THE RELIGION OF NATURALISM
SCIENCE FALSELY SO CALLED
By Gary Ray Branscome
Let me make it clear from the start, that when I speak of naturalism I am talking about metaphysical-naturalism. That is, naturalism as the basis of a fanatical secular religion whose adherents are so hostile to the Biblical claim that God exists that they shut their minds to any and all evidence to the contrary.
Because the adherents of this religion deny the existence of God, one of their doctrines is the belief that life originated from non-life. In other words, they believe that once upon a time, long long ago, in some primeval ocean, a tiny bit of matter came to life, and that all other living things have evolved from it. However, that is not only not scientific, it is contrary to all scientific evidence, and to reason itself.
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. For example: At one time it was widely believed that maggots would spontaneously generate in meat. In order to test that "hypothesis," Francesco Redi (in 1660) devised an experiment, consisting of two jars that both contained meat. One jar was open, the other jar had a piece of cheesecloth stretched across the top. Maggots not only did not appear in the meat covered by cheesecloth, but flies were actually observed laying maggots on the cheesecloth.
Two centuries later, there were still a number of people 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. Moreover, since the idea that life comes from non-life contradicts science, it is in the same class with belief that the world is flat. Nevertheless, those who have made naturalism their religion, ignore the scientific evidence, because it contradicts their naturalistic fairy tale, and continue to insist that it must have happened in spite of all evidence to the contrary.
In the same way, the idea that all living things have evolved from a bit of non-living matter that came to life, is totally unscientific. No one has ever seen it happen. There is no biological evidence that it happened. They simply assert that it happened because that is what their religion teaches.
When we look at the fossil record, we find that about forty percent of the fossilized life forms are not extinct. We find fossilized frogs, dragonflies, turtles, figs, cats, and thousands of other species that are virtually identical to their modern day living counterparts. In other words, the fossil record tells us that they have not evolved one bit. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the fossil life forms in one rock layer ever evolved into the fossil life forms found in another rock layer. Yet those who have made naturalism their religion simply ignore the evidence and claim that it happened.
Did you ever notice the fact that they only claim that extinct animals have evolved into something else? For example, they will never claim that turtles have evolved into something else, because we still have turtles. Yet they hold up dinosaurs as proof of evolution, when there is not one scrap of real evidence that dinosaurs ever evolved into anything else. In fact, the claim that dinosaurs evolved into birds is another naturalistic fairy tale that contradicts science. It contradicts science, not only because the anatomy of birds is totally different from reptiles (different bones, respiratory system, digestive system, etc.), but also because all of the fossil life forms that have not changed, and are not extinct, are scientific evidence that life is not evolving.
Likewise, although there are many fossil frogs, secularists will never claim that frogs evolved into reptiles, because any right-thinking person would ask. “Why then do we still have frogs?” Instead they claim that frogs and reptiles have a common ancestor, or that reptiles evolved from amphibians. Likewise, they will not claim that men evolved from monkeys, because people would then ask. “Why then do we still have monkeys?” Instead they assert that men and monkeys have a common ancestor. However, in both cases there is no scientific evidence that a common ancestor ever existed, or that the evolution ever took place. They simply assert that it happened, because that is what their religion teaches.
In saying this I realize that they claim to have evidence. For example, they claim that any similarity in appearance between men and monkeys is evidence of common ancestry. However, there is no proof of that! It is simply assumed. The eye of an octopus looks very much like a human eye, but that is not proof that we are related, it simply points to the fact that we both had the same designer, namely God. Likewise, the widely published claim that chimps are genetically similar to humans, was based on evidence that has been shown to have been falsified. The devotees of naturalism simply looked for things to support their religious beliefs, while ignoring everything else. In other words, they read their own ideas into the evidence, in the same way that false prophets read their own ideas into statements of Scripture, while ignoring all evidence to the contrary