Science vs Reason

ball shaped circle close up dark
Photo by Pixabay on

Yes, you read that correctly. The title of today’s blog is NOT faith vs reason.  It is science vs reason.  It seems most of society currently believes that science is the answer to all humanity’s questions.  Science is assumed to be logical, rational, and reasonable.  Science is looked on as the dependable and unassailable bastion of all truth. Science can tell us whether the universe is the grand design of God, or an accident of cosmology. Science can supposedly tell us if we are a child of God or the children of apes.

Faith, on the other hand, (at least in the secular media and on college campuses) is represented as illogical, irrational, and unreasonable.  Faith, according to the secular academics, is for stupid people, and science is for the thoughtful, rational, deductive, “smart” people.  Right?  (I think not.  But perhaps we can discuss that another day.)  Today we discuss Science vs Reason.

Science, like mathematics, logic, or philosophy are wonderful things, when applied properly to an appropriate subject or area.  But by the same token, like any other discipline, science can give misleading or inaccurate information when misapplied.  (See earlier blogs on Scientism.)  If we applied pure science in medicine, there would be no place for empathy, compassion or intuition. Very ill patients might be evaluated and terminated.  Emotions might be ignored.  In fact, there would be absolutely nothing precluding experimentation on prisoners if science alone were our guide..

In a similar vein, pure mathematics cannot solve many types of scientific problems where trial and error are indispensable to provide proof of a theory.  Historical studies are not well suited to solving problems in math or science.  Yet the current fad among institutions of scientific research is to believe all questions in all areas of learning can either be solved by science, or to presume that other areas of study offer solutions inferior to the solutions offered by science. Such an application of so called “science” is not only irrational and unreasonable.  It is dangerous. It is in effect sham philosophy pretending to be science. If mankind were a mere collection of chemicals, without free will and moral choices, perhaps science alone could be our god.  But we are more.  Much more.

Consider for example, philosophy.  As stated by Julian Friedland,

For roughly 98 percent of the last 2,500 years of Western intellectual history, philosophy was considered the mother of all knowledge. It generated most of the fields of research still with us today. This is why we continue to call our highest degrees Ph.D.’s, namely, philosophy doctorates. At the same time, we live an age in which many seem no longer sure what philosophy is or is good for anymore.(1)

Philosophy as a means of understanding the world clearly has limitations. Philosophers are of no help in building complicated machines or directing complex chemical processes.  In fact, philosophy has gotten a bad rap because so many philosophers and their arguments are totally disconnected from reality.  Even at its best, philosophy relies on very specific word choices, and is often subject to interpretation and argumentation when viewed from different vantage points. So it seems perfectly understandable that humanity would seek a more solid ground for understanding the universe, and the natural and obvious choice would seem to be science.

But as written by Joseph Rowlands, “The problem is that many scientists sought to escape from the clutches of rationalizing philosophy by jumping into Empiricism, the philosophy that rejects theoretical knowledge and only accepts direct sensory evidence.  As Rand said, philosophy is inescapable.  You don’t have a choice about having one.  If you try to reject philosophy, you’re just enslaving yourself to your implicit philosophy.” (2)

That is the absolute key to today’s discussion.  We are not given the choice of philosophy or faith vs science.  We are only given the choice of which philosophy we use to approach science.  Science in and of itself is nothing but a tool.  Like any tool, it can be used to accomplish a variety of tasks.  How the tool is applied it critical to the results obtained.  A hammer is equally capable of building a house, or tearing a house down.  Science is perfectly capable of building a rational view of the universe, or of portraying a totally false and indefensible view of the universe.  

Paul Bloom of the Atlantic, wrote, “Sociologists and philosophers deserve a lot of credit in reminding us that scientific practice is permeated by groupthink, bias, and financial, political, and personal motivations.” The physicist Richard Feynman once wrote that the essence of science was “bending over backwards to prove ourselves wrong.” But he was talking about the collective cultural activity of science, not scientists as individuals, most of whom prefer to be proven right, and who are highly biased to see the evidence in whatever light most favors their preferred theory.”(3)

I believe there is sufficient evidence to support the proposition that secular scientists have chosen to use the “hammer” of science in ways that are tearing down the house of humanity.  In future blogs we will discuss ways to apply science more appropriately.


“Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation?
    Tell me, if you understand.
 Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know!
    Who stretched a measuring line across it?
 On what were its footings set,
    or who laid its cornerstone—
while the morning stars sang together
    and all the angels[a] shouted for joy?” Job 38:4-7 NIV 






The machine that built itself

silver metal round gears connected to each other
Photo by Flickr on

If God were small enough to be understood, He would not be big enough to be worshiped.”(1) Evelyn Underhill.

Secular scientists and institutions teach that the creation of life on earth was a random, accidental event.  Though such a thing defies all logic and probability, it is nevertheless taught as a supposed “scientific fact”.  In 1993, Michael Behe introduced the concept of irreducible complexity (IC), as a solid proof against evolution (2).  In a variety of manners secular writers have argued against (but never disproven) his initial arguments.  IC is unpopular, but its basic premise is logical, sound, and supportable.  It is in fact infinitely more probable and likely to be true than ANY version of evolution.  And Behe’s resarch is now being validated. Michael Eggnor notes that Behe’s research has contributed to recent Nobel prizes in Biochemistry, and he notes thatNo Nobel Prize has ever been awarded for Darwinian research, and there’s a reason for that. Darwinism denies purpose in biology, and denial of biological purpose is a catastrophic impediment to science.”(3) (This was true at the time it was written.  Further discussion will ensue on the 2018 Nobel Prize in Chemistry)

As science advances, we have found more, not less, evidences of the absolutely enormous complexity of living things. However the answer by secular scientists is always the same… “Evolution must have happened, we just don’t understand it yet”. And there is a certain beauty and elegance to this argument.  It assumes a  positive and growing body of human knowledge, and it assumes the eventual ability of mankind to overcome all obstacles to knowledge… even the knowledge of our very origins.  This, from a humanistic and scientific position, is very appealing. But as we can discuss later, it is also dangerous in its potential for unreasonable pride and arrogance about our limited human abilities. But the question is not whether it is appealing.  Is it true?

There are thousands of incomprehensibly complex systems at the cellular level. Complexity is a hallmark of the microscopic biological world. Molecular biologist Michael Denton wrote, “Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10-12 grams, each is in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machinery built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world.” [4]

Perhaps since the secular academic community has learned to pat itself on the back for mounting a few (albeit weak and insufficient) arguments to Behe’s theory of Irreducible Complexity, we should introduce another concept.  I will call it Absolutely  Incomprehensible Complexity.

You see, the entire idea that humanity can comprehend life or the cosmos is absurd. It is as ridiculous as a machine talking back to it’s maker.  The layers upon layers of complexity represented at every level by DNA, RNA, proteins, fats, glycogen, mitochondria, cell membranes, plasma, electrolytes, semipermeable membranes, and all the necessary substrates for life and growth are quite literally incomprehensible.  Every time biologists find an explanation for one thing, another layer of complexity is found. Science has not brought us closer to understanding the mystery of life.  Science just makes us much more aware of the mysteriousness of life.

When microbiologists and biochemists began to sequence proteins, they found that the proteins function was more from its shape than from its chemical content.  This discovery tell us that minor modifications (evolutionary steps) are virtually impossible in proteins. (Because  one could alter a protein’s shape tens of thousands of ways that make it dysfunctional or even lethal, before finding a single alteration that might have a “new and improved” function.)

Recently it has been discovered that the genetic code of DNA is almost a Rubik’s cube of complexity.  It is so complex that one area of DNA can code for more than one protein, or have multiple expressions.(5)  One cannot randomly alter one, or a few atoms via mutation, without having adverse effects on multiple biologic systems.  If a frog wanted to evolve into a lizard, each step forward could quite literally cause two or three steps backward!  Evolution, as always, cannot withstand the facts.  Life is not just Irreducibly Complex, it is Absolutely Incomprehensibly Complex.

And this is exactly  what we would expect from an infinite, omniscient, and omnipotent Creator God. As the Bible states in John 1: 3 “Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.



