world had faltered on shaky ground. Many poor decisions had forced me to see I was living without a foundation, but I didn't know where to build. It was then that I had a life-changing experience. It began with the revelation of God’s power when I—along with millions in the Northwest— experienced the irruption of Mt. St. Helens. A friend called to ask if I had seen the ash-cloud. I answered, “Sure it’s on television right now.” He came back, “No, have you seen it. Tim, go outside and see it for yourself!” So I walked outside and looked down a rural highway to see what I thought would be a distant sight, but it seemed like the volcano was at the end of the road and the black mushroom cloud towered up and over everything. With the soaring menace rose my apprehension as I sensed the uncertainty of a broken world. Like a ground fault my mind opened up to a disturbing question, “I wonder if there is a God?” After I paused to consider the immediate implications, some foundational words took form in my heart, “Be still… and know that I am God.” It was sometime later that I learned that these very words are found in Psalm 46:10 promising God’s help when the mountains, the earth, and ultimately the world is broken. I have shared at other times how this experience finally led to a personal faith in Jesus Christ (1); however what I want to share here is how this also led to my interest in the subject of origins. It was only natural that after trusting in Christ, I would seek and find resources that affirmed the Biblical view of origins. It seemed obvious to me that the first eleven chapters of Genesis (the origin and order of the universe) were a straightforward account of history just as with chapter 12 (the call of Abraham). My “simple” view of the scriptures came through a reading of Genesis chapters 1-3 that clearly connects the origin of pain, suffering, and death with the sin and Fall of Man. After all, when God created the universe it was “very good”, and only after Adam sinned was there death (2). And so I went on to study other aspects of the Bible, which I also needed to understand. Soon after I enrolled in a local Bible college to round out my general knowledge of the scriptures and it was here that I discovered I really loved indepth study and research. In time I felt I needed to get back to the University of Washington to finish out a bachelor’s degree to support my continuing employment as an engineer. However I was uncertain which course of study would both engage my interests and be relevant to engineering. Only when the option to enter the Physics department did I see this as an opportunity to broaden my knowledge of natural science and follow my interest in origins. About this time I met a Christian gentleman who seemed to have acheived the kind of position in science that interested me. Since I was interested in the relationship between the scriptures and science I looked for guidance from my new acquaintance. For some time he appeared reluctant to engage me on this subject, but then he finally handed over a stack of photocopied materials with various personal notes. These he asserted were evidence that my previous “creationist” resources were based on faulty logic, debunked evidence, and a misunderstanding of the relationship of science to the Bible. Initially I rejected his allegations and asked that he offer some alternative resources that he believed were worthy of assent, or at least further investigation, but he never responded. I explained my motivation since I was now a youth leader in my church and saw the need to address the challenging questions coming from friends and family. A principle I was then sharing with the youth was this: Real faith asks questions. We should always be willing to turn over any stone in anticipation that God’s truth will be confirmed, or our understanding will be corrected to align with God's Word. It was at this time that I became aware of what is called Progressive Creation. According to this view, we must accept the testimony of science about the cosmological evolution of the universe, but reject the testimony of science about the biological evolution of life. The concession to the age of the earth is not only seen as acceptable, but necessary, since it was supposed to resolve concerns about the Bible being unscientific. This view rests on the usual claim that the days of creation can be interpreted in many ways beside a literal 24-hour day. The more interesting interpretive innovation was the idea that the out-of-order fourth day of creation—of the sun, moon, and stars—was actually a day of revelation when the primordial clouds changed from translucent to transparent revealing the preexistent celestial bodies (3). Along with this came the endorsement of some Christian leaders that this was an acceptable way to reconcile the Bible with science. I now wondered if this view might be a necessary step in the direction of scientific credibility. So it was, that I entered the UW Physics program. Interspersed with my study of natural science I read from a broader field of Christian perspectives on the topic of origins. No one will be surprised to hear that my