Individualism

person with body painting
Photo by Sharon McCutcheon on Pexels.com

Sometimes it just comes down to who you want to call God.  Do you want to believe there is an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent Creator (One who might have rules and deserve worship)? Or would you rather put yourself in the place of God?  Both metaphysics and observation of reality suggest that we are sentient beings. They also suggest that we have choices in life.  I would propose that an infinitely wise God, in order to create beings who might truly CHOOSE to love Him, would create a universe in which they had the option NOT to love Him.  In fact they might have the option to despise Him, ridicule Him, and even deny His very existence.  Such is our very society. We get to choose.

David Foster WallaceThis Is Water: Some Thoughts, Delivered on a Significant Occasion, about Living a Compassionate Life, writes,Because here’s something else that’s weird but true: in the day-to day trenches of adult life, there is actually no such thing as atheism. There is no such thing as not worshiping. Everybody worships. The only choice we get is what to worship. And the compelling reason for maybe choosing some sort of god or spiritual-type thing to worship—be it JC or Allah, be it YHWH or the Wiccan Mother Goddess, or the Four Noble Truths, or some inviolable set of ethical principles—is that pretty much anything else you worship will eat you alive.”

I see evidence of the truth of that statement daily when I work in the ER.  I have seen thousands of people who chose to worship sex,  drugs, or alcohol, and I have seen the havoc and destruction it has wreaked in their lives. We all know of persons who worshiped popularity, and were crushed when it vanished.  Some have worshiped themselves, through vanity, and many have slipped into despair as their power, looks, or influence faded.

One of the things that offends many atheists is the idea of a personal God.  They are often critical of the idea that God could be described as a “jealous God”.  Richard Dawkins wrote, in the God Delusion,

The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.

Dawkins has been quoted thousands of times, and hailed as a hero for his bold words by those who are offended at the thought of a Supreme Being.  (See also blog posts on Science and Scientism,  and Differing with Dawkins).

On the other hand, C.S. Lewis wrote, in the Problem of Pain,

You asked for a loving God: you have one. The great spirit you so lightly invoked, the ‘lord of terrible aspect,’ is present: not a senile benevolence that drowsily wishes you to be happy in your own way, not the cold philanthropy of conscientious magistrate, nor the care of a host who feels responsible for the comfort of his guests, but the consuming fire Himself, the Love that made the worlds, persistent as the artist’s love for his work and despotic as a man’s love for a dog, provident and venerable as a father’s love for a child, jealous, inexorable, exacting as love between the sexes.” (1)

And somewhere, supposedly hiding from you in this vast and beautiful universe is the REAL God. Or perhaps he really is all around you.  But the point is that you, personally, get to choose in this life whether to believe in him or to love and worship Him.  You see, all though history, God has allowed persons to either believe in Him, or to worship other Gods. History is littered with gods (small g) who have been relegated to the trash heaps of time; Baal, Osiris, Marduk, or the entire Roman Pantheon of gods.

Today, we still have the same choice.  Do you worship the god of science (scientism)?  Or do you worship the Creator God of the Universe who has given us the Bible?  It is an important choice.  Choose wisely.

Science vs. Scientism

sky lights space dark
Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com
sci·en·tism
ˈsīənˌtizəm/

noun

  1. thought or expression regarded as characteristic of scientists.
    • excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques.

     

Or as Wikipedia explains it:

Scientism is the ideology of science. The term scientism generally points to the cosmetic application of science in unwarranted situations not amenable to application of the scientific method or similar scientific standards.

 

I believe we are a world awash in scientism.  The pace of scientific advance has been nothing short of amazing for the last 70 years.  Yet the claims and braggadocio of scientists have so completely and utterly outpaced the science itself that an entire generation of youth believe quite literally that any thing that claims to be scientific must therefore be true. Now the supposed “heros” of science, such as Stephen Hawking, can write about any untestable and unprovable topic as though they are authorities.  Their opinions on the origin of the universe are assumed to be more authoritative than God’s Holy Word.

As Massimo Pigliucci , the K.D. Irani Professor of Philosophy at the City College of New York, writes in the Blog of the APA, “there is a pernicious and increasingly influential strand of thought these days — normally referred to as “scientism” — which is not only a threat to every other discipline, including philosophy, but risks undermining the credibility of science itself.”

Scientism is not science.  It is an ideology.  It is a belief.  Scientism is the illegitimate offspring of pop culture and science, with characteristics reflecting vastly more media sensationalism than lab or research procedures. Some would even say it is a religion.  But it is absolutely NOT a proper foundation for assessing things like ethics, morals, or the worth of life itself.  Scientism is to science as Judas was to the disciples. It is a meaningless belief in the public show of science without a fundamental humble appreciation for the absolutely amazing and marvelous scientific laws that govern the universe, the atom, and all of life itself.

