The machine that built itself

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

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.

 

(1) https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/14545-if-god-were-small-enough-to-be-understood-he-would

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

(3) evolutionnews.org/2018/10/behes-irreducible-complexity-validated-by-chemistry-nobel/

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

(5) https://www.quora.com/How-can-one-gene-code-for-more-than-one-protein-and-how-is-that-process-regulated

 

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.

 

(1)  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Earth

(2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burgess_Shale

(3) https://burgess-shale.rom.on.ca/en/science/origin/04-cambrian-explosion.php

 

Nothing Can’t Do Something

20181005_135152(0)

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

(1) https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/a-mathematical-proof-that-the-universe-could-have-formed-spontaneously-from-nothing-ed7ed0f304a3

(2) http://www.britannica.com/biography/Werner-Heisenberg#ref524688

 

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

The Uniformitarians

20181005_1351525879507706738633709.jpg

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):

u·ni·form·i·tar·i·an·ism

 

ˌyo͞onəˌfôrməˈterēənizəm/

 

noun
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.

 

(1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniformitarianism

(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”)

Atheism is a BLAST

beautiful celebrate celebration colorful
Photo by Александр Прокофьев on Pexels.com

Don’t let the cosmologists try to kid you on this one. They have not got a clue either– despite the fact that they are doing a pretty good job of convincing themselves and others that this is really not a problem. “In the beginning, ” they will say, “there was nothing– no time, space matter or energy. Then there was a quantum fluctuation from which…” Whoa! Stop right there. You see what I mean”… Then they are away and before you know it , they have pulled an hundred billion galaxies out of their quantum hats. David Darling (1)

Atheism is a blast. In fact the cosmology of atheism relies on faith in the Big Bang, the biggest explosion of something from nothing that could ever possibly be imagined.

Astrophysicist Paul Sutter of The Ohio State University writes, “At 13.8 billion years ago, our entire observable universe was the size of a peach and had a temperature of over a trillion degrees.”(2) Admittedly this is a pretty bold statement. Is it supported by some evidence? Yes. But proven? Nope. Supported by the majority of the evidence? Certainly not.

John Watson of Techreader.com, writes about the Big Bang,”The first is that there is a good reason it is only called a “theory”. The proponents of this theory would have you believe that it is set in stone and factual; but this is far from the truth. In fact, the Big Bang theory has so many holes that there is not enough evidence to even confidently say that it could even possibly be valid.”(3)

Harvard’s astrophysics site states, “Although astronomers understand what the universe was like just a few seconds after the Big Bang, no one yet knows what happened at the instant of the Big Bang – or what came before. What powered the Big Bang? Where did all the stuff in the universe come from in the first place? What was the universe like just before the Big Bang?”(4) (Italics added) Now, while I think that it is a gross overstatement (some might call it a lie) to say astronomers understand what the universe was like a few seconds after the big bang, at least they admit they have no idea where the big bang came from.

Sutter and other astrophysicists can support the Big Bang claim as a possibility because of the observed red shift, and the relative local deficiency of quasars, and the presence of some background radiation that might have come from a big bang. But they have to accept it on faith, and they have to also downplay a large number of problems with their Big Bang explanation of the universe.

For starters, the Big Bang as an explanation of origins violates both the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics. The big bang violates the widely held belief that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. (See Inflationary Period in earlier articles). The Big Bang also has problems known as the Horizon problem, Flatness (or Oldness) problem, and the Monopole problem. The Big Bang violates Einstein’s General Law of Relativity. The Big bang has a Supernova problem, and a problem that we can see fully formed galaxies that are supposedly 10.8 billion light years away, when they should still appear as if early in the process of formation.(5)

But that is just the beginning. For example… we should be able to see an older and older universe as we look further and further away. But we don’t. We should see much more uniformity after such an explosion, but we don’t. There should be some sort of evidence of Dark Matter or Dark Energy, but there are not (and all the Big Bang cosmology equations require them). Evidence shows the galaxies could NOT have coalesced, but there they are.

So, once again, we see from an objective scientific viewpoint that those who tell our youth that the Big Bang is a scientifically proven fact are at best misled, and at worst brazen liars. The Big Bang requires either 1) suspension of scientific reason, or 2) a vast amount of faith. And that is just for the Big Bang.

Secular atheism also requires faith in Abiogenesis (life magically appearing from non-life), and in the Cambrian explosion (which is, simply put, that all the sudden about 500 hundred million years ago all the forms of life suddenly decided to appear on earth at approximately the same time). I will say more about the Cambrian explosion in the next blog. But if I have not stretched your faith in science too much… here is what the Lord says about it.