professors showed no signs of affirming any kind of creation. Many were indifferent, others hostile. I thought that because I was now older than most of my peers, I would not be so easily intimidated. However, it was during this time that I entered a phase I now call “creation agnosticism.” I still believed the Biblical view of creation was true, but I sometimes fell silent when it came to offering a word of assurance about the clarity of God’s revealed Word on origins. So for this relatively brief period of time it appears I really was affected by both the dissonance of Christian leaders and the hostility of secular educators. Fortunately, I maintained my interest in origins with an open Bible. When I returned to some more developed resources for the now popular Progressive Creation, the full implications of this view finally became clear. I found that there were other “scientifically necessary” concessions. One of these was related to the origin of man. You see, since the time scale for human origins was supposed to be stretched out over millions of years, it was necessary for God to create some sub-human ancestors in a progression that looked suspiciously close (identical) to the evolutionary progression with some unlucky non-ancestor who looked like and acted like a specially created Adamic human race, but without the image of God. This story did not bear any resemblance to the Genesis account, which described the special creation of the first man and the first woman utterly distinct from the animals (Genesis 2:20) and uniquely in the image of God (Genesis 1:26,27). And when Jesus was later challenged with a supposed self-contradictory definition of marriage he offered a “first principles” argument saying, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female…” (Matthew 19:4-6,8, ESV). So I realized that on the authority of Christ, God created the first man and the first woman—in his image—from the beginning and not 13 billion years later! I discovered there were other concessions, but one finally arrested my attention. The bedrock foundation of Progressive Creation, Theistic Evolution, the Gap Theory, and other historically late interpretive-innovations was uniformitarianism. On this view, we must assume only uniform, slow, and gradual processes observed in the present can be extrapolated into the past in order to reconstruct a “theory” for the origin of the universe, life, and ultimately man. Now some of these latter-day interpretive frameworks reject the full implications of uniformitarianism, which entails biological evolution; however they all accept the evolutionary time-scale. I found that questioning this premise was classified as “intellectual suicide.” In sharp contrast to the uniformitarianism of evolutionary history is Biblical history, which is defined by a series of discontinuous events with generally universal effects. These include the Creation (Genesis 1-2), the Fall (Genesis 3), the Flood (Genesis 6-9), the Incarnation (John 1:1-4, 14), and the Consummation (Revelation 21-22). Now according to the Bible, creation can only be described as a singular event and not a continuous process (4). By definition, it is not possible to observe a “creation process” to extrapolate it into the past. Even if one imagines— contrary to a straightforward reading of scripture—there were a series of “progressive” creation events, natural law is the steady state for the universe, which is now characterized by “bondage to decay” (5). A crucial, non-uniform event developed in Biblical history is the Genesis Flood. Here the Hebrew Scriptures could not be any more clear that this was a global event that catastrophically affected the entire planet and every living (air-breathing) creature (Genesis 7:19-24). And if that were not enough, Jesus warned that since "the flood came and swept them all away" it was the archetype for the global effects of the second “coming of the Son of Man” (Matthew 24:37-39). I now realized that Progressive Creationists promote a local flood interpretation and argue strenuously against a global cataclysm in defense of historical uniformitarianism. In this they join the ranks of “alternative” interpretations, which either deny the historicity, or the scope of the Flood. I also realized this was a very serious matter since the Flood occupies such a pivotal role in the leading eleven chapters of the foundational book of Genesis and therefore it’s memorialized throughout scripture (6). Later I learned that Darwin’s “theory of evolution” was largely motivated by Charles Lyell’s Principles of Geology. Now Lyell had championed the principle of uniformitarianism, “the present is the key to the past.” In this he argued that unobserved causes in the past must be extrapolated from effects in the present. However Lyell also saw himself as "the spiritual saviour of geology, freeing the science from the old dispensation of Moses" (7). It might be said the Principles was the "devotional book" at the bunkside of his young disciple Charles Darwin on the defining voyage of the HMS Beagle. So first Lyell, and then Darwin, were motivated by a desire for autonomy from the Biblical view of