Five things EVERY person should know about scientism.

close up of text
Photo by Public Domain Pictures on

First, scientism is philosophy masquerading as science.  It is the proverbial wolf in sheep’s clothing.  If you are a scientist, you may not be enough of a philosopher to recognize its blatant falsehood.  If you are a philosopher you might believe you do not know enough about science to refute its claims.  If you are an average man or woman on the street you might just accept Scientism, thinking “surely all those academic people can’t be wrong.” Nevertheless, Scientism has never been proven true by ANY method, let alone the scientific method.

Second, scientism refutes itself.  You don’t have to be “smart enough” to refute it!  It is SELF-REFUTING!  Scientism claims that the only things we can know about the universe are those things which have been tested and proven scientifically.  Scientism has not been tested or proven scientifically.  This is not only irrational.  It is UNSCIENTIFIC.  True scientists, for example, do not reject (out of hand with no evidence) the possibility that the universe originated at the hand of an omnipotent Creator.  To do so is unscientific.

Third, scientism causes people to reject their faith.  Faith, religion, and Christianity are viewed as unscientific. If you believe the false tenets of scientism, you are suspicious of everything except that which scientism promotes.  You may believe, for instance, in evolution, although it is entirely UNSCIENTIFIC, and has been proven scientifically and statistically and biologically and biochemically impossible.  But you will not believe in the possibility of an Omnipotent Creator God, which is the most probable and likely and reasonable explanation for the universe and the wonder of life.

Fourth, many things are better and more rationally explained by belief in a Creator than by science.  J P Moreland in Ten Things You Should Know about Scientism, says there are at least 5 things science cannot explain but theism can:

  1. The origin of the universe.
  2. The origin of the fundamental laws of nature.
  3. The fine-tuning of the universe.
  4. The origin of consciousness.
  5. The existence of moral, rational, and aesthetic objective laws and intrinsically valuable properties. (1)

Fifth, a firm, logical, scientific, and philosophically sound exposure of scientism may save more souls than thousands of evangelists.  This is because, at this point in history, so many of the benefits of science are easily seen, and are so much depended on, that much of society has come to believe that even sloppy science is better than meticulous faith.   This is of course, not true.  In fact, sloppy science is not science at all, and it is only by the rigorous application of the scientific method that scientific advances are made.

But Scientism is not rigorous.  Scientism is not science.  Scientism is not even good philosophy.  It is by all definitions, and at all levels, a personally and societally destructive phenomenon.  It must be addressed by pastors, real scientists, and real philosophers at every opportunity and exposed for the false teaching it really is.



(For more see “Differing with Dawkins” and “Lemmings”)


nature walking animal strong
Photo by Gratisography on

Were the Neanderthals primitive hunter-gatherers?  Were they advanced Apes?  Were they upright orangutans? Did they interbreed with modern humans?  Were they actually much like modern humans? Why are Neanderthals now “extinct”?  Were they actually the long-lived progeny of early Genesis?  Did they live before or after the Flood?  These questions are the topic of much debate, and although you may read at any given site that they have “established” the answer to one or more of these questions, you can easily find another site which counters the evidence presented. There are far more questions than answers, and the status of all claims are subject to further discoveries.  In other words, we have a lot of so-called educated guesses, in both the Young Earth and the Old Earth scientific communities.

However there has been a great deal of interest in the field of genomics, and as stated by Clayton Carlson, in Rethinking Neanderthals, “The geneticists have taught us that Neanderthals are not simply human beings from long ago, nor are they just another ape. Neanderthals are certainly human, though demonstrably not the same kind of human as we are.”(1) Most “experts” agree that they lived in families, used tools, ate meat, used fire to cook vegetables, and built boats.

In all these discussions, never forget that the supposed “experts” that are contributing to a discussion on topics such as these are operating on limited knowledge, about events that occurred thousands of years ago, with no witnesses, and using dating technology they barely understand.  For such “experts” to suggest they have enough facts, or “science” to prove anything is rare, to think they have evidence so compelling that it contradicts the clear witness of the Bible on issues of human origins is ludicrous.

There are hundreds of questions, both from the Biblical, and the scientific perspective, as to just what happened to this enigmatic group and what exactly they represent.  I can only state that the Bible has proven itself dependable in thousands upon thousands of instances regarding history, archaeology, philosophy, geology, and human nature.  I have no doubt that it will be proven dependable in this as well.  The remains that appear to be human will be proven to be human descendants of Adam and Eve.  The remains that appear to be ape-like will be proven to be some species of ape.  There will never be any  “intermediate” species found between the two.