In a sense, Scientism is self-annihilating.  It takes the view that only scientific claims are meaningful, but that is not itself a scientific claim. It can neither be verified nor falsified by any scientific testing or reasoning.  Thus, Scientism is either false or meaningless based on its own views.  Yet its influence over generations of youth and young adults remains unchallenged.

Austin L Hughes,  Carolina Distinguished Professor of Biological Sciences at the University of South Carolina, in his superb article The Folly of Scientism, writes, “Of all the fads and foibles in the long history of human credulity, scientism in all its varied guises — from fanciful cosmology to evolutionary epistemology and ethics — seems among the more dangerous, both because it pretends to be something very different from what it really is and because it has been accorded widespread and uncritical adherence.“(2) Hughes rightly points out that what is so dangerous about scientism is that its practitioners pretend to be scientific, and imbue their writing with pseudo-scientific jargon designed to impress the masses.  But in reality they are less than scientists, less than philosophers, and less than ethicists and epistemologists. They ignore the six rules of scientific study (see my earlier blog on Unethicalists) and bypass the internal and necessary rules of all these disciplines while pretending they have the answers from science.

Practitioners of scientism, like Stephen Hawking, propose grand theories without any proof.  They cling to evolution and the Big Bang as if it is their very life force.  They discard all facts which disagree with their fanatical evolutionary religiosity, and continue to propagate myths, such as the evolutionary tree, abiogenesis, and the infamous “magic” of the cosmological Big Bang.

So, from one scientist to another, and to all of my readers, it would be wise to learn the meaning and practice of real science (the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment), and how that contrasts to scientism. They could scarcely be more different concepts.

For a great read on scientism, please see the article below on the website crossway.org(1)

(1) https://www.crossway.org/articles/10-things-you-should-know-about-scientism/?utm_source=Crossway+Marketing&utm_campaign=630f94d382-20180922+-+General+-+Scientism+and+Secularism&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_0275bcaa4b-630f94d382-290916097

(2) http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-folly-of-scientism

 

 

WWJS (What Would Jesus Say)

man holding sheep statuette
Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

To many modern Christians (apparently including even the Pope) evolution “must be accepted” because atheist scientists say it is true. Most of this site is dedicated to addressing  the scientific reasons that evolution cannot be true.  Scientist have had to make great leaps of faith in order to believe in evolution.  In fact some would say (this author included) they have had to abandon the scientific method.  (See Evolution… Just the Facts).  But that is not the point of this post.

There is another equally important point, at least equal to the ethical, scientific, and religious costs of believing in evolution. What is the scriptural cost of believing in evolution?  The first, and clearest example is the need to toss out the entire first chapter of Genesis. We must change our view of scripture, from God’s Holy Word, to mythology and allegory. We must in essence assume that the Bible is not True (capital T). We are then soon prone to toss out the Flood, the Ark, and all the those bothersome unscientific miracles in the New Testament. But at least we still believe in the Beatitudes, and in love you neighbor, we say.  At least we still believe in Jesus.  Or do we?

1 John Chapter 4 reads, “This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist.”  Atheistic evolution excludes the possibility of the Creator God and his Son Jesus Christ. So by definition, the theory of evolution seems to clearly fall under the definition of antichrist.  Why are atheist professors so adamant that their young wards accept evolution?  Could it be because they themselves have accepted the religion of the antichrist?  Based on 1 John Chapter 4, one would have to believe this is possible.

Another fact often lost on those Christians who “choose” evolution, is that we must also call Jesus a liar.  In Matthew 19:4 Jesus describes the creation, and how God Himself created man, and woman and marriage.  In Matthew 25:34 Jesus describes a kingdom “prepared from the foundation of the world” for those who minister to the poor, and naked, and hungry. In Mark 13:19 he talks about the creation which God created.  In Matthew 24:37 Jesus discusses the Ark.  He talks about the event as if it were an established fact. He talks about Moses.  He mentions the prophet Elijah and Jonah.  He even mentions Lot and Sodom and Gomorrah. He clearly accepted the OT, and treated the events recorded there as historical facts. Not only that, but nearly all Bible scholars accept that the Theophanies (times when God appeared in the OT) were actually appearances of the Pre-incarnate Christ.  So when God told Moses that He created the world in six days, it was actually Jesus, the Pre-incarnate Christ, who spoke.