origins (8). And since Darwin built his theory of evolution on the conceptual foundation of uniformitarianism he fully embraced the anti-Biblical implications: We may feel certain that the ordinary succession by generation has never once been broken, and that no cataclysm has desolated the whole world. Hence we may look with some confidence to a secure future of equally inappreciable length. And as natural selection works solely by and for the good of each being, all corporeal and mental endowments will tend to progress towards perfection (9). I finally concluded that I could not ignore the scriptural warning about the ridicule of those advocating uniformitarianism: “You should remember the predictions of the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior through your apostles, knowing this first of all, that scoffers will come in the last days with scoffing, following their own sinful desires. They will say, “Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation.” For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God, and that by means of these the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished. But by the same word the heavens and earth that now exist are stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly.” (2 Peter 3:2-7, ESV) It was now clear to me that not only did the book of Genesis present itself as a literal historical account of the beginning; the entire balance of scripture confirmed that interpretation as well. Resolving the Tension Now having resolved which view was most consistent with the clear intent of the Scriptures, the previous tension between the Bible and science appeared to remain. It was at this time I began coursework dealing with the history and nature of science. Here I was already familiar with the fact that the Biblical worldview had given rise to the earliest formulation of science as a discipline. This fact is acknowledged—albeit begrudgingly—by nearly all historians of science. The founders of the primary disciplines of science were motivated to study nature because they believed that because man was created in the image of God, he could think the thoughts of God after Him (10). The promise of a rational universe also motivated men to seek a rational means to fulfill God's command to take dominion over the creation, which ultimately led to the scientific method and its aplication in technology (Genesis 1:26-28). The rationality of the universe was a foundational prediction of the Biblical idea that the same God who had ordained moral laws for the affairs of man had also ordained physical laws for the affairs of nature (11). Finally, the discovery that the rational rules of mathematics and logic were directly applicable to nature was critical to the development of theoretical science. However in the physics curriculum we simply skipped over the history of science to the advent of modern physics. This study introduced us to the revolutionary shift from classical physics to relativistic and quantum physics. In the previous classical revolution Isaac Newton—regarded the most influential scientist in history—discovered the Laws of Motion by which he finally predicted the motion of planets and particles. In reflection Newton declared, "He is the God of order and not of confusion!" which appears to be a direct allusion to 1 Corinthians 14:33 (12). However because Einstein’s theory of relativity showed that time and space were no longer absolute, the popular culture appropriated this to justify "relativism." And Quantum physics, which entailed Hezenberg's uncertainty principle, was now popularly hailed as the end of the alleged "determinism" of classical physics. The truth is that relativity has nothing whatsoever to do with moral relativism. In fact it has been observed that Einstein’s theory could have easily been called "invariant theory" because he postulated that light traveled the same speed “invariantly” regardless of the motion of the source or observer. And though the leading interpretation of Quantum physics allows for an indeterminate state for subatomic particles and energy quanta, the popular notion that human observers are the sufficient cause of the universe is physically absurd in the extreme. How ironic that atheists once claimed Newtonian physics forced us to accept a deterministic universe where a Creator God cannot act, while New Agers now claim that modern physics forced us to accept an utterly indeterminate universe where man is the creator. But then, many confuse modern science, which includes modern physics, with modernism, a late 19th century popular movement born of naturalism, the philosophical supposition that nature is the sufficient cause of nature. I later learned the history behind the gradual substitution of naturalism for natural science, but I concluded that while modern physics was a complex field of study, the universe remained intelligible and rational. Physics was not the source of concern for Biblical creation. So I wondered about the state of other fields of study alleged to support evolution and oppose creation. It was then that I began supplemental coursework in biology, anthropology, and physiology. Now