However, many believe that the Neanderthal was Pre-flood man.  According to the website if this is true it answers many questions about the enigmatic group.  Some have easy answers from a Biblical view, but are quite difficult from the view of scientism. Questions like:

What happened to the Neanderthals?  They died in the flood.

Why is there no evidence of pre-flood man?  There is, the Neanderthal.

Why does Neanderthal show different genetic material?  Because we still have some of the pre-flood mutations, but he had none of our post flood “mutations”.

Why did he not interbreed with modern man?  He couldn’t because they were separated by the flood.

In fact, if you start with a human and allow the natural effects of aging over a lifespan of hundreds of years, as indicated in the Old Testament, you might well find a skull shape similar to the Neanderthal!

For an excellent discussion of this topic, see


Genesis 1:26-27-  Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”  So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.





Micro-evolution under the Microscope.

technology lens laboratory medical
Photo by Public Domain Pictures on

1. We know that the formation of the universe from nothing was impossible. Even Marcelo Gleiser, writing for NPR admits this;

It is obvious that this quantum nothingness is very different from an absolute nothingness. Physicists may shrug this away stating that concepts like absolute nothingness are not scientific and hence have no explanatory value. It is indeed true that there is no such thing as absolute nothingness in science, since the vacuum is pregnant with all sorts of stuff. Any scientific explanation presupposes a whole conceptual structure that is absolutely essential for science to function: energy, space, time, the equations we use, the laws of Nature. Science can’t exist without this scaffolding. So, a scientific explanation of the origin of the universe needs to use such concepts to make sense. It necessarily starts from something, which is the best that science can ever hope to do.(w)

2. We know that spontaneous generation of life was and is impossible, or as Michael Denton wrote;

“Between a living cell and the most highly ordered non-biological system, such as a crystal or a snowflake, there is a chasm as vast and absolute as it is possible to conceive.”(x)

3. We have established that evolution itself is impossible, as written by Hoyle;

“The likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 noughts after it …. It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of Evolution.”

But what if all three of these assumptions were wrong? What if everything appeared out of nothing, for no reason, and formed itself into life against impossible odds, and evolved into multiple magnificent and self replicating organisms.  What then?

Even then evolution is impossible.

Why? Because Proteins have shapes.  Proteins are fascinating, complicated, three- dimensional molecules that function as a result of their shape.  The basic shape of the protein allows it to present a particular molecule, or reactive agent, at a particular 3 dimensional site, exposed in such a way that it interacts, usually somewhat like a lock and key, with another protein or membrane in the cell so that a chemical process is either turned on or off (in the case of enzymes), or a portion of the cell is built. Douglas Axe showed evolution to be impossible when “He provided empirical backing for this conclusion from experimental research he earlier published in the Journal of Molecular Biology, finding that only one in 1074 amino-acid sequences yields functional protein folds.”(1)

If one alters the DNA by some mechanism (radiation for instance) and the DNA now produces a slightly different protein, then the 3D structure of the protein is altered, and it does not become a new functional protein with a different and “better” use in the cell or the organism.  It becomes a useless, broken, messy, senseless system, producing meaningless and often damaging or fatal proteins.  (Lou Gehrigs,  Alzheimers, Cystic Fibrosis).  For example, according to Cystic Fibrosis News today, “The development of CF results from a misfolded or improperly functioning protein known as the cystic fibrosis conductance regulator (CFTR).”(2)

There are, on the other hand, NO (none, nada, zero) examples of enzymes or proteins which have been altered as a result of genetic damage to form a new, improved, or more functional state. The oft cited example of bacterial resistance to antibiotics is NOT such an example.  According to Munita  and Arias in Mechanisms of Antibiotic Resistance, “Classically, bacteria acquire external genetic material through three main strategies, i) transformation (incorporation of naked DNA), ii) transduction (phage mediated) and, iii) conjugation (bacterial “sex”).” (3)  In each case the genetic material ALREADY EXISTED and no new protein or altered gene was required. In fact, the path to antibiotic resistance typically involves a loss of genetic material from damaged DNA. The bacterium is no longer as healthy and effective and rapidly growing as it was before, but it has a side benefit of being resistant to a particular antibiotic.


Isaiah 45:18 For thus saith the Lord that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the Lord; and there is none else.