(2) Behe, Michael J. (1996). Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. New York: Free PressISBN 0-684-82754-9LCCN 96000695OCLC 34150540.


(4)Michael Denton, “Evolution: A Theory in Crisis,” 1986, p. 250.



Chemically impaired? Why not?

white pink and yellow blister packs
Photo by on

Photo by Pixabay on

Just a short note to ask a simple question today.

In my job as an Emergency room physician, I frequently see people who are “chemically impaired”.  Opiates,  benzo’s, cocaine, or maybe just THC or alcohol.  Sometimes more than a dozen a day.  Some agitated, aggressive and dangerous… some mellow, sad, and depressed.  Occasionally they arrive hyperactive.  Sometimes they are somnolent and snoring.  And sometimes, in a mood dominated by fatigue more than by compassion, one of the ER nurses will say “There is one more example of survival of the fittest in action.”

And in view of the evolution/creation debate, this raises a question?  Is there anything wrong with substance abuse?  If the universe, and life itself are random accidents, why not “escape” reality every chance we get?  And if it causes pain or suffering or emotional distress to others in our family or our community, so what?  If there is no higher power, and no such thing as religion or spirituality, who cares? Why should a bipedal sentient evolutionary accident care?  What difference does it make to a random collection of molecules?

Evolutionists loudly promulgate their religion in schools and on college campuses.  They label anyone who differs with their agenda as a miscreant, anti-intellectual, anti-science, or at best woefully uninformed.  But why do they care?

Is is because they genuinely care that others might be uninformed or uneducated on the issue?  I don’t believe so.

Is it because they want all the social mores that restrict them from uninhibited sexual expression and substance abuse removed?  Is it because they are offended by the possibility of a God to who they are ultimately accountable? I believe it is.

Rampant uninhibited sexuality and uncontrolled substance abuse are both damaging to society.  They are also both dangerous to the individual.  But if we believe the random nature of existence suggested by evolution and the Big Bang, why does it really matter?


The Lord your God is with you. He’s mighty to deliver. He takes great delight in you. He will quiet you with His love. He rejoices over you with singing.” (Zephaniah 3:17)




Everyone has an Attraction!

two people laying on a bed covered with a floral comforter
Photo by on

Same sex attraction is a big thing these days.  It has divided our country right down the middle, with the tendency to polarize one side against the other.  Each side feels they have the high moral ground and each side often tends to demonize those who believe differently. The saying, “Hate the sin, but love the sinner” makes perfect sense to many conservative Christians, but comes off as judgmental to most liberals. On the other hand, “Gay is the way.” hardly seems like an answer either, and hating Christians because of their beliefs is not any better solution than “hating sinners”.

However homosexuality is just one of many expressions of human sexuality.  Of course we want to avoid insults or judgment of the homosexual community.  But a question arises as to whether that justifies lifting all the Bible’s limitations and proscriptions on sexual activity? If we reject the Bible as authoritative on sexual matters, what authority do we accept?

There is an old saying in Southern Illinois (maybe it’s everywhere). “I guess there’s someone for everybody”. There is a lot of truth to that saying. But it leaves many important questions unanswered.  Is there such a thing as right and wrong types of sexuality?  If same sex attraction is fine, what about other types of attraction?

What if you are are attracted to children?  There is a movement in France to normalize pedophilia. (1) The same is true of Sweden. (2) In fact it seems to be true of much of the EU. (3) It is beyond the scope of this blog to fully discuss the dangers to children or society inherent in these societal trends. But as rational, caring adults we absolutely MUST recognize the necessity of protecting our children from sexual predation! However it should be noted that one of the main things that has prevented the abuse of children for centuries is the Christian worldview. This very same world view is now systematically being destroyed in the name of scientism and secularism.

To look at the issue from a different angle, what if you are attracted to practically every woman (or man) you see?  Does that mean you should be able to have relations with them? Should you be polygamous, or cheat on your spouse, or have kids outside of marriage with dozens of other men or women? If you tire of your spouse, should you move on for sexual excitement?  Should the next edition of the DSM in medicine remove all types of sexual dysfunction from its pages? Is cocaine OK if it leads to better sex or more sex? Should we allow, or even encourage, people to find pleasure and fulfillment in every area of sexual expression, no matter who or what the object of the sexual attraction might be?  Should there be NO limits on human sexuality?

