An Evil Triumvirate

photo of jack o lantern covered with dry leaves
Photo by Bartek Wojtas on

Scientism is a religion tasked with preserving belief in evolution.  It is the alter at which the atheist worships.                  Neal Mack MD

If I told you there were three closely interconnected beliefs which are destroying society as we know it, you might be hesitant to believe it.  So let me explain. First the beliefs, and then their interconnections. Each of these three beliefs is dependent on the other.  Each belief naturally interweaves with the other.  Each, if taken to it’s logical extreme, virtually requires the other two. (See last week’s post on Evolution, Scientism, and the Demise of Atheism.)

Atheism. Christians and other theistic religions have no trouble explaining the origin of life or the universe.  An omnipotent God did it.  An atheist views that as a cop out.  He must somehow account for another origin for life. God is out of the equation. Life therefore, and the existence of the atheist himself, must have another explanation.  Enter evolution and the big bang. Pretty much everyone knows the definition of atheism. But most fail to realize that the atheist is completely dependent on belief in evolution. He has no other explanation for his existence. If he does not believe in God then he must believe mankind and the universe created themselves, or came about by virtue of some grand cosmic accident. Atheism is not in itself evil, just foolish.  Atheists are not of necessity evil persons, but atheism lacks the logical cognitive restraints against many of the sins and evil actions traditionally proscribed, forbidden, or banned in religious societies.

Evolutionism. Evolution is a theory (not a fact) developed for the express purpose of explaining life in the absence of a Creator.  Without evolution atheists have no explanation for life. Secular atheism is both the author and the beneficiary of evolutionary teaching. The chicken or the egg argument, in this case, actually works both ways.  The teaching of evolution benefits atheism and the teaching of atheism promotes belief in evolution. The belief that life created itself, is a faith based decision, usually dependent on atheism and on scientism.  Any person, religious or not, could entertain the possibility of evolution as an explanation for our existence. But since there is no scientific proof of events which happened in the distant past, they are accepted on faith.  One either has faith in evolution, or faith in creation. Those who believe “science has all the answers to all the questions” are in effect practicing the religion of scientism.

Scientism, the belief that science is the only source of useful knowledge, is also a faith based philosophy. It is a tenet of atheism that has developed over that last century into a strong influence throughout society that masquerades as science while promoting atheism and evolution. The two major (unproven) tenets of scientism are Evolution and the Big Bang. (See previous posts on Scientism.) Scientism is probably the least understood but likely most important leg of this three legged stool.  Scientism is an unjustified faith in science, as though it has all the answers to all the questions in life. “Scientism is an ideology that promotes science as the purportedly objective means by which society should determine normative and epistemological values.“(2) Although that sounds a little intimidating, it just means people have come to believe that science has all the answers to all the questions. But clearly it does not. (See prior blogs on why Scientism is self refuting.) Lets take the banner belief, the poster child of Scientism, the big bang, as an example.

Eric J. Lerner, president of Lawrenceville Plasma Physics, Inc. argues that the big bang is not even scientific, but absurd, “The big bang is essentially a creationist philosophy. It is creationist both because it opens the door to a supernatural origin of the universe itself, and because it basically says the universe seems absurd. We are asked to believe in it because the experts say it’s true.” (3) Lerner goes on to say, “In my mind the biggest pernicious impact of big bang cosmology, to quote my mentor Alfvén again, is that “it blurs the line between science and science fiction.”

Science?  Or Science fiction? Pretty much everyone is familiar with the Star Trek Series.  It was a staple on television for many years and a dominating motion picture franchise for decades.  In the beginning, which I still recall, it was called science fiction. People understood that Captain Kirk’s escapades with attractive humanoid aliens were imaginary.  But now, ask any college freshman about the likelihood of interstellar travel, parallel universes, and even time travel, and most will tell you it is all just around the corner.  Just one more discovery and we will have it all.  Those beliefs are based in scientism.  At some point people lose the ability to differentiate between reality and imagination. That is also the state of modern cosmology.  It is purely science fiction. Why do I think it is science fiction? I will let Lerner explain.

Lerner goes on to state, “Conventional cosmology today is a very big step back toward that medieval conception. Now big bang cosmology is talking about things like dark energy, dark matter, inflation. These are phenomena that cannot be observed or, in the case of dark matter, it could be but never has been in the laboratory and only exists in the celestial sphere. This makes these hypotheses much more difficult to test.” He continues “In most fields of science, if you have a clear contradiction between observation and experiment, you have to reject the theory. But the history of the big bang theory is that they’ve introduced new hypothetical entities that have no backing evidence except that they preserve the underlying theory. Twenty-five years ago the concept of inflation, which involves a completely unknown field and energy, was introduced to save the big bang from many very grave contradictions of observation. Soon afterward was the addition of nonbaryonic “dark” matter and, in the last 10 years, dark energy.”(3)

