The Science of Predicting the Future

20181005_135017

If you ask the man or woman on the street “Is it possible to predict the future?”, they will likely say no.  It is of course NOT possible for us to “predict the future” except in a very few, short term, low variable type situations. And yet as humans, we see that as just another obstacle to be overcome. So that is exactly what secular scientists are continually trying to do, attempting to predict the weather, earthquakes, hurricanes, politics, economics, lifespans, relationships, and dozens of other events in life. This might not seem such a bad thing.  After all, isn’t that the exciting and compelling thing about science fiction, the desire to see into the future? What is the harm in that?

Well perhaps if it only involved educated, consenting adults who understood the actual underlying principles of scientific research and statistical analysis it would be acceptable. Or if it were seen for what it was, which is science fiction rather than hard science, perhaps it would be acceptable.  But such is not the case. This area of “soft science” has pervaded all aspects of education and the media.

In fact this merger between science and pop culture has created a progeny.  That progeny is called scientism, and in the name of science, our children are taught scientism from early grade school all the way through college.  They are constantly exposed to it on shows like “The Big Bang Theory.”  But while it is treated as actual science, many of the predictions made by scientism (about both past and future events) have much more in common with indoctrination and fortune telling than with actual, provable science.  For example:

“Scientists Have Figured Out When And How Our Sun Will Die, And It’s Going to Be Epic”

So reads the headline on Sciencealert.com. (1) And the article goes on to say, “The Sun is about 4.6 billion years old – gauged on the age of other objects in the Solar System that formed around the same time. And, based on observations of other stars, astronomers predict it will reach the end of its life in about another 10 billion years.”

The science of Astronomy is indeed amazing.  Astronomers observe,  speculate, theorize and calculate.  They attempt to explain this magnificent universe in which we live.  But they fail to tell you, as they predict earth’s incineration and demise, that their theories and explanations are still, even now, full of holes the size of galaxies. (For more on this see my prior blogs entitled Pluto and the Mickey Mouse Astronomers, and Operational vs Historical Science)

Or for another example, consider the following article by Jillian Scudder, which also states we have about a billion years or so left to inhabit the earth.

It is widely understood that the Earth as a planet will not survive the sun’s expansion into a full-blown red giant star. The surface of the sun will probably reach the current orbit of Mars – and, while the Earth’s orbit may also have expanded outwards slightly, it won’t be enough to save it from being dragged into the surface of the sun, whereupon our planet will rapidly disintegrate.” (2)

Or if you prefer to get your forecasts from NBC news, here is a headline:

“Now we know what will happen when the sun dies” 

“New study suggests our star will become ‘one of the prettiest objects in the night sky.”(3) Never mind that at the time they predict our suns demise, the earth will already be long gone according to their own predictions.  The astronomers had been arguing back and forth among themselves as to whether when the sun died it would create a planetary nebula.  This latest theory (latest computer model) says it will, and it will supposedly be spectacular to see.
These are just a couple of the many pseudo-scientific internet sites that predict the future of our planet, and the fate of our sun.  But what happened to the belief that “we can’t predict the future”?  Well, you might say, “this is different… these are scientists!”.  Yes, that is what they say.  But what is a scientist? And more importantly, what types of predictions for the future have scientist made?  What are their results and their credentials for predicting future events?
Well it turns out that scientists are quite good at predicting the future of a real time event in a laboratory if all the factors are known and contained, and the the basic processes of physics are completely stable. They can tell you what is going to happen in the next few minutes after you combine sodium and chloride in a test tube.  They can predict what will happen when gasoline and oxygen are allowed to interact in the presence of intense heat.  These momentary observations can be reproduced again and again in a laboratory or a test tube.  The results will be the same and are thus predictable.
But what are their credentials in predicting things even just a thousand years from now?  Has science ever done that? No.  Not yet anyway.
In fact predicting the future, it turns out, is actually quite difficult.  As written by Adam Keiper, in his blog on The New Atlantis, concerning uncertainties in predicting the future,

All of which is to say that, as you listen to our conversation here today, or as you read books and articles about the future of automation and robotics, try to keep in mind what I call the “chain of uncertainties”:

Just because something is conceivable or imaginable
does not mean it is possible.
Even if it is possible, that does not mean it will happen.
Even if it happens, that does not mean it will happen in the way you envisioned.
And even if it happens in something like the way you envisioned, there will be unintended, unexpected consequences(5)

 

Martyn Shuttleworth authored the following excellent discussion about predictive science.PDF version

Scientists and Soothsayers

“Prediction in research fulfills one of the basic desires of humanity, to discern the future and know what fate holds. Such foresight used to involve studying the stars or looking at the entrails of animals.

Obviously, few pay heed to such methods, in the modern world, but many people expect scientists to become the new soothsayers and predict where humanity, the environment, and the universe will end up. To a certain extent, most scientists regularly use prediction in research as a fundamental of the scientific method, when they generate a hypothesis and predict what will happen.

As part of humanity’s quest to understand nature, predictive science is much more widespread than before.

Much of this is due to the exponential growth in computing power, which allows gradually more detailed and accurate models. These are of great use in predicting the weather or natural disasters such as earthquakes and tsunamis.