(2)  Stephen Shannon, Cystic Fibrosis News Today, March 12, 2015.

(3) Nancy Darrall PhD,  in six days, Master Books, pp. 190-193.

(4) Munita, J and Arias C., /


(x) Denton, Michael Evolution: A Theory in Crisis Bethesda, MD: Adler and Adler Publishers, Inc., 1986 pp. 249-250

(y) Fred Hoyle (1981) “Hoyle on Evolution” Nature, Vol. 294, No. 5837, Nov. 12, p. 148


(For more see also “What is Natural Selection” and “Natural Selection is Magic”)


“A knife in the back?”

blade folding knife penknife
Photo by Pixabay on

As explained by Dr. Geoff Downes Ph D, “Consider finding a dead body in the park.  Did the person die from natural causes, or was some other factor involved?  If you find a knife in the back, then it is logical to assume that some outside intelligence was involved.  However, if you start by assuming that the death occurred from natural causes, then you can never arrive at the correct conclusion.”(1)

The current status of scientific study of evolution is like a policeman who does not believe in murder.  Imagine an entire police department which operated under the belief that all events occur only as a result of natural causes.

The call comes in of a body found in the woods.  All the investigators go to the scene and find the body, with a large butcher knife protruding from the back and blood everywhere at the scene.  The campsite shows signs of a struggle with dozens of broken chairs and utensils.  The tent is collapsed with supports broken and fabric torn.  Of course, when the report is issued, the cause of death is “Natural causes.”

So it is with modern atheistic scientists and their evaluation of the origin of life.  Since they have already ruled out the possibility of divine intervention, they will naturally only find (or evaluate or report) evidence of spontaneous so-called “natural forces”.  They will state that the universe created itself from nothing, using terminology that sound convincing and scientific, but mean nothing.  They will lecture on evolution and how “natural selection drives evolution” and how some “primordial soup” was struck by lightning and life magically appeared.

No amounts of facts can convince the policeman that a murder occurred. They believe only in “natural causes”  No amount of facts… scientific, philosophical, biochemical, embryological, astronomical, archeological, or otherwise, can convince the atheistic scientist that creation is the result of a Creator, that life is the result of “and God said.” (2)  The atheists scientific community has as one of the tenets of belief that there is no God.  Therefore when any scientific discovery, or trend, or accumulation of evidence points to a creator, it is summarily rejected. Why?  Not because it is unscientific, but because it fundamentally disagrees with their underlying position.  The position of belief that “there is no God” is a statement of faith.  No more and no less than the statement of belief that “God created everything.”

As a scientist, then, it should not be surprising that there are tens of thousands of persons, highly educated in the sciences, with PhD, and MD and other advanced degrees behind their names, who absolutely believe that God formed the universe and established its laws.  They believe God created all life and the cells, structures, organelles and DNA within the cell. And they are no less scientific or educated than the atheists.

Atheistic science has no credentials on the matter of origins, when by its own mission statement it has excluded the most likely cause of all things, God.  It is completely illogical circular reasoning to state, “I do not believe in God, therefore I will not interpret any type of scientific evidence as pointing to God, therefore there is no God based on my scientific findings.”


Isaiah 45:12 I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, even my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded.


(1) Geoff Downs PhD, In six days Master Books Publishing, p.333.

(2) Genesis 1:20 NIV

(For more on this see “Individualism” and “Operational vs Historical Science”)

The Coming Revival

black and white cemetery christ church
Photo by Pixabay on

For the atheistic scientists who might read this, my apologies if I digress for a moment.  You may omit reading this post with my permission.  It will only cause you to wail and gnash your teeth.  Most of the site is intentionally kept free of religion and philosophy.  Nevertheless, the absence of God, religion, and philosophy, as has been explained by many philosophers, is in itself both a philosophy and a religion.

As such, I cannot help but wonder what society might be like when the “great lie” of evolution is fully exposed.When society at large comes to the realization that they have been misled and lied to for the last fifty years by proponents of Scientism masquerading as scientists, I believe there will exist a moment in time for all to actually see and marvel at the magnificence and grandeur of Creation.

At that moment, under the guidance of the thousands of faithful scientist who love God and worship Him in faithfulness a new and wonderful opportunity will be present.  Archeology will show the proof of the Bible as told in the OT with thousands of evidences of ancient societies exactly as the Bible describes.  Paleontology will no longer push the lie of evolution but will show the true history of the Biblical flood.