It seems easy for us to ridicule the beliefs of ancient Baal worshipers and their orgies and human sacrifices.  It seems absurd when we view the polytheistic pagans of Greece and Rome, who seemed to have a different quirky god for every day of the week. How unscientific, we say.  But someday soon, will a future generation look back at a naive and scientifically illiterate generation of Christians in the late 20th century, saying “How could anyone actually have accepted the blathering unscriptural and unscientific idiocy of supposed scientists like Hawking and Dawkins?  The virtual black holes in their theories were so vast they swallowed up all vestiges of sentience and reason.”  God’s Word was clear. And science was clear as well. I believe that day will come, and soon.

 Put no more confidence in mortals. What are they worth?”  Isaiah 2:22 Good News Translation

Exodus 20:11 “In six days I, the Lord, made the earth, the sky, the seas, and everything in them, but on the seventh day I rested.”

Evolution will one day be shown to be the greatest hoax in the history of science.  ANM

 

Unethicalists

abstract achievement bright business
Photo by Jorge Jesus on Pexels.com

Evolutionists and atheistic scientists have an ethics problems.

First, and simplest, it has been pointed out many times by many authors that if we humans are indeed the product of molecules to man evolution, then there is no substantive or foundational reason that we should be ethical.  If we are merely the product of a billion generations of survival of the fittest, then our only ethical and moral imperative is to survive at all costs.  We may steal, rape, kill, abuse, and destroy, as long as it makes ourselves or our offspring more likely to survive.  That is the real true state of ethics for evolutionists.

Second, if atheists are correct and we are all here as the result of some cosmic accident, then there is no moral authority to our choices and decisions.  One moral choice is just as good as another.  Each person can argue for their own moral choices in the public square, but in reality, not one can claim to be “truth” and not one can be claimed to be false. If there is no first cause (God) for all things, or if the first cause of all things is an accident, a fluke, a meaningless big bang, then all subsequent choices are equally meaningless as well.

However (and even more importantly) I believe that atheists also have a very real and present ethical problem with today’s cosmology, because they have become such proponents for their latest viewpoints that they tell our youth that they “know” the universe is 14 billion years old.  They say they “know” evolution is true. The National Academy of Sciences states evolution is a fact. (1) Stephen Gould and others insist it is an established incontrovertible fact. (2)  Many modern Zoologists will tell anyone willing to listen that evolution is a firmly established fact.

Yet tens of thousands of scientists and educated persons see things differently.  The fossils that some use to “prove” evolution are just as easily used to prove creation.  The geological strata that some scientist say are “proof” of evolution, are seen by some other scientists as being far better evidence for a cataclysmic flood as described in Genesis.  So when you hear an atheist or evolutionist professing loudly and dramatically that we “know” the earth is 4.5 billion years old and “evolution is a proven fact”, it begins to appear that they are more interested in propaganda than in science.  They prefer talking points to honesty.

In fact, if we are open and honest, the unbiased discussion of scientific exploration of the universe that began under notable Christians such as Galileo, Newton, and Keppler, has been hijacked and side-tracked by modern atheists.  The six principles of scientific study have been violated on numerous fronts by atheists who place their distaste God above their scientific integrity. Why, because they have stated a priori, that they disavow any possibility of a Creator.  But what about their version of “creation”?

Lets examine the Big Bang in light of the Six Principles of Scientific Thinking.

  1. Have important alternatives for the finding been excluded?  No one has, (or at least in this life) is ever capable of excluding the possibility that God Created the universe.
  2. Can we be sure that A causes B?  No honest scientist is SURE that the big bang occurred, or when or how or why it might have occurred.  In their own writings we can find much evidence to support this. So we cannot  be sure that the Big Bang caused the formation of the universe.
  3. Falsifiability.  Can the theory be disproved?  Since the Theory of the big bang is purely hypothetical, and was not seen, and cannot be proven or measured, it is also true that it cannot be disproved.
  4. Can the principle be replicated in other studies.  Of course not.  No one can replicate the Big Bang.  If it occurred (and I will later illustrate why this was impossible) it occurred once only.  Never again to be “recreated” by humankind.
  5. Is the evidence as strong as the claim?  The Big Bang Proponents claim that nothing existed (not even the concept of existence, or time or matter) and then there was some sort of a quantum fluctuation in the nothing, and “bang” everything appeared.  Nonsense. Nothing plus nothing or multiplied by nothing equals nothing.
  6.  Occams razor. Does a simpler explanation fit the data just as well.  Yes.  God created the heavens and the earth.  Simple.

So on all six principles of scientific study, it can be argued that the Big Bang fails!  It turns out you have to accept either viewpoint on FAITH.  And at least to my relatively unbiased interpretation of the facts, it takes a lot more FAITH to believe the atheist story, than the Bible story.  And yet the atheists persist in their propaganda campaign to brainwash an entire generation of youth.