In other words  the big bang hypothesis has already failed the test of science.  But you see, Scientism has never been about finding the truth.  Scientism is a religion tasked with preserving belief in evolution.  It is the alter at which the atheist worships. Do not expect to find rationality here. Hence the title of this blog, “An Evil Triumvirate.”  Our beliefs determine our trajectory in society as well as in our individual lives. The cumulative effects of our acceptance of secular atheism, evolution, and scientism have unquestionably had such a negative impact on society as to be reasonably called disastrous. The insidious evil effects of these three beliefs are coming into full view now as we see rampant drug abuse, homelessness, family breakups, HIV, pornography, economic oppression, and even sex slavery.  Why?  Because with atheism, the universe is an accident and life has no meaning. Because without the Holy Spirit there is no limit to the evil men and women can commit.

(For more information please see prior posts; A Totally Modern View on Evolution, AND Evolutionism, Scientism, and the Demise of Atheism, AND Real Science, AND Five Things Everyone Should Know About Scientism.)





Genesis 6:5 The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time.

A Totally Modern View on Evolution

animal beast big carnivore
Photo by Mikes Photos on

A century ago evolution was a credible theory looking for proof. After tens of thousands of scientists have spent their lives looking for proof and found none, evolution is no longer even a credible theory. But tragically, in the meantime it has become dogma”                    Neal Mack MD

Dr. David Raup, who has been called “the world’s most brilliant paleontologist,” recently said this of the fossil record: “We are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species, but the situation hasn’t changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time.(1) (Bold type added)

Evolutionist L. Harrison Matthews wrote in the Introduction of the 1971 edition of The Origin of Species, by Charles Darwin: “Evolution is the backbone of biology and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded upon an unproved theory – is it then a science of a faith?“(2)

Duane Gish wrote in 1981 (still true today) “There were no human witnesses to the origin of the Universe, the origin of life or the origin of a single living thing. These were unique, unrepeatable events of the past that cannot be observed in nature or repeated in the laboratory. Thus neither creation nor evolution qualifies as a scientific theory and each is equally religious”.(3)

Francis Crick, codiscover of DNA, wrote, “An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going.”(4)

Sir Fred Hoyle, the brilliant British astronomer, mathematician, and cosmologist, wrote, “Once we see, however, that the probability of life originating at random is so utterly miniscule as to make it absurd, it becomes sensible to think that the favorable properties of physics on which life depends are in every respect deliberate … . It is therefore almost inevitable that our own measure of intelligence must reflect … higher intelligences … even to the limit of God … such a theory is so obvious that one wonders why it is not widely accepted as being self-evident. The reasons are psychological rather than scientific.”(5)

Hoyle also wrote, “Life cannot have had a random beginning … The trouble is that there are about 2000 enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in 10^40,000, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup.”(6)

Dr Stephen Gould, Harvard Professor of Paleontology, wrote “The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change, and the principle of natural selection does not require it — selection can operate rapidly. Yet the unnecessary link that Darwin forged became a central tenet of the synthetic theory.”(7)

Perhaps we should just stop and let that sink in. A world famous Paleontologist admits that the fossil record (one of the strongest initial arguments for evolution) does NOT support evolution!  Instead he proposes yet another unscientific “rescue” for evolution, one he calls “discontinuous variation” or “macromutation”.

To explain this I will quote evolutionary geneticist Richard Goldschmidt, who wrote in his book, The Material Basis of Evolution: “The major evolutionary advances must have taken place in single large steps…The many missing links in the paleontological record are sought for in vain because they have never existed: ‘the first bird hatched from a reptilian egg.’”(8)

Hold on folks.  The science stops here, and the fiction takes over! Gould is now admitting that new species just appear fully formed in the Geological record (in the strata or layers of the earth, they just suddenly appear). So he proposes they must have appeared fully formed in “real time” millennia ago.  A dinosaur egg hatched a chicken or a dog? So much for evolution.  Now we have come full circle. Either you believe in Creation, or you believe in magic!

For another very readable discussion on this, please see the article in the Houston Chronicle from 2008 by Scot Wall.

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



(2)L. Harrison Matthews, “Introduction to Origin of Species” (London: J.M. Dent), 1971 edition of The Origin of Species.

(3) Asimov, I., and Gish, D. T. October 1981. “The Genesis War: A Debate.” Science Digest, p. 82.

(4) Francis Crick, Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature

(5) Fred Hoyle, Evolution from Space

(6) Fred Hoyle, Evolution from Space


(8) Goldschmitdt, R. B. (1940). The Material Basis of Evolution, New Haven CT: Yale Univ.Press. ISBN 0-300-02823-7

“You are worthy, Jehovah our God, to receive the glory and the honor and the power, because you created all things.”Revelation 4:11.