What if you are attracted to certain animals? Does bestiality go “too far”? Not according to Finland. (4) In fact there are still several countries around the globe where it is legal. (5) There have been numerous recent articles about the rise of brothels dedicated to sex with animals in Europe. However this practice is by no means new.  It is almost as old as humankind. Should there be limits on bestiality?

The point of the blog is not to define the limits of human sexuality.  It is merely to state that human sexuality must have limits, and they must somehow be defined.  Science is incapable and insufficient in defining matters of conscience, or morality. Scientism has stated that all such matters as religion and morality are irrelevant. In the past it has been religion or scripture which has typically prescribed these limits. But now, under the lead of secularism and scientism, all limits and even the authority to place limits, have been summarily removed.  There is no God, say the secularists.  So all of God’s rules are just fabrications, nonsense, patently absurd in the new “enlightened age”. Especially those which place limits on our sexual expression.

There is an old proverb, “Be careful what you wish for, lest it come true.”  I think this applies to the desires for sexual freedom that have been the motivation for much of the secular revolution.  Society may have found their freedom.  And in doing so I fear that they may have loosed the worst type of bondage imaginable. I tremble in fear for the most vulnerable members of society if I am correct. Not only that. I fear for the eternal souls of all those who believe they have been freed of all repercussions of their sexual actions and appetites.


Matthew 5:28  “But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.” KJV

Matthew 18:6 “If anyone causes one of these little ones–those who believe in me–to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.” NIV

Leviticus 18:23  “Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself with it. A woman must not present herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it; that is a perversion.” NIV







Cambrian Explosion

20181005_134827In a prior blog I discussed the dependence of atheistic cosmology on explosions.  Secular scientists believe all matter exploded out of nothing due to a quantum fluctuation.  They also believe all life exploded into being in a short period for no reason a few hundred million years ago. They adopt these beliefs, not based on SCIENTIFIC evidence, but because they have no other explanation!

We discussed the absurdity of quantum fluctuation creating everything in another blog.  Today lets discuss the absurdity of believing in evolution, and at the same time believing all life appeared suddenly on the earth.

For over a century, those who preferred evolution as an explanation for everything taught, and apparently believed, that evolution was a gradual process, requiring hundreds of millions of years to make small changes that progressively increased the complexity of life.  But in fact, the evidence from the geological strata show it pretty much appeared all at once during or just before the Cambrian period. This should have discouraged the proponents of evolution. But since the belief in evolution is primarily a philosophical, rather than a scientific tenet, it did not.

Relatively little is known about the Precambrian Era despite it making up roughly seven-eighths of the Earth’s history. (1) (Wikipedia) Yet in this period, all life on earth supposedly originated, developed, and thrived.  Life not only created itself during this period, according to evolutionary theory it advanced rapidly into millions of species in a very short period. (1)  This is the antithesis of how evolution was described for over a century, and is in itself, proof of the complete failure of evolutionary theory.  In fact, in order to support the latest evolutionary timeline, during the “Cambrian explosion” there would have been the appearance of an entirely new species of life approximately every 50 years!

But there is more. The Precambrian and Cambrian Era are distributed around the world in what is called the “Burgess-type” shale.  In all the ares of the world where such “Burgess-type” shale has been found, all the organisms appear the same.  No variance, no progression. All are the same.  All over the world. No support for evolution here.

In addition, secular scientists recognize, “The way in which the Burgess Shale animals were buried, by a mudslide or a sediment-laden current that acted as a sandstorm, suggests they lived on the surface of the seafloor.” (2) (Wikipedia) This (mudslide or sediment laden current) sounds much more like a single great flood than evidence of evolution. And the fact that other living creatures are above this layer could suggest they were carried in by a sediment laden current afterwards, and buried in successive layers above the sea floor creatures.