 

Hebrews 11:6  But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

 

(1) Is Evolution a Theory or a Fact? US National Academy of Sciences 2018

(2) Stephen Jay Gould, “Evolution as Fact and Theory,” Discover 2 (May 1981): 34-37

(See also blogs on “Differing with Dawkins” and “Bang… and Nothing”)

Scoffers

clouds daylight landscape mont d aveyron
Photo by Thomas Brenac on Pexels.com

Did you know that the Apostle Peter, nearly 2000 years ago, predicted what Richard Dawkins and Stephen Hawking would say today?  He predicted the evolutionists who say everything created itself and the naturalists who believe everything just “goes on as it always has”, while denying the miracle of Creation and the God of the Bible.

To quote Wikipedia, Uniformitarianism, also known as the Doctrine of Uniformity, refers to the invariance in the principles underpinning science, such as the constancy of causality, or causation, throughout time, but it has also been used to describe invariance of physical laws through time and space.  Though an unprovable postulate that cannot be verified using the scientific method, uniformitarianism has been a key first principle of virtually all fields of science.

2 Peter 3:3 states,  “Above all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires.  They will say, “Where is this ‘coming’ he promised? Ever since our ancestors died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation. But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens came into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water.  By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. ”

You see, the foundation of all the old age earth systems is called Uniformitarianism.  That’s a really long word that means things “go on as they have since the beginning of creation”.  In Geology it means that the layers of dirt/soil/rock/ we call Strata must have all been laid down at the same rate throughout all of the past “hundreds of millions of years” of history.  Or in chemistry and physics, if we see a certain rate of decay of any isotope in a lab today, it must always have been present at that rate, and behaved in exactly the same way, since the “big bang” occurred. Because if everything has behaved similarly and the rates of decay of uranium to lead, and potassium 40 into argon 40 have never changed, and if our measurements are accurate, then scientists believe that they can predict the age of the earth. In fact they say their measurements come up to be in the Billions of years old.

We can address the absurdity of the belief in Uniformitarianism at another time.  But isn’t it interesting that the very words of today’s atheist scoffers are foretold by God in His Holy Word 2000 years ago?

Psalm 1:1   Blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the wicked, nor stands in the way of sinners, nor sits in  the seat of scoffers;

Lemmings

shallow focus photography of beige mice
Photo by Hossam M. Omar on Pexels.com

Modern atheistic scientists behave in a manner that is a lot like the stories told of lemmings.  What does a lemming do when you tell it there is a cliff? It keeps going. What does an evolutionist do when he finds abiogenesis (life magically appearing from non-life) is impossible?  He makes up a scientifically and statistically impossible story about lightning and “pre-biotic soup”, and keeps believing in evolution.

What does a lemming do when he sees the ocean?  He keeps going, runs over the edge, and into the ocean. What’s an evolutionist do when he finds the geologic strata are much more readily explained by a Global flood and are NOT by theories of hundreds of millions of years?  He doubles down on “his side” of the evidence, and keeps on believing in spite of the facts.

In all the old stories,the lemming keeps on running to its own death and destruction, in spite of evidence it may see directly in front of its own eyes.  In the same way the evolutionist keeps on believing that his way is the only way to interpret the facts, even when the Bible often provides a better explanation for the findings in geology, biology, astronomy and physics than uniformitarian assumptions (the belief that all rates of biological, geological, and chemical change have remained constant) .

How does an evolutionist explain the origin of the universe?  He makes up a term he calls a “quantum fluctuation”.  (There was nothing, then for some reason something happened to nothing and everything appeared.)  Now I challenge any “scientist” to explain what that is, where it came from, and why anyone should actually believe that over the Biblical account of creation!

The one thing that unifies “modern scientists” (except for the tens of thousands of creation scientists who research with eyes open to other possibilities) is their complete refusal to accept the possibility of a Creator God.  So is it any wonder that their often irrational, unscientific, biased studies always support the outcome that there was a Big Bang and suddenly “it just happened”.  They believe there was no God, no Creator, because human scientists in their pride have said so.  And so we have believed, at least until the facts about the earth and life and genomics and geology began to show HUGE holes in their logic.

Stephen Hawking said, “Scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge” (1)  And he also said, “Intelligence is the ability to adapt to change.” (2)  Yet atheistic scientists for the last 100 years have consistently turned away from any new knowledge, fact or scientific finding that does NOT support their presuppositions about the origin of life or the Universe. In this, modern scientist has condemned itself, by not applying the scientific method fairly and rationally to all areas of study.