here at least the battle lines were clear. My professors seemed prepared to shut down challenging questions in a number of ways. Some erected philosophical walls against challenges to "natural law" which they defined as “naturalism” [read; nature is all there is or ever will be], while others took direct shots at Christianity by setting up straw-man examples of "missionaries denigrating noble savages" [read; educating]. In all cases, the enforced rule of the day was unwavering commitment to naturalism. What I began to realize was that naturalism was a complete worldview. After all, any system that purports to explain the origin of "everything that is real" is either a religious or philosophical worldview. Some of the exchanges with professors were memorable. One young biology instructor seemed quite sincere in his presentation of the subject materials, but when he flatly stated that life was created in the Stanley Miller experiment—a simulated primordial earth—I had to interject. I reminded him that the intelligently selected byproduct of this experiment was a random mixture of left and right-handed amino acids while proteins are constructed of hundreds of exclusively left-handed amino acids in very specific 3D configurations. He responded, "Oh yes, that's right." I have since learned that even Miller has rejected his earlier hypothesis because the evidential basis for simulating a non-oxidizing primordial atmosphere has been rejected. I hope that my young instructor received the update as well. For many, the defining experience of evolutionary indoctrination occurs in a biological anthropology course. I found the course plan quite “constructive.” First the textbook laid out a foundation of ridicule for creation (unscientific) and Christians (ethnocentric), next it plopped down the indisputable case of biological evolution (the Peppered Moth), then it raised up the positive example of human evolution (sickle cell anemia), and all this was topped off with vacillating links relating monkeys to man (Lucy to Neanderthal). Now I was personally committed to learning everything that the evolutionary coursework could offer, but I also planned to understand how the creation view of origins addressed the same subjects. It soon became clear the narrow perspective of the course meant I would have to invest considerably more time to acquire any breadth of understanding. So when completing each assignment I was careful to accurately recapitulate every detail just as presented. The problem was that I believed it was also my responsibility to supplement the assigned responses with a balancing perspective. I found the evolutionary interpretations for the cited evidence were fairly straight-forward to address and especially when a larger body of evidence was considered. For example, the classic “proof” for evolution due to the population shift of dark to light Peppered Moths should simply be set aside since it’s not a case of macro-evolution, but micro-evolution which is not even disputed (13). The case of increased resistance to malaria due to sickle cell anemia can hardly be cited as “positive” mutation when the overall population that suffers from this deleterious birth defect is far less “fit” to survive (14). And I discovered that when all of the fossil evidence relevant to Homo sapiens was properly categorized and accurately placed on an evolutionary timeline, the fossils themselves falsified evolution (15). Then there was the gross caricature of Christianity which was alleged to spawn racism, imperialism, economic injustice, political conspiracies, etc., and this without any reference to a root Biblical teaching. What I finally realized was that the textbook authors were running on a track I later came to call ridicule-over- reason. And all of this was thought to be justified because Christianity was "ethnocentric" a term contrived as a kind of unforgiveable sin by anthropologists who demanded the “noble savage” be left to them (16). Initially the professor chose to ignore my supplemental responses and graded assignments based on the accuracy of the recapitulated answers. Then came what appeared to be a sincere effort to help me “better understand the assignments.” Next my responses required “corrections” that seemed to focus on matters of style rather than content. A critical juncture came when the assignment required a review of the textbook definition of science, which included historical theories. This section of the text was particularly weak and the case studies actually contradicted its confused definition of science. My supplemental remarks that science required direct empirical observation were dismissed as an attempt to “construct theory." Even so, I really felt the extended effort was paying a dividend to my understanding of the root issues. Then one day I received a surprising letter from the Dean over the Anthropology department. This was a carefully worded message, but clearly an order to "cease and desist!" The Dean condescended to explain that such an introductory course did not require, and by implication discouraged, “independent research.” It seems that I should have narrowed my efforts