Faithful, God-fearing teachers (who have for decades feared to speak the truth in their classrooms) will suddenly be free to tell their wards they are NOT blobs of protoplasm in an accidental universe.  Children will be free to praise and worship their Lord and God in wonder and sing his praises in purity and innocence.  Youth will no longer be inundated with obscenity and pornography in their age of innocence, but will  learn of the Lord and His great love for them.

Ministers will be confronted with congregations overflowing the sanctuaries and listening from the streets.  Meetings will be held at football fields and sports stadiums.  Places accustomed to housing rowdy, drunken crowds at music festivals will be filled with tens of thousands lifting their voices in praise to the God who created the universe.  People will be “drunk in the Spirit” without touching a drop of alcohol.

Like Elijah and the prophets of Baal in 1 Kings chapter 18, the pseudo-scientific prophets of Scientism will be exposed for the frauds they are (see posts on Unethicalists, and Science vs Scientism), and millions of people trapped in lifestyles of drugs, and sexual promiscuity, and alternative lifestyles will be freed to worship the true God and be healed by His mighty power.  People who have sought peace and healing where it cannot be found will discover the power of healing present in the Holy Spirit.  People of every nation and tongue and tribe will worship in spirit and in truth, and millions will go to Zion to Worship the One True God.


Isaiah 60:1-5 Arise, shine; for thy light is come, and the glory of the Lord is risen upon thee.For, behold, the darkness shall cover the earth, and gross darkness the people: but the Lord shall arise upon thee, and his glory shall be seen upon thee.And the Gentiles shall come to thy light, and kings to the brightness of thy rising.Lift up thine eyes round about, and see: all they gather themselves together, they come to thee: thy sons shall come from far, and thy daughters shall be nursed at thy side.Then thou shalt see, and flow together, and thine heart shall fear, and be enlarged; because the abundance of the sea shall be converted unto thee, the forces of the Gentiles shall come unto thee.

(For more see blog entitled “Scoffers”)

Ancient. Where is the proof?


The determination of just how old the universe might be is a daunting and complicated endeavor.  As a student of science, I will readily admit that in many ways it appears that the universe might be very old.  If we assume that everything we now see has existed since the beginning, and nothing has changed.  If we assume that God did not create everything, as the Bible suggests, a few thousand years ago (which is the basis for current atheistic science).  If we assume that we could know the ratio of the so called parent and daughter isotopes in various rocks when they were created (we cannot). If we assume that the light from the stars is not being affected by anything (such as the 95% of the universe we cannot measure) and they are therefore exactly as far away as they appear, then one would easily be led to believe that the universe is quite old.  (1)

However, Dr. John Baumgardner, of the Los Alamos National Laboratory has a M.S. and Ph.D. in geophysics and space physics from UCLA, and he clearly believes the evidence does NOT indicate an old earth or an old universe.  He states “Most people… including most scientists, are not aware of the systematic and glaring conflict between radiometric methods and non-radiometric methods for dating…”(2)  He notes the vast differences that result when using different chemical methods of dating.  For example, based on experimentally measured helium diffusion rates found in the zircons of Pre-cambrian granite, the age of the fossil layer is only a few thousand years old. Yet Uranium in the same crystals gives an entirely different (and much older) result.

Dr. Baumgardner notes that the present rate of uplift for the Himalayan mountains and the rate of ocean mineralization also point to a young age for the earth. In fact at their current rate of uplift, if these mountains are a mere 1 million years old, they should be 40 miles high!  And of course, the presence of unmineralized proteins in dinosaur bones from many locations should place a limit of a few thousand years at most on the age of the bones. (3)

Then he tackles the thorny issue of light from distant stars. This is generally thought to show the universe is billions of years old. Although it involves principles such as cosmic inflation, general relativity, and the place of the earth in the universe, it  may be said that Dr. Baumgardner, and many other scientists, believe that there is no reason to reject the possibility of a young universe, because there are far too many unexplained variables to compute any certain age at all.  (See blog entitled Bang… and nothing.)  “If, instead, the cosmos has the earth near its center, then its early history is radically different from that of all big-bang models.”(4) In fact, the massive distribution of matter near the center of any exploding model of the universe could alter the time gradient drastically, slowing time almost to a standstill (relative to the other/outer areas of expansion) if earth were indeed near the center.