The other factor driving this growth of predictions in research is politics and economics. Predicting the weather benefits an economy by informing farmers about what to expect, and allows emergency services to predict when adverse weather may require action. Economics is prediction driven and, as the current economic crisis shows, incorrect predictions can be devastating, although whether politicians choose to listen to the advice of computer prediction models, if they disagree with their policies, is another matter.

With the millions of dollars invested by governments, or by oil companies using the predictions of geologists to know where to drill test wells, predictive science is only going to grow. However, this entire field of science and computing rests upon the same foundations that drove early scientists, the principle of making a prediction and setting out to test it.

Unfortunately, these predictions in science are at the whim of paymasters, whether in government or the private sector. This will always compromise the integrity of the scientists making predictions, but prediction in research will always drive the scientific method. That is my prediction, anyway! “(5)

You may have noted Martyn’s disdain for the effects that money, power and politics can have or science, when he states “This will always compromise the integrity of the scientists making predictions”.  And as you may have predicted, I agree entirely.

 

 

For much more on this topic see my earlier blogs on Science vs. Scientism, and Five Things Everyone Should Know About Scientism.

 

(1) http://www.sciencealert.com/what-will-happen-after-the-sun-dies-planetary-nebula-solar-system

(2) phys.org/news/2015-02-sun-wont-die-billion-years.html

(3) http://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/now-we-know-what-will-happen-when-sun-dies-ncna873041

(4) today.oregonstate.edu/archives/2009/aug/long-debate-ended-over-cause-demise-ice-ages-–-may-also-help-predict-future

(5) http://futurisms.thenewatlantis.com/

(6) https://explorable.com/prediction-in-research

 

Sex: Evolutionary Accident or God’s gift?

portrait of happy young woman using mobile phone in city

There are really only two explanations for sex.  It is possible that it is simply an animal urge bred into humankind (and most other animals) as an essential part of the propagation of the species, as implied by atheists and evolutionists.  It is also possible that it might be a part of a Divine plan, a gift to mankind from a loving Creator, as taught in the Bible.

Atheists, of course, tend to believe the former, despite scientific evidence to the contrary (see earlier blogs).  As society becomes predominantly atheistic, with rejection of anything but a token belief in the spiritual or the Divine, we consequently see less respect for the sanctity of  life, and less understanding of the sacramental nature of marriage.  Consequently, our social fabric seems to be ripping apart.  Affairs are rampant.  Divorce is “normal”.  Children are disposable. Mass shootings, corporate corruption, individual gluttony and laziness… all seem to be increasing. 

Christians (and some other religions), on the other hand, tend to see the hand of God in the act of sexual intimacy.  In fact it has been called a sacrament.  The Bible of course tells us in many places to stay away from sexual sin. But it does not stop there.  Paul goes on to say that we should encourage sex within the marriage, that sex is an important part of the ongoing marital relationship:  The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife. Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer.  (I Cor. 7:3-5)

The wisdom of God’s plan for the family, and for a marital relationship founded on commitment and mutual gratification, becomes evident as we compare it to the alternative.  In other words, looking around we see divorce, gender confusion, the mental health crisis, rampant pornography, pedophilia, and social chaos. These have followed closely on the heals of he breakup of the traditional family.  It serves to confirm the wisdom of God’s plan.  While we as a society, and as individuals, value freedom and an unconstrained lifestyles, it appears God placed some constraints on our sexual expression, for reasons that relate to our individual and societal well being.

The family (along with its biblical pro-sex attributes) is designed to be the core, basic unit of a stable society. As stated in an article in The Public Discourse, “The second pillar of a decent society is the institution of the family, which is built upon the comprehensive sexual union of man and woman. No other institution can top the family’s ability to transmit what is pivotal—character formation, values, virtues, and enduring love—to each new generation.“(1)

But this pillar is crumbling. With rampant alcohol and drug use, the recent push toward legalized pedophilia in Europe, the exposure of our young children to sexual images on cell phones, and even sexual teaching about homosexuality and transgender issues in our public schools, and with the pressure on young children to choose a homosexual or Trans lifestyle even before they comprehend the framework of human sexuality, the family is quite literally in a crisis.(2)

It turns out that worldview does make a difference.  In fact it makes an enormous difference whether our children are raised believing they are a child of God, or believing they are the result of an accident of cosmology.  Tragically we have millions of children and young adults now with no spiritual compass, and no inherent, foundational belief in self worth.  Entire generations of youth who have been taught that they are no more special or meaningful than a monkey, or a slime mold.  Our society and children are paying the price. And nothing but God’s plan is likely to make things any better.

(1) https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/pillars/sexuality-and-family/

(2) http://chucklawless.com/2017/08/10-reasons-satan-attacks-families/

 

Science vs Reason

ball shaped circle close up dark
Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

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 

 

(1) opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/05/philosophy-is-not-a-science/

(2) http://rebirthofreason.com/Articles/Rowlands/Philosophy_vs_Science.shtml

(3) https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2015/11/why-scientific-faith-isnt-the-same-as-religious-faith/417357/

 

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

 

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”)

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”)