to understanding [read; believing] naturalistic science. Empiricism: The Waning Light Perhaps my most illuminating coursework was related to the Philosophy of Science. Now predictably the course took up its subject matter long after the origin of science and even after the rise of evolution and therefore it simply assumed naturalism; the doctrine that natural laws are sufficient to account for all phenomena. This is also the definition of scientism—a worldview that purports to explain "everything that is real." Fortunately, I was already aware of the impetus for what is properly defined as science. For example the eminent philosopher of science Alfred North Whitehead acknowledged Christianity as the mother of science because of "the medieval insistence on the rationality of God." He explained the Christian motivation was based in confidence "in the intelligible rationality of a personal being.” This was entirely different from eastern religions, which know nothing of an intelligible universe. Ultimately, Whitehead asserted that the Christian thought-form of the earliest scientists gave them "faith in the possibility of science" (17). Now the evolutionary “process theology” of Whitehead placed his other philosophical musings outside the realm of Biblical Christianity, yet his observations about the origin of science seem to echo scripture, “Through faith we understand…” (Hebrews 11:3, KJV). So we simply took up the story of the philosophy of science at the zenith of naturalism and therefore the advent of logical positivism. This epistemological purging program was launched in 1929 with the publication of a manifesto, The Vienna Circle: It’s Scientific Outlook. Here with the infallible tool of the "New Logic," the goal of complete empirical verification of knowledge was finally at hand, leaving only the details to work out. The tool was the verifiability criterion of meaning. Reductionism was born. With such an instrument all non-science would conclusively be defined as nonsense. A leading voice, Rudolph Carnap, assumed an imperial tone, "Before the inexorable judgment of the new logic, all philosophy in the old sense, whether it is connected with Plato, Thomas Aquinas, Kant, Schelling or Hegel, or whether it constructs a new 'metaphysics of Being' or a 'philosophy of spirit,' proves itself to be not merely materially false, as earlier critics maintained, but logically untenable and therefore meaningless"(18). Likewise Hans Hahn concurred that the newly developed logic had the power to cast down every metaphysical imagination since, “there is no possibility of piercing through the sensible world disclosed by observation to a 'world of true being': any metaphysics is impossible!"(19). Only later were the problems discovered with this Viennese circular reasoning, not the least of which was its clearly anti-supernatural motivation; however logical positivism was ultimately abandoned because it lacked the logical support claimed as its foundation. The verifiability problems with logic were: 1) universal statements cannot be verified; 2) negations cannot be verified; and 3) compound sentences containing unverifiable parts are verifiable. The latter problem was intriguing since they finally realized it was possible to make completely unverifiable—even nonsensical—statements that met the logical verifiability criterion of meaning (20). Now after the collapse of the New Logic was quietly acknowledged "on the back page" (Carnap's book appendix), a new but weaker philosophical movement—logical empiricism—took its place allowing the original presupposition to live on. As Carnap and Hahn concluded their treatises, "Any metaphysics is impossible!" So with the hope of universal verification of knowledge abandoned, naturalism pressed on with the weaker criteria of confirmation. However, it was soon pointed out that this revived philosophical decontamination plan had problems of its own. The first was the "old" problem of induction as asserted by David Hume. Induction is that process whereby one infers the general from the particulars. That is, a finite number of particular observations are taken as support for inferring a general principle that applies to all future observations. The problem with this is that by so doing we must assume that the future will be like the past for which we have no logical basis. This is known to be a logically invalid means of inference since even the complete truth of the premises does not guarantee the truth of the conclusion. Later the "new" problem of induction was posed by Nelson Goodman. For him the challenge was to distinguish between the obvious cases where induction gave erroneous results and those cases where it actually did appear the future is like the past. Goodman concluded the challenge could not be met. The reason he gave was evidence always radically underdetermines a particular hypothesis (21). Once again insuperable problems required the lowering of the standard for the "scientific" worldview of naturalism. Perhaps the most useful insight that emerged from empiricism was set forth by Karl Popper. He sought a more modest criterion of demarcation that simply distinguished