The history of geology and evolution do not support the gradual development of life on earth.  Not even using Uniformitarian assumptions. The Theory of Evolution is a scientifically unpalatable philosophical assumption in light of many new findings in geology, molecular biology, biochemistry and genetics over the past 70 years.


Job 12:7-10 ESV “But ask the beasts, and they will teach you;
    the birds of the heavens, and they will tell you;
or the bushes of the earth, and they will teach you;
    and the fish of the sea will declare to you.
Who among all these does not know
    that the hand of the Lord has done this?
In his hand is the life of every living thing
    and the breath of all mankind.






Nothing Can’t Do Something


Where did the universe come from?

Secular Academics believe it created itself from nothing. Well technically it was a from an infinitesimally small small bubble of nothing.

Where did the bubble come from?

In quantum physics, a quantum fluctuation (or vacuum state fluctuation or vacuum fluctuation) is the temporary change in the amount of energy in a point in spaceas explained in Werner Heisenberg‘s uncertainty principle.  (Wikipedia)

Or as written in the Physics ArXiv blog, “At the heart of their thinking is Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle. This allows a small empty space to come into existence probabilistically due to fluctuations in what physicists call the metastable false vacuum.”(1)

Stated in common English, supposedly this quantum vacuum state (nothing) can (temporarily) do something, and (permanently) create everything (our universe) out of nothing…. all because of an “uncertainty principle”. So no matter how you phrase it, or what you call it, there was absolute, complete nothingness, and something appeared for no reason.

Now if this reads like nonsense, it is because it IS nonsense. The uncertainty principle, in its simplest form, simply states that you cannot accurately measure both the position (location) and the velocity (speed) of a particle because the process of measuring will by definition require altering one or the other (position or velocity).

“Ordinary experience provides no clue of this principle. It is easy to measure both the position and the velocity of, say, an automobile, because the uncertainties implied by this principle for ordinary objects are too small to be observed. The complete rule stipulates that the product of the uncertainties in position and velocity is equal to or greater than a tiny physical quantity, or constant (h/(4π), where h is Planck’s constant, or about 6.6 × 10−34 joule-second). Only for the exceedingly small masses of atoms and subatomic particles does the product of the uncertainties become significant.” (2)

But even if you DID believe, based on these secular mind games that are far more philosophic than scientific, that the universe somehow created itself, then there are all the same questions about where the universe came from, but only moved to another level. Questions like:

  1. If all the Big Bang scientists believe in an expanding universe, what is the universe expanding into? (Did Space exist a priori?)
  2. What happened just before the Big Bang? (Cosmologists differ / have no idea)
  3. Did the Big Bang have a location? Where? (Is earth at the center?)
  4. If nothing can instantaneously create everything, can we all be instantaneously replaced by another Bang?
  5. If they still don’t know if atoms and light are particles or waves, how can Secular Science claim to know how, when, where or why the Universe began?
  6. If you believe the Universe can create itself (something you cannot even begin to understand), what keeps you from believing in an Almighty Supreme Being (a being we are also completely incapable of comprehending) who has the power to create all things?

Secular cosmology clearly and emphatically does not have all the answers. Don’t let them bully you into believing nonsense.


By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible. Hebrews 11:3 NIV




(For more information see prior blogs “Bang.. and Nothing”, “Individualism”, and “Who are you going to trust”)

The Uniformitarians


It sounds like the Title of a new Stephen King book. “The Uniformitarians”. Pretty scary stuff. But in reality it is another facade adapted by the secular scientific community. Geologists and cosmologists pretend to apply the rules of the universe as we now seen them, and predict the past (supposedly some 14 billions years) based on current laws of physics and current rates of physical processes. Uniformitarianism states that the changes in the past can be predicted because it involves “continuous and uniform processes”. Sounds great, but then they change the rules whenever it suits them…

As defined in the dictionary (originating in Geology but used in cosmology as well):





GEOLOGY the theory that changes in the earth’s crust during geological history have resulted from the action of continuous and uniform processes.