We can imagine the possibility that as written in the Creation Science website, “factors combine in various ways: 1. A decrease in the speed of light. 2. An expansion of space. 3. Large concentrations of dark matter with each galaxy. 4. Dark matter concentrated near the center of the universe. 5. Stars dimmer earlier in their history. 6. An age of the universe somewhat larger than 10,000 years. In addition, there may be other factors that we are not aware of. But even the factors we know about seem sufficient to explain the observed universe within a short time frame.”(1)  All this being said, there is no reason to rule out a young earth based on science.  The Bible story is no less believable now than at the time it was written.

Yet one more point bears mention here.  Most atheistic scientists would discount it.  (See Unethicalists for reasons why).  Nevertheless, for a Christian it makes logical sense.  We know that a cell cannot operate without all its parts (DNA, RNA, nucleus, organelles, cell membrane, proteins, etc.)  No part of the cell will function meaningfully or reproduce without all the others. Therefore isn’t it logical that all cells were created intact, fully functional at the moment of their creation?  Likewise Mankind is not functional without the brain, liver, eyes, heart, skin, and all organs functioning.  So it is easy to believe that Adam was a fully formed, functional, adult human being at the moment of his creation.

Is it not equally possible, in fact likely, that an infinitely wise, infinitely powerful Creator God would create a universe fully functional from the moment of its creation? What good are the stars in the beautiful sky if Adam will not seen them for millions of years?  Why create them at all? Creating light in transit is not a difficult thing for God.  It is only a difficult thing for us!  Yet who are we (our most brilliant scientists still do not understand the nature of light itself, and cannot tell if is is a particle or wave… so they say it is both).  Who are we to tell God how He should order his new and wondrous creation?


(1) Is The Universe Young?

(2)  in six days, john r. baumgardner, Master Books, p 234.

(3) Ibid, p. 237.

(4) Ibid p. 238.

Try, Try, Trilobite.


Most persons who have read anything about the fossil record, geological strata, or the theory of evolution have heard of the trilobite.  It appears in the lowest, supposedly oldest layers of rock.  It is called the earliest, most primitive of creatures.
According to Wikipedia, the earliest trilobites known from the fossil record are dated to about 530 million years ago. It “appears suddenly” (as if suddenly created) in the fossil record and flourished throughout the Cambrian and Permian periods and was then suddenly destroyed in a mass extinction. (Like the flood?)

It is interesting to note that even Wikipedia admits “By the time trilobites first appeared in the fossil record, they were already highly diversified and geographically dispersed. “(1) This of course supports Creation.  It is not supportive of evolution.  “Early trilobites show all the features of the trilobite group as a whole; transitional or ancestral forms showing or combining the features of trilobites with other groups do not seem to exist.” (2)

Geologist Dr. Andrew Snelling goes on to explain that in addition to being highly diversified, they were highly developed and advanced.  Let that sink in.  The first creature we can find in the strata was highly developed, highly advanced, and highly diversified!

Often regarded as primitive creatures, their anatomy reveals that they are,  perhaps,  the most complex of all invertebrate creatures.”(3) Dr. Snelling describes their sophisticated aggregate schizochroal eyes as “the most sophisticated optical systems ever utilized by any organism“. (4)

So let’s stop there. The most highly developed, highly sophisticated optical system ever developed appears suddenly, at the the lowest layers of the geologic record.  It appears there with absolutely NO possible evolutionary ancestors.  It appears fully formed.  It appears all over the world.  Any geologist who does not recognize the ossibility (or likelihood) of creation in these facts  is looking with both eyes closed.

I particularly like the following quote from the American History of Natural History website,  “Yet dealing with the age of trilobites… the age of our planet… the age of the universe, often seems beyond the realm of what our “primitive” brain can deal with. Sometimes we imagine we’ve got all these Cambrian Explosion, Snowball Earth and Punctuated Equilibria things figured out — with all the adjacent, Plate Tectonic and Shifting Polarity mumbo-jumbo thrown in for good measure. Apparently, for a species that has existed in its present form for far less than a million years, and whose entire lineage can presently be traced back some 14 million years, we Homo sapiens can be an arrogant bunch.” (5) Arrogant, prideful, and foolish, I would add.

Proverbs 1:7 “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge; fools despise wisdom and instruction”
Proverbs 18:2 “A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion.”


(2) ibid.

(3) Dr, Andrew Snelling, in six days, Master Books, pp. 293-4.

(4) ibid.


(For more information see blogs on “The Data in the Strata” and “Just the Facts”)