between science and non-science. He finally decided the one thing that valid scientific theories had in common was limited explanatory powers. That is, scientific predictions entailed a risk that some future observation might falsify the theory. Theories like that of Freud were apparently able to explain every conceivable outcome no matter how unlikely or obscure. In contrast, Einstein's theory of General Relativity made very specific and risky predictions. For example Relativity predicted the gravitational field of the sun would bend starlight. If this very specific and risky prediction were disconfirmed the theory would be falsified. Scientists finally did make that observation which placed General Relativity among those theories that now define Modern Physics. So while the inductive method of inference was shown to be a logically invalid means to infer the truthfulness of a theory, the deductive method was a logically valid means to infer a theory was not true. Therefore it provided a "criterion of demarcation" for what constitutes science, which Popper defined as "falsifiability" (22). Scientific theories are, in principle, falsifiable. Therefore on this view, scientists do not infer theories on the basis of observation; instead, they infer the denial of theories on the basis of disconfirming observations. Part of the strength of Popper's view of falsification may have been that he didn't try to do too much. He made it clear that his method was not a means to verify ultimate truth. Further his original goal was faithfully maintained, to clearly define a criterion of demarcation for science versus non-science. Unlike his contemporaries he was not sidetracked by ambition to develop a "scientific worldview" in order to consign non-science to the domain of nonsense. Further the tool of falsification did appear to be useful in actual practice and escaped the blindness of simple logical empiricism. However, once again a problem was pointed out which has been called the "paradox of falsification." The problem was that the non-occurrence of a predicted phenomenon could not provide conclusive support for the claim that the "focal" hypothesis was itself false, since the non-occurrence could just as easily be due to the falsity of an implied "auxiliary" hypothesis. The problem was that falsificationism was radically inconclusive. Skepticism: Dusk Before Dark Always looming over naturalism’s hope of reductionist truth is the concern that what we think is objective reality is nothing more than an illusion, or at best an appearance of what is materially real. This belief has its origin in the evolutionary Hindu, Buddhist, and Greek religions. On this view, the only reason we claim the things we observe comprise reality is an unwillingness to accept our real unity with the Eternal Nothingness. The distinctions between truth and untruth are likewise illusionary because everything is connected. So what appears to be intrinsically true is on further examination linked to what is intrinsically false. Ultimately, for the thoroughgoing skeptic, "there are absolutely no absolutes," and therefore the skeptical materialist concedes that even the senses must be doubted as a source of inter-subjective scientific truth. Now with the descent of philosophy finally arrived at an unqualified skepticism, naturalism was presented with a choice between "autonomous" and "true" knowledge. The decision in favor of autonomy would now require a new source of authority empowered to validate scientific conclusions were effectively true. Here it was observed that scientists were still highly esteemed in the eyes of the lay public. However, because of the extreme specialization of each respective field of science, to the point that scientists in other fields are effective lay persons, it appeared that only the collective consensus of scientists in all fields possessed the power to confer scientific "truth status” on theoretical statements. Here "truth" is defined in terms of the prevailing worldview, or paradigm, not in terms of correspondence with facts. There have been a number of proponents of the science as consensus view of knowledge, however one of the most important was Thomas Kuhn who set forth his concept of the scientific paradigm with his publication of The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (23). The paradigm view of science has it that only the development of a consensus group with increasing professional acknowledgement has the power to confer scientific truth status on statements. This view of scientific discovery and ultimately all "true" knowledge has a three-tiered structure. First is the "young science" phase, which is characterized by various schools of thought vying for position but without sufficient explanatory success to gain preeminence. In this case paradigms are relatively vague and therefore various new observations can be accommodated because the indefinite form does not clearly define what are acceptable or unacceptable results. Discovery occurs as more or less random observations are utilized to formulate a more structured paradigm view. Second is the "normal science" phase where a