BIG GOD / small god? Why Cosmology Matters!

sky night milky way stars
Photo by Free Nature Stock on

Atheists say creation is impossible because it would have required something miraculous, something fantastic, something unbelievable, something outside the bounds of science.

Creationists say that the The Big Bang and Evolution are impossible because they would have required something miraculous, something fantastic, something unbelievable, something outside the bounds of science.

Our view of the world, the universe, ourselves, our relationships, and even our families changes drastically when science tells us there is no God. But is this what science really tells us? Or is this merely the opinion of secular atheists, promoting their version of the facts?

Secular atheists have a great deal to say about their little god.  He can’t be real. He doesn’t exist. He is hateful and misogynistic and on and on.  But one thing that seems odd is hearing atheists offer opinions on what god can and can’t do. If your god has to wait on evolution you might have a small god. If your god has to wait 12 billion years for light to come from another star, or requires scientific approval of the latest version of the Big Bang in order to create the universe, you have a small god. If you think you can understand god, you have a small god.  If you believe your opinion on matters of eternity are more coherent, pertinent, and relevant than god’s opinion, you have a small god.

But if you have even a glimpse of an understanding of what scripture means when God calls himself I AM, you might have a BIG GOD.  If you have meditated on what it might really mean to be omniscient, or omnipotent, or omnipresent, you might have a BIG GOD.  If the miracles in the New Testament don’t faze you, because life itself is unbelievably miraculous, you might have a BIG GOD. If the matter of where God was before time was, or before the Universe was doesn’t really bother you at all, because you understand HE CREATED TIME ITSELF, you might have a BIG GOD.

Christians and most atheists agree.  Our universe, and the earth, and life itself are astounding and miraculous events. But then the agreement stops.

Atheists say creation is impossible because it would have required something miraculous, something fantastic, something unbelievable, something outside the bounds of science. Creationists say that the The Big Bang and Evolution are impossible because they would have required something miraculous, something fantastic, something unbelievable, something outside the bounds of science.

And BOTH are correct. In order for this magnificent world and our vast universe to be here, something miraculous and unbelievable indeed had to occur. In the debate over Evolution, the debate often just comes down to which impossible feat you choose to believe.

But here is the part you  probably don’t know. There is nothing scientific about the theories of origin proposed by EITHER side of the argument.  The difference is, creationists do not pretend to claim scientific credibility for their theories of origin.  Atheistic secular scientists do claim such scientific credibility, in spite of their dependence on mathematical mythology, and their huge problems with DNA damage, no intermediary fossils, a complete lack of transitional forms, polystrate fossils, flatness, the cosmological constant, entropy, inflation, lithium, dark matter, dark energy and the lack of any appreciable antimatter. (For explanations, please see my prior posts entitles Bang… and nothing, The Uniformitarians, and Nothing Can’t do Something.)

However, I would challenge you to read their arguments.  I would refer you to a particularly good debate, for instance on pros and cons of the Big bang as science on It is just a dozen or so pages of reading and is quite understandable (See footnote #1).

Another excellent source of understanding the Big Bang Cosmology as (junk) science is found on I believe you will also find this to be an unbiased and scientific interpretation of the data. I highly recommend it, but just be on the lookout for the many times scientists say “we don’t know”, or “we don’t understand” or “we cannot explain” or “for some reason”. If that doesn’t sound scientific, it’s because it isn’t. Those who propose the Big Bang will say “so far results support this model” while at the same time saying they have no idea why their figures are vastly off (by several orders of magnitude during the so-called inflationary period).

For those truly interested in Cosmology, the entirety of the argument and pretty much all of its sub-chapters can be summed up in just one statement… If you believe in the Big Bang, then many areas of science can be said to support your beliefs, and those which specifically contradict your beliefs are just awaiting further experimentation and confirmation.  And if you believe in Creation, the exact same statement holds.

As Eric Lerner president of Lawrenceville Plasma Physics, Inc. states, The big bang is essentially a creationist philosophy. It is creationist both because it opens the door to a supernatural origin of the universe itself, and because it basically says the universe seems absurd. We are asked to believe in it because the experts say it’s true.”(3)

He goes on to say, “Conventional cosmology today is a very big step back toward that medieval conception. Now big bang cosmology is talking about things like dark energy, dark matter, inflation. These are phenomena that cannot be observed or, in the case of dark matter, it could be but never has been in the laboratory and only exists in the celestial sphere. This makes these hypotheses much more difficult to test.” (4) Lerner is not a creationist.  But even he can easily see the absurdity of the Big Bang hypothesis.





(4) ibid.


You return man to dust, and say, “Return, Oh children of man!” For a thousand years in your sight are as yesterday when it is passed, or  as a watch in the night. Psalm 90:3-4 ESV

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


(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”)

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.  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, infact 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.


person with body painting
Photo by Sharon McCutcheon on

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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