THOSE GOD HAS DEPRIVED OF WISDOM

And Why He Calls Them Fools

By Gary Ray Branscome

Hasn’t God made the wisdom of this world foolish? // He has scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts. // Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. (1Corinthians 1:20, Luke 1:51, Romans 1:22.)

Rationalism is a philosophy that regards reason as a source of knowledge, and the only reliable basis for explaining the world around us. Those who follow that philosophy usually regard opinions in vogue in the academic or scientific communities as the highest authority, while reserving for themselves the right to judge and evaluate what others believe. In order to spread this philosophy teachers simply tell their students to question what their parents have told them, or what the Bible says, and decide themselves if it is true. However, even though setting oneself over parents and the Word of God appeals to sinful pride, it is a fool’s philosophy. It is foolish because those students are being told to make their own finite worldview the highest authority, and that worldview is constantly changing and at best ignorant of most of reality. Just suppose that someone could know as much as one percent of everything there is to know. How likely is it that facts concealed in the ninety-nine percent that he does not know might totally change what he believes? Actually it is more than likely, it is certain. And, that is why it would be foolish for anyone to judge all truth on the basis of what little he knows. As it is written, “There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death” (Proverbs 16:25).

On the first page of his book The Blind watchmaker Atheist professor Richard Dawkins says, “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose”. Now, before going further I want you to think about the words, “give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose”. Do these complicated things appear to a dog to have been designed for a purpose? Do they appear to a horse to have been designed for a purpose? Of course not! It is our reason not just the appearance that tells us that they have been designed for a purpose. Therefore, when you consider the fact that the stated purpose of Dawkins’ book is to convince the reader that the opposite is true, that those complicated life forms were not designed, it should be obvious that the stated purpose of his book is to reject reason. In other words, if reason points to the existence of God, then Dawkins and all of his admirers reject reason. That is why Christ calls them fools, and that is one example of how those who brag the most about following reason actually reject reason (Luke 24:25).

To understand why Dawkins said that living things appear to have, “been designed for a purpose,” Consider this. If you found a glass lens on the ground, would reason tell you that natural forces shaped it, or that a designer shaped it and someone later lost it? Actually reason tells us that for every design there is a designer. And, what holds true for a glass lens holds true for the lens in the human eye. When we examine the eye the evidence of design can be seen in the shape of the parts, the way the parts are arranged, and in the fact that their arrangement enables them to function as a whole. In the eye we need some cells that are clear. If those cells were brought into existence by nothing more than time and chance it would be just as likely for them to be on our arm, leg, or finger as on our face. And it would be more likely for them to be scattered around our body or lumped together as a shapeless blob than it would for them to be joined together in an optically perfect lens. The fact that those clear cells are arranged in neat circles in our eyes, and that we have two eyes that are arranged in an artistic pattern on our face is evidence of design. Furthermore, those clear cells must also be free of blood vessels. Otherwise the capillaries running to each cell would make vision impossible. For that reason, they need a different system than the rest of the body, both for getting oxygen and for getting rid of waste. Without a designer how would the lens cells know that they needed a different system? Who would tell them? Is it reasonable to believe that they figured it out for themselves? Dawkins’ statement tells us that he knows that living things have been designed, even though he prefers to pretend that they have not. So in the name of reason he rejects reason.

The advocates of evolution like to belittle Christians, and often accuse us of refusing to use our reason. They want the world to believe that their point of view is the only reasonable one. However, nothing could be further from the truth. For example: Assume that you have a one-celled organism, and it dies. What does reason say will happen? Will the one-celled organism come back to life? Or will it decay, break down into its component parts, and then break down further into chemicals? If reason tells us that it will break down, then the claim that once upon a time biological chemicals came together and organized themselves into a one-celled organism is contrary to reason. In fact, it is not only contrary to reason, it is contrary to known fact because it is contrary to what we see happening in nature every day. We all know what happens to a living organism (single-celled or otherwise) when it dies. It does not come to life, it decays.

In contrast, evolution calls for the very opposite to happen. Darwin claimed that life began in a warm little pond. He claimed that instead of decaying, organic chemicals somehow came together to form a one-celled creature. However, that is contrary to reason. Lifeless organic chemicals do not come together on their own to form cells. On the contrary, once a cell dies it breaks down, and water speeds up the break down. In fact, if the parts of a cell did come together all we would have would be a dead cell. Just putting the parts of a cell together will not make it live. Therefore, the idea that once upon a time, long long ago, some organic chemicals just sloshed together on their own to form a cell, and then just happened to come to life, has more in common with fairy tales than real science. And, those who believe it are the ones who are refusing to use their reason.