As further explained in Wikipedia, it is “an unprovable postulate that cannot be verified using the scientific method”.(1)

Uniformitarianism, also known as the Doctrine of Uniformity,[1][2] refers to the invariance in the principles underpinning science, such as the constancy of causality, or causation, throughout time,[3] but it has also been used to describe invariance of physical laws through time and space.[4] 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.(1)

It is important to note that the Doctrine of Uniformity and the principle of Uniformitarianism are unprovable. (Especially when so many secular scientist claim they KNOW the age of the Earth and the age of the Universe.) But there is another consideration that is perhaps even more important in practice and in principle.

The principle of uniformitarianism has never truly been applied, because in every setting of science, whether astronomy, cosmology, evolutionary biology, or geology, there are glaring problems that require major adaptions or exceptions for the principle to be even loosely applied. As stated by Roger Patterson, “The ideas presented in the textbooks are based on uniformitarian assumptions and have many problems that are not discussed, despite the presence of phrases like “we know” and “scientists have shown”. (2) For example these secular scientist apply the rules of modern physics to the formation of the universe under the Nebular Hypothesis. But according to the rules of physics, the particles that might or might not form after such an explosion would not stick together (coalesce) or undergo accretion, and thus could not form planets, or stars, or galaxies. Further, they would of necessity have had to travel at speeds far greater than the speed of light, an obvious and absurd exception to the principles of physics and uniformitarianism.

Or as another example, in the study of biology, there is a well know and accepted “Law of Abiogenesis”. It is, simply stated, “life cannot come from non life”, or in other words non living matter cannot spontaneously come to life. Everyone knows this is true. Everyone accepts this, except if you believe in Evolution. In order to believe in evolution, you must first accept that life magically created itself out of a bunch of random chemicals, and then reproduced itself. Each step is impossible, but yet this is what our institutes of “higher learning” expect students to accept.

Let me give one more example. The Moon rocks collected from the Moon were dated at 4.5 billion years of age using secular “uniformitarian” assumptions. But using the lunar recession models (based on current rates, or even “adjusted” rates) the Moon would have been quite literally touching the earth just a billion years or so in the past. So the scientists make exceptions, or disallow the evidence, or ignore the findings, but they cannot uniformly apply them.

Geology offers many other examples, in which current processes could not have created the earth as we find it. Fossil layers, rates of mountain erosion, sea floor sediment deposition, and polystrate fossils could not have occurred as described by the Old Age Earth textbooks. The rate of uplift of the Himalayas is FAR too great to be accounted for by Uniformatarian assumptions.

In many cases the Biblical Flood offers a much more sensible model than uniformitarianism.  As an example, did you know that one single mine in Canada’s tar sands can move thirty billion tons of sediment a year? That is double the amount moved by all the rivers in the world combined. Imagine the amounts which might be moved or shifted during Ice ages, meteor impacts, massive volcanic eruptions, or a Global Flood! it is so astronomical that it boggles the mind… and completely discounts any possibility of geographic “uniformitarian” assumptions.

Nevertheless, even though Old Age estimates violate their own premises of “uniform and continuous processes”, the geology texts insist on Old Age estimates for the Earth. (see earlier blogs on “Ancient… Where’s the Proof” and “Bang… and Nothing”, and “The Data in the Strata.”

And in yet another strong refutation, Uniformitarian assumptions on evolution should show that somewhere in the world, species are evolving as we speak. In order for the billions upon billions of evolutionary changes necessary to have occurred in just a millions of years, we should see evolution regularly as species advance along the evolutionary scale. Yet in the entire recorded history of the world, thousands of years, we have no record of a single example of evolution.

So whenever a biology or geology prof tells you something is billions of years old, you can be sure there is more than sufficient evidence to dispute that statement. Do your research, and the Uniformitarian assumptions of Old Earth and Old Universe will fall apart.  Uniformitarian assumptions are unproven, unscientific, and insufficient for determining history, and they are certainly inadequate by any definition for evaluating or proving anything about origins. Uniformitarianism gets an F in History.



(2) Patterson, R., Evolution Exposed, Answers in Genesis, 2008, P. 68.


For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God. — Romans 1:20 NLT

(For more on similar topics see prior blogs on “Lemmings” and What about Fossils”)