Isaiah 42:5
This is what God the Lord says—
the Creator of the heavens, who stretches them out,
who spreads out the earth with all that springs from it,
who gives breath to its people,
and life to those who walk on it:

(1) David Darling “On Creating Something from Nothing,” New Scientist 151 (1996):49

(2) https://www.space.com/40370-why-should-we-believe-big-bang.html

(3) https://thetechreader.com/top-ten/top-ten-scientific-flaws-in-the-big-bang-theory/

(4) https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/seuforum/bb_whatpowered.htm

(5) Patterson, R. Evolution Exposed, 2008, Answers in Genesis. p58

 

(For more, see prior posts on “Bang… and Nothing” and “Just the Facts”)

Leap of faith… but then what?

Atheists and secular humanists are at the forefront of the Old Age Universe chronology. The teaching in most secular institutions encourages every H.S. and university student in the country to abandon any faith in the Bible and accept our status as advanced apes. Some instructors approach their destruction of biblical faith with a zeal that would be the envy of many missionaries. But which comes first, the atheism or the scientific conclusions? I believe the spiritual assumptions predate and often dictate the scientific opinions.

If one has questions about the Bible that are not easily explained or understood in human terms, it can sometimes cause people to abandon their faith. But then a major question looms. By abandoning your faith, or by rejecting the Bible, do you somehow find the answer to your questions? Many modern secular atheists are firmly convinced that they must reject Christianity, and God, and the Bible because they cannot explain, for instance, suffering, or miracles, or “where God came from”.

But is it sensible when atheists say that because there is suffering in the world, they cannot believe in God? They opine that if God is good He cannot be omnipotent and if He is omnipotent He cannot be good. “I can’t believe in the God of the Bible because there is suffering in the world.” OK. Now you don’t believe in the God of the Bible because of suffering. Do you now have an adequate explanation for why there is suffering in the world? Does atheism or humanism provide adequate explanation? Does the world become fair, or just, or does suffering depart with your rejection of the Supreme Being? Or is it possible that suffering is here precisely to point us back to God?

If God is both good and omnipotent, and He allows suffering, or if it is a part of His creation, then in some manner or form it must work to the good. In other words, without suffering, some particular good that might occur, cannot occur. In fact you can say that there must be a form of goodness or a benefit to humanity that is so great that it outweighs all the suffering, or else either the omnipotence or the goodness of God is in question.

This is not so difficult to accept for the believer. Christians have been raised on the truth of Romans 8:28, “And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.” (KJV) Joni Eareckson Tada, for instance, after 50 years of physical suffering from a broken neck and quadriplegia, can still travel and lecture and inspire millions with her faith and her undying affection for her Lord. She says, “And rather than try to frantically escape the pain, I relearned the timeless lesson of allowing my suffering to push me deeper into the arms of Jesus. I like to think of my pain as a sheepdog that keeps snapping at my heels to drive me down the road to Calvary, where, otherwise, I would not be naturally inclined to go.”(1) She can see in her own life and suffering, a lesson for herself and others that is of great eternal benefit. But suffering may still be a major stumbling block to many nonbelievers.

C S Lewis had a great deal to say on the subject of pain and suffering. First, he noted that humanity can often be not just tone deaf, but almost totally and completely insensate to many of our greatest spiritual needs, and sometimes God uses pain or suffering to get our attention. “We can ignore even pleasure. But pain insists upon being attended to. God whispers to us in our pleasures, speaks in our conscience, but shouts in our pains: it is his megaphone to rouse a deaf world.” C.S. Lewis, in The Problem of Pain.

You see, if you accept our physical bodies as a starting point, many spiritual things are not only confusing, but seemingly nonsensical. From the perspective of humanity (the flesh) God is there to serve us, not the other way around. Or as Lewis put it, “We regard God as an airman regards his parachute; it’s there for emergencies but he hopes he’ll never have to use it.” (Lewis, The Problem of Pain) This means pain and suffering are viewed as an enemy to be avoided, rather than a possible teacher to bring us to the truth.

But if we accept the possibility that we are primarily spiritual beings, temporarily housed in a physical shell, then we may obtain an entirely different view of suffering. Suffering may be the absolute necessity, the greatest of benefits, the most instructive teacher, if it leads us to a higher spiritual understanding. In fact, it may be such an essential thing that we could not even be fully human without it! “Try to exclude the possibility of suffering which the order of nature and the existence of free-wills involve, and you find that you have excluded life itself” (Lewis) So we see that pain and suffering do not in any but the most superficial way exclude God, or his omnipotence, or his love, or his goodness.

But what of other objections to the Bible? Many persons, atheists and non-Christians alike, object to Jesus statements indicating that He is the only way to Heaven. In John 14:6 Jesus says “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” This is quite objectionable to the secular humanist or, for example, to the believer in Mohammed. But objectionable or not, the point remains, either it is true or it is false. It is not a thing to be treated lightly, or ignored. It is a thing of eternal implications. Jesus existence is either a fact or it is not. His place above all creation as the Son of God is either Truth or falsehood. But one’s objection to it is not really even relevant to the Creation/Evolution or Big Bang argument. So when a secular humanist or atheist tells you they prefer the Big Bang over creation as an explanation of origins, because they don’t believe that Jesus is the Son of God, or that there is a God at all, you may wish to ask how that might be relevant to the conversation.

