All truth is God's truth; but is all 'truth' true?

Aquinas said all truth is God's truth; very true, but there's a huge problem. When we turn to scientists for truth, we don't always get truth; we get instead the opinions (often false) of people (especially in our day) who are often hostile to God. i.e. we don't have access to the truth directly, but only through the corrupt 'filter' of fallen man. This is something the natural theologians almost never deal with. This isn't much of a problem on a banal level (e.g. what is the color or constitution of the blood) but when we go on to more complex levels (e.g. origins) it becomes a huge problem; so huge that we don't get truth at all, what we get is deliberate deceit and lies. (e.g. Darwinism)

- So on the theoretical level we can agree that all truth is god's truth (the greatest 'ally' the c. has is the discovery of actual truth of the creation) but on the practical level we have to deal with all kinds of not only falsehood but deceit. In our day the m. (or non-c.) wants to smuggle all of his false thinking into the 'conversation' via the medium science. What the c. then needs is a way to determine what is and is not true; he can't just go cap in hand to atheists and hope to get the truth. (If the atheist thinks his wview is in danger he will lie every time about the subject at hand.)

- The Christian needs to distinguish between descriptions of the the world, and explanations for things. (e.g. there's a huge difference between describing how the circulatory system of a man, and giving a theory on how man came to exist on earth.)

- A big problem we have is that despite what natural theologians tell us, the Materialist denies that all truth is God's truth He denies that we see evidence of a Creator in the world. The natural theologian tends to ignore this dilemna. If all truth is god's truth how come the materialist (if we're to believe him) doesn't see it? e.g. how can evolution (M2M) be the truth of creation, if the materialist denies it (E.) has anything to do with God? If all truth is god's truth, why do creationists and materialists disagree about things? (It would appear that christian liberals (e.g. A. Mcgrath) opt for E. in an attempt to limit the amount of disagreement between materialism and creation.)

- What's the solution? Is there a solution? We would do well to distinguish 'facts' and theory; to distinguish description from explanation; to distinguish science that deals with the present from 'science' that tries to reconstruct the past. i.e. theories aren't ever true in the same way descriptions are. (e.g. supposed examples of 'evolution' taking place in the present are a million miles away from theories about molecules to man evolution. We see some variation within set boundaries, but we don't see lizards turning into birds. We don't see an ape putting a hat on and going off to college.)

- As regards natural theology the question is this; is knowledge of the created order knowledge of God? Advocates will say that since all truth is God's truth, if I have truth about a frog I have knowledge of God. Well, maybe; but just what have you learned? Not very much I don't think. Let's take a banal example. I go and buy myself a boat (and old fashioned wooden boat lets say) at the market. I'm told it was made by a local craftsman. Now what do I know about that man (person) from his boat? Not a whole deal I don't think. I don't even know what his favorite sports team is, or even if he has one. I'm not saying nothing can be learned, but would caution people on expecting that much can be learned. (e.g. we can learn that God is wise, that compared to us He is infinitely wise, but we can't learn that He is loving or holy.)

Notes;
1. 'In Darwin's day very little was known about either of these principles [heredity and variation; re Mendel] but this ignorance of the real facts permitted Darwin to assume almost anything he wished regarding variation. - G.M. Price/The Predicament of Evolution
- The ideas of Charles Darwin were based on a profound ignorance of the real (true) facts. Natural theologians who believe 'all truth is god's truth' naively accepted Darwin's delusions as truth. In theory the idea there is only one truth (god's truth) is valid; in practice it's a reef that shipwrecks people continually. Darwin pretended to be a great guru, a great purveyor of truth, when he in fact he was deeply ignorant of his subject. The sad thing is that the natural theologians were all taken in by his claims of truth. They didn't seem to comprehend the fact scientists could be wrong about their claims of truth. (They bought and sold fool's gold, and sold the church down the river; sold it into bondage to materialism.)

- If we take the dictionary definition of superstition [an irrational belief arising from ignorance or fear] then the theory of e. popularized by Charles Darwin was a case of superstition. This was even more so the case with the naive clergy who accepted it; there we have ignorance added to ignorance. The irony here is that while theologians were beginning (with the German critics) to be highly sceptical (to say the least) of the Bible, they were as naive as children when it came to ideas that were circulating in the scientific sphere, and in the 'sophisticated' journals.

- The 'theory' of evolution accepted by the 'liberal' clergy was philosophical speculation dressed up to appear as science. (This wasn't difficult in 1859, as science had yet to enter its institutional stage.) What they took to be truth was merely pipe smoke. I wish the natural theologians of our day would learn the lesson from this, but instead they appear intent on repeating it; as every new claim made by scientists is immediately baptized as Truth. (In some cases this happens as little as weeks, or even days after the event.) Such is the lust to be accepted within the academic community. This rush to judgment is unseemly and unbiblical. Where is the care, the diligence, the testing, the considered reflection? Are they afraid truth will run away and be lost? (Trying to keep up with fallen man in his flight from God is a hopeless task in any event.)

Pilot asked 'what is truth?'; the least our theologians could do would be to ask the same question. It's not simply the weekly pronouncements of the science magazines and government financed science groups.

2. 'Erasmus Darwin was contemporaneous with Lamarck, and had much the same ideas about the effects of the environment being passed along to the next generation; though it seems that these two men were unacquainted with each other. He taught that the accumulation of these effects had brought about great changes in plants and animals, and that these changes had been going on "perhaps millions of ages before the commencement of the history of mankind." They would also continue into the future, as he said, "world without end." - Price

- So; was that true? Had Darwin found out a truth about god's world? Should the clergy have thrown away their bibles and jumped on the Erasmus bandwagon? The history of science is men pretending their theories are equivalent to god's truth; and being continually mistaken. (I'm not denying we have discovered some truths about the non-biological world.)

3. "None of the animals or plants of the past are identical with those of the present. The nearest relationship is between a few species of the past and some living species which have been placed in the same families." - Prof. H. H. Newman, of the University of Chicago, entitled: "Readings in Evolution, Genetics, and Eugenics" (1922). - Price

-So; was that one of God's truths? No one believes it today, as hundreds of 'living fossils' have been found; but yet, not long ago, our clergy believed this was one of god's truths. (Can one hope they'll ever learn?)
- to pile on more examples (there are hundreds, if not thousands) would be tiresome. [At one time the 'scientists' claimed the universe was eternal, and that the sun orbited the earth.]

4. In 2 lectures on Aquinas (and natural theology) R.C. Sproul refuses to address the key question; i.e. 'how do we know that 'scientific' truth is true?' We're led to suppose this is a trivial matter I guess. It's disappointing to see him ignore the issue. (To ignore serious objections is to be dismissed by serious people.)

- Sproul goes on to blame the 'church' for getting it wrong on geocentrism, and for attacking Galileo. Is this true? We have to remember that the Roman Catholic church was (and still is) very much an oligarchical institution. (i.e. the people at the top made the decisions for everybody) People forget that both Copernicus and Galileo were not God hating atheists, but Christians. (Geocentrism was the scientific orthodoxy of the day; and came not from the Bible, but from the natural sciences.)