clearly defined paradigm view has been established as most successful according to the majority of scientists in that field. In this case research is conducted in order to determine the significant facts, to match the facts with theory, and for the further articulation of the theory. Discovery of facts that don't fit into the paradigm view are not expected and when "successful" none are found. Third is the "revolutionary science" phase where emerging anomalies begin to challenge the reigning paradigm view. In this case researchers uncover facts that can't be fit into the increasingly precise paradigm in a straightforward manner. The irreconcilable anomalies have the potential to become what are called "revolutionary anomalies". This phase is characterized as a "period of pronounced professional insecurity," which is only resolved when a choice is made between the old and new paradigms. When this process of "conversion" occurs it is then possible to recognize not only the new facts, but also the meaning of the discovery in light of the new paradigm worldview. Now the appeal of this view of science is that it appears that it can be made to loosely fit certain key periods in history and it also provides a justification for our feelings about the difficulty of discovery and acceptance of scientific theories. "After all, the reason those people can't understand my view of reality is that they believe the wrong paradigm!" However, an old problem has now reappeared: Whereas in the past the idea of revelation from God was rejected, they now elevate the scientist to the status of "Revelator of Truth," where "truth" is defined in terms of the prevailing paradigm and not facts. Further the above explanation simply ignores the very real problem of willful disbelief, since facts do not determine what is true, when there is a compelling reason to reject the facts, the support of the paradigm community provides justification for that choice. Taking this view to its logical end the "truth by vote" approach would support any view that the reigning consensus group decided was in its best interest. To deny this potential is to deny the record of history where we see scientists who—like all other people—have biases, selfish goals, and at times are deliberately ignorant. The objection that this program was not intended to describe how science should be done but only how it does occur, doesn't ring true since the original claim was that it would define the structure for demarcating true science. Further, with this view of science not even autonomous knowledge is achieved since by giving up the concept of truth in favor of autonomy the result is the paradigm community or leader reigns as supreme arbiter of disputes regarding what's worthy of scientific truth status. The science as consensus view is so far from assuring personal autonomy that it actually ensures institutional tyranny. Postmodernism: Lights Out It should surprise no one that a commitment to naturalism would lead to a loss of certainty of knowledge, but now this includes science. As a result, some pressed on by embracing the "epistemological anarchism" set forth by Paul Feyerabend. On this view there is no superior or even preferred method for the acquisition of knowledge. Any choice of method is equally valid, or more correctly invalid, since each of the many means of gaining knowledge is radically indeterminate and therefore unworthy of our confidence or trust. Once again, since the remaining ideal of naturalism was personal autonomy, there now looms the danger that a power group would gain preeminence through the false premise of "objective science" and then go on to subjugate society on the basis of its unjustified claims. This concern has led Feyerabendian anarchists to argue there should be a "separation of science and state." For them, both the individual and society as a whole are best served by maximizing individual autonomy without any limits imposed by the long ago discarded values of religion, and now even the "facts" of science (24). Of course these bold assertions are hard to live with in the apparently real world and therefore most of us—including scientists—are likely to reject the "crude" way (his word) Feyerabend summarized the implications of naturalism. However none of this is inconsistent with the degenerative trend of the history and philosophy of science. Now, throughout the 20th century modernity, resting on naturalism, was a prime motivator for many of its cultural movements. Marxism, fascism, positivism, and existentialism each in turn made cultural claims based on the notion that nature is all there is or ever will be. As a result, many in the past and present century have spent a great deal of energy addressing these anti-Biblical philosophies. Unfortunately, few today realize philosophy has moved on—these are now postmodern times. Whereas modernism was motivated to find the essential truths behind the natural world, now postmodernism rejects all truth claims. Knowledge is now cast as a tool wielded by the powerful. “Everything is politics,” they are wont to say. The products of study in science, philosophy, history, and all human