The ultimate fact is that we cannot escape the concept, the reality, or the consequences of faith. Faith exists. Choice exists. Reality exists. The only question is what we choose to have faith in. Faith in the Big bang leads to one particular set of consequences, both for the individual and for society. Faith in Christ leads to an entirely different set of consequences. Choose carefully.

Hebrews 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.

Romans 1:20 NLT 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

(1) http://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/a-purpose-in-the-pain-an-interview-with-joni-eareckson-tada/

(2) C. S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain, 1940, Harper Collins, NY. NY

(For more see prior blog on “Who are you going to trust”)

Real Science

Real science, unpretentious and unassuming is this, to investigate the wonders of Creation with all the powers of our God given intellectual capacity, and to maintain truth and objectivity at all costs.” ANM

There has been an ongoing debate about the objectivity and credentials of “science” subtended to the debate over creation vs evolution. For over a hundred years, and especially since the State of Tennessee v. John Thomas Scopes in 1925, there has been a silent, mostly unspoken assumption that one must choose sides. One must either come down on the side of science or on the side of religion. But more recently this has been exposed as a false dichotomy.

In recent years each side of the debate has seemed to approach the topic of evolution, and of the origins of man and the universe, with a sense of religious fervor. In today’s society it could be seen as the battle of the pulpit vs the lectern. In conservative, Bible trusting congregations, the faithful are encouraged to trust the Bible as the Word of God and to view History, the world, and human nature through the lens of scripture. In the secular universities, our youth are told there is no God, the Bible is a myth, and both Life and the Universe originated out of nothing, for no particular reason at all.

Each side seeks to convert others to their point of view, and in recent years, it would seem that the secular view is “winning” the debate, as tens of millions of youth leave the nest, go to universities, and are taught the “truth” of the scientific method, and lectured on the many supposed contradictions of the Bible. After a few years of exposure to the secular worldview, accompanied by a great deal of encouragement to shed the encumbrances of religion and the Ten Commandments, they graduate to freely express their lives and especially their sexuality as they choose.

In a sense it became a great social experiment, starting with the war protests and the sexual revolution of the 1960’s, and progressing to the free availability of abortion, coed dorms at universities, rampant alcohol and mood altering chemical use, and the acceptance of the secular worldview as supreme on essentially all the major campuses and most of the communities of our country. Most will now admit that the experiment has had enormous unanticipated social implications. There has been an epidemic of depression and mental health problems. There has been a breakup of the family. There has been an increasing disrespect for law, and for legal authority. There has been a massive, deadly epidemic of substance abuse, killing tens of millions and leaving entire generations of children fatherless or motherless.

But what if the entire debate, the whole experiment, was based on false premises? What if our understanding of what is science, and what is religion, is fundamentally flawed? What if instead of freeing our children from the encumbrances of religion, we have merely substituted one religion for another? What if at the same time, instead of teaching the benefits of the scientific method, we have inadvertently advanced and propagated the religion of scientism? (See previous post on Scientism)

James 1:27 states, “Pure religion and undefiled before our God and Father is this, to visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world.” (ASV) Jesus said “Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another.” (NIV) This was the religion taught in our churches and universities prior to the secular revolution. But the religion now taught in schools is secular humanism, the belief that humanity is capable of morality and self fulfillment without the need for any belief in God. Abortion in this worldview is fine. Drugs? Why not? Homosexuality, polygamy, or pedophilia? Sure. Just don’t dispute global warming and you can do whatever else you choose.

But if real religion has been replaced with scientism and secular humanism, what has replaced real science? I believe it is accurate to state, “Real science, unpretentious and unassuming is this, to investigate the wonders of Creation with all the powers of our God given intellectual capacity, and to maintain truth and objectivity at all costs.” But this is not at all what is practiced in our institutions of higher learning. What has replaced real science? The answer is, again, scientism and secular humanism. The wild speculations of Dawkins, Hawking, Darwin, and Marx. One may advance any theory whatever about the origin of comets, or life, or the moon. One may believe any incredible explanation for the impossibility of evolution. One may postulate any variation of the big bang and explain its deficiencies with any form of wild hypothesis. But you must not under any circumstances advance a theory that involves God, or Creation. This is madness, This is academic and political suicide.

If you agree, please feel free to share.

“You are right in speaking of the moral foundations of science, but you cannot turn around and speak of the scientific foundations of morality.”
Albert Einstein

Proverbs 2:6 For the LORD gives wisdom; from his mouth come knowledge and understanding.

(For more on similar topics see prior blog on “Science vs Scientism” and “Scoffers”)