Before the scientific method was in use, many people believed that it was possible for nonliving matter to come to life. However, experimental evidence has consistently shown that this is not the case. At the time Darwin wrote his book there were a number of "scientists" who believed that bacteria would spontaneously generate in broth. In order to test that hypothesis, Louis Pasteur (in 1859) devised an experiment that utilized several long-necked flasks containing beef broth. After the broth was boiled, the necks on some of the flasks were heated and bent in an s-curve. As predicted, bacteria only infested the broth that was in flasks with straight necks. When the flasks had curved necks, the bacteria stuck to the side of the neck, and could not get to the broth. Those experiments, coupled with the invention of a dust-free box at the end of the nineteenth-century, convinced the scientific community that life does not come from non-life. Nevertheless, those who, like Dawkins, have made evolution their religion, ignore reason and all scientific evidence while continuing to pretend that once upon a time it happened. Furthermore, that self-delusion is widespread, not just among the uneducated, but in “scientific” circles. Astronomy magazine often contains articles equating the possibility of water on Mars, or some other planet, with the possibility of life. Here is just one example.

“The more we look, the more water we seem to find on the planet [Mars]. This is incredibly significant because on Earth, anywhere there’s water there’s life – from the driest deserts to frozen glaciers, even inside clouds.” (From the July 2017 issue of “Astronomy” magazine, page 27.)

At this point some reader might be thinking, “Wait a minute, I seem to remember one of my professors claiming that science has proven evolution. What was the proof he offered? Oh yes, he claimed that the fact that certain bacteria have become immune to antibiotics has proven that life evolves. And, the fact that Darwin’s finches had different beak sizes is also proof.” However, reason itself tells us that those bacteria that developed immunity are still bacteria. They have not changed into anything else. In fact they are still the same species that they were before. Likewise, the finches that Darwin observed are still finches they have not evolved into anything else. And, they are all inter-fertile, so they are still the same species. So the facts agree with the Bible, yet in the name of reason the evolutionists reject the facts.

The entire theory of evolution rests on the assumption that these little changes within a species, given a long enough period of time, could change one plant or animal into an entirely different plant or animal. Yet there is not one scrap of scientific evidence to support that assumption. Not only has the evolution of one species into another never been observed, that assumption flies in the face of modern genetics. All of the alleged evidence for evolution is circumstantial evidence, not scientific evidence. And, because circumstantial evidence is evidence that can be interpreted more that one way trial lawyer and author Erle Stanley Gardner once said, “There is nothing so deadly as a case built on circumstantial evidence composed of half truths". [“The Case of the Careless Kitten", page 86]

What About the Fossil Record

When evolutionists are confronted with the above stated facts, they often appeal to the fossil record, claiming that the fossils prove evolution. However, again, nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, the fossil record proves just the opposite. Over forty percent of the fossilized life forms are not extinct. In the rocks we find fossilized frogs, dragonflies, jellyfish, lizards, leopards, plants, rhinos, fish etc. And the reason we can recognize them when we find them in the rocks is because they have not changed. Apart from size and a few minor differences, they are virtually identical to the ones alive today. That fact alone tells us they are not evolving. However, as before, the evolutionists ignore this evidence, explain away all of the fossil life forms that are not extinct, and pretend that those fossil life forms that are extinct did not really become extinct, but changed into something else. There is no proof! They just pretend that they changed into something else.

Take dinosaurs for example. I often run into programs or articles asserting that dinosaurs did not become extinct, but just changed into birds. However, there is no evidence for that. In fact, there are bird fossils in the same rock layers as the dinosaur fossils, so how can they claim that one preceded the other. It is all a game of pretend.

