Witness this "interview", so-called, on MSNBC between its regnant leftist, Rachel Maddow, and first-time candidate for Congress in Oregon's Fourth District, Dr. Arthur Robinson. Ms. Maddow came to her show prepared with little snippets she had carefully excised, some of them more than fifteen years old, from a series of newsletters ("Access to Energy") which Dr. Robinson has been writing since August of 1993, having taken it over from Prof. Petr Beckman of the University of Colorado, who had published it for twenty years before that. (The first twenty-five years of the publication are accessible online, so it is not as though he was making it difficult for her.) She was not interested in the least in asking Dr. Robinson about any of the issues that prompted him to run for office against the Democratic incumbent; she wanted only to cross-examine him about isolated quotes lifted out of context, and having to do with complex issues such as the state of AIDS research in 1995 (never mind now -- it's 1995 that she wants answers on), and hormesis. (You read that right -- Rachel Maddow wanted Dr. Robinson to explain hormesis in a fifteen-second soundbite.)
The result, whether you instinctively lean left or right, is excruciatingly painful to watch, but here it is -- because otherwise you simply could not grasp the gulf between these worldviews from my attempts to describe it:
Rachel Maddow showed again and again in those eighteen minutes that she simply was not interested in finding out more about Dr. Robinson the Congressional candidate. No, she wanted to use Dr. Robinson the newsletter writer of 1995 to make it appear as though the Congressional candidate in 2010 was out of touch with everything she so smugly "knows" to be true: radiation in any dose whatsoever, no matter how dispersed, is harmful to humans (never mind the cosmic rays that bombard us millions of times in a given day, and never mind the radiation emanating from inside the earth itself -- both low-level exposures which we cannot avoid), and AIDS is not a disease that can be linked to a gay or lesbian lifestyle (because she's Rachel Maddow, don't you know).
Welcome to politics in the present age, Dr. Robinson -- which can be described as "the art of the thirty-second smear." The very fact that a man of his caliber would stand for office in these times is witness to just how bad many like him now perceive the state of the Union to be.
Dr. Robinson is a Christian, with a Christian worldview -- which is to say, he accepts the concept that there is such a thing as absolute truth. At the same time, he is a scientist who has devoted his life to the pursuit of scientific truth. The two are not the same, and they are not incompatible -- except in the hands of the secularists, who try to promote scientific truth into a secular form of "absolute truth." Rachel Maddow is an avowed secularist, and evinces the utter inability of such people, for whom humans are the highest life form -- the crowning achievement of random evolution -- to grasp that there is anything superior to, or beyond, human knowledge. For her, "absolute truth" is what she read last week, and a little bit of it changes every month as she reads about new discoveries and advances, filters out what she does not agree with, and forms new opinions compatible with her lifestyle and worldview.
For Dr. Robinson, it is science's understanding of the natural world that changes with each new advance, while absolute truth -- the truth that is from God, eternal and unchanging -- remains ever the same. Our own understanding of that unchanging truth may evolve, as well, as we learn more and more about the world in which we live, and about the past which led to the present. We are limited in our ability to understand eternal truth by our capacities at the moment at which we find ourselves existing. It is supercilious in the extreme to look down on our forebears for worshipping spirits and pantheons of divinities, and to think ourselves "superior" by comparison. (Indeed, it is rather like asking a candidate for office in 2010 about something he wrote in 1995, or about a black magic ceremony she once, long ago, attended as a college student.)
Someone like Rachel Maddow, who worships the ephemeral spirit of now, is completely flummoxed when she comes up against someone who refuses to meet on the playing field she lays out. Her cheap shots and attempts at smearing such a person ring hollow to any fair-minded observer. (I would love to see, for contrast, her "interview" of Dr. Robinson's opponent.) The reason they do so is that she cannot even conceive of the world she thinks she is attempting to enter. "I just want to get to know you," she keeps on repeating. Oh, certainly -- she wants to "know" Dr. Robinson the way a gopher snake wants to get to "know" a mouse. Her self-deprecation is smarmy, and her profession that she "learned" something at the end of the encounter is about as sincere as was W. C. Fields' protest that he was "very fond" of children.
The secularist worldview is headed for a thumping (as Bush 43 so colorfully put it) at the ballot box next month, and the secularists do not like it one bit. Indeed, it appears they are already trying to stuff the box, by hook or by crook. Now is not the time to be apologetic for having a Christian worldview. Like Dr. Robinson, we should face the secularists unflinchingly, and keep calling them to account for their manifold lies and smears. They do not appreciate what truth is, since in their view it keeps changing. But truth -- the real thing -- has this funny way of getting through to all sorts of people. Indeed, it's as though it was "written on their hearts."
Keep speaking the truth, and know that as you do so, you honor the God who made you in His image.