I would think Hawking’s seemingly rational quote “One can’t predict the weather more than a few days in advance,” would have attributed a little more humility to the man.  But instead he pretended he KNEW when and how the universe began, and postulated in grandiose fashion that “There is no heaven or afterlife” (as though he KNEW this)  He bragged, “My goal is simple. It is a complete understanding of the universe, why it is as it is and why it exists at all.” (3) And this is one of the men modern scientists consider a hero?  Does the reader know that NONE of Hawkings predictions have been verified?  None of his black hole radiation has been measured. The explanation from the Guardian, in bold headlines is this:

We still don’t have the technology to verify Stephen Hawking’s big ideas.”

And yet like lemmings, professors at colleges and universities gleefully follow his inane and unprovable “scientific discoveries” as though they are “the gospel Truth”… and sadly, perhaps to the atheist community they are.

 

(1) https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/stephen_hawking_447556

(2) https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/stephen_hawking_378304

(3) https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/stephen_hawking_124516

 

 

 

The Data in the Strata

For generations, we have been fed a scientifically unsupportable line of propaganda about how dinosaurs and other organisms were fossilized.  If you travel to any Museum of Natural History or even to places like Dinosaur National Monument in Utah, you will read nice (imaginary) explanations about how the fossils originated, and why they are at the site.  All over the world there are massive “fossil graveyards” where thousand or millions of fossilized creatures lie buried or partially exposed.

These graveyards are not evidence supporting evolutionists claims.  Rather, in the words of Roger Patterson, “the greatest testimonies to a worldwide flood are the many, massive fossil graveyards across the globe”.  (1)  Why would he say this? Because the very presence of such massive graveyards is evidence, if not almost proof, of a global flood.  Fossils do not form if a creature dies naturally and is eaten and decomposed by natural processes. They require sudden burial (as in a sudden, catastrophic global flood with massive mudslides in an environment that lacks oxygen) in order to fossilize.

Patterson also notes that in places like the Green river formation in Wyoming, we find birds, bats, ocean fish, insects and land plants all buried together.  How could these be buried together if not for a huge catastrophe like the flood?

And what about oil and coal in the deep earth strata?  We are told that there was lush growth which gathered and were compressed over millions of years, forming oil and coal.  Yet so many scientific facts and observations do NOT fit this story line.  For one, why would they not have been destroyed by bacteria and turned into simple organic matter if this happened as a normal process over millions of years?  That would comply with the uniformitarian views evolutionists claim to espouse.

Also, many samples contain carbon 14, which should be impossible if they are over 50,000 years old.  In addition, coal often has readily visible bark from trees, and even track marks from crabs, dinosaurs, and amphibians (2) which might occur in cases of sudden rapid burial, but not with gradual accumulation over hundreds of thousand of years.

And then there are those troublesome polystrate fossils (see the above picture).  How can a fossilized tree be found vertically, penetrating what we are told is many millions of years of accumulated sediments? Author John McKay, who has found “there are polystrates of just about every fossil known if you look hard enough, and the reality is that any fossils even those that lie parallel to their strata yet are thicker than one lamina of sediment, by definition have to be polystrate.” (3) But the question is, how can a fragile fern be fossilized vertically in strata that would otherwise be thought to represent millions of years of accumulation?  But for those who believe in the Great Global Flood, this represents no problem at all. It makes absolute and complete sense.

Famous Evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould in Natural History magazine said,  “The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change, and the principle of natural selection does not require it — selection can operate rapidly. Yet the unnecessary link that Darwin forged became a central tenet of the synthetic theory.” He also tried to defend a fellow evolutionist, writing, “Goldschmidt raised no objection to the standard accounts of microevolution; … He broke sharply with the synthetic theory, however in arguing that new species arise abruptly by discontinuous variation, or macromutation.”(4)

This overt admission that the fossil record does not support evolution has yet to reach the halls of academia, where evolution is still taught, and the fossil record is still used as proof. Yet Gould tries to rescue the theory with yet another unscientific proposal, seeming to believe that new species appeared fully formed in the past, but still somehow he manages to call this evolution.  But for an interesting and very readable account of this story, please see the article by Scot Wall in the Houston Chronicle from 2008.(4)

 

(1) P 148, Evolution Exposed,  2008, Answers in Genesis USA.

(2) Ibid, p. 151

(3) AskJohnMackay.com/polystrate-fossils-vertical-fossil-trees-any-other-polystrate-fossils/

(4) http://www.chron.com/neighborhood/tomball/opinion/article/The-fossil-record-offers-no-support-for-gradual-9373494.php

 

John 1:3  Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.