Sometimes they will claim that the archaeopteryx is the ancestor of modern birds. However, the fossil remains of modern birds are found in rock layers supposedly older that those that contain archaeopteryx fossils. The truth is that the archaeopteryx is just an unusual bird, just as the platypus is an unusual mammal. The claim that it is the ancestor of modern birds has no evidence to support it. Evolutionists just assert that it is so, and hope that we are too stupid to realize that they have no evidence to support that claim

Suppose that I drew the skeleton of a pudu (which is the world’s smallest deer) and called it a “dawn moose”. Suppose that to the right of it I then drew the skeleton of a mule deer, to the right of that drew the skeleton of a large northern whitetail, to the right of that the skeleton of an elk, and to the right of that the skeleton of a moose. Suppose that I then claimed that those skeletons represent the evolution of the moose. If I did that most people would laugh at me because each of the species that I mentioned is not extinct. They are all still around, so it is silly to claim that one evolved into the other. However, evolutionists do that very thing with the so called horse series. They line up pictures of skeletons and claim that those skeletons represent the evolution of the horse. There is no evidence to support such a claim. The only difference is that the skeletons on the left side of their drawing are the skeletons of extinct species. Evolutionists just pretend that the ones on the left changed into the ones on the right because they want to believe it, and they hope that we are too stupid to catch on. The same holds true for the so called ape to human skeletons they line up. Aside from falsifying the evidence, they simply assert that one evolved into another and hope you will not catch on to the fact that they have no evidence.

The Downward Path into Darkness

The fact that the entire body of doctrine, everything that we need to know for our salvation is clearly and explicitly stated in Scripture was at the very heart of the Reformation. Martin Luther could face the danger of being burned at the stake with confidence that he was right, because he was not teaching his opinion, but what the Bible explicitly said. Because the Bible says, “A man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law,” Luther knew that was not his opinion, but God’s Word (Romans 3:28). Because the Bible says, “You are saved by grace through faith,” Luther knew that was not his opinion, but God’s Word (Ephesians 2:8). However, it was not long before Satan went to work to destroy that confidence in God’s Word. Men infatuated with their own opinions came up with reason after reason to interpret away what the Bible plainly says. When the Bible says, “He [Christ] is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world,” some men exalted their own word over God’s Word denying that Christ is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world, (1John 1:2). When the Bible tells us that God is, “Not willing that any perish, but that all should come to repentance,” some men exalted their own Word over God’s Word denying that God wants all men to come to repentance, (2Peter 3:9). I could give many more examples because the willingness to interpret away what God has plainly said has become widespread, and is at the root of much controversy. Even though blind to it themselves, those who interpret away what the Bible plainly says are teaching by their example that what the Bible says cannot be taken at face value. And, once people loose confidence in what the Bible clearly says there is no way to settle controversy. Therefore, once people lost confidence in what the Bible plainly says, men began to interpret unclear passages to contradict the clear passages. Then they began to bicker over how the Bible should be interpreted. That controversy has undermined the authority of God’s Word in the eyes of many.

In the end that controversy led many to look outside of Scripture for truth. That is why many early scientists looked to reason to cast light on the Bible. And, why when men began to contradict Genesis and what the Bible says about the age of the earth, many churchmen caved in and began trying to reinterpret Scripture instead of standing up for what the Bible says. Today, that retreat from God’s Word has become so bad that many so-called churches even condone murder (abortion), immorality and homosexuality (Which are the marks of satanic religion (John 8:44). In the name of reason they have rejected both reason and the truth of God’s Word; as it is written, “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked,” (Jeremiah 17:9).

Conclusion

Because every doctrine necessary for our salvation is clearly and explicitly stated in Scripture every Christian ought to be able agree on what is taught. Sadly, because of the blindness of the human heart, that is not the case. Instead men sift through the hard to understand statements looking for words they can interpret to fit their own ideas. Then they pit those man-made interpretations against the plain words of Scripture causing controversy after controversy until people who are fed up with controversy look for some other authority, and that “authority” invariably leads them away from God and away from salvation. For example: The doctrine of the Trinity is clearly and explicitly stated in Scripture. The same Bible that tells us that there is only one God also tells us that the Father is God (Malachi 2:10), the Son is God (Isaiah 9:6), and that the Holy Spirit is God (Acts 5:3-4). There is more to the doctrine of the Trinity than that, but the point that I want to make is that all four of those truths are clearly and explicitly stated in Scripture. Therefore, that is what God wants us to believe and teach. However, because the truth of God is so far beyond the ability of our puny finite minds to understand, once men reject the authority of God’s Word in favor of their own “reason” it is just a matter of time until they reject what God has revealed to us about Himself. As a result He withdraws His gift of wisdom from them. And, without wisdom they reject reason in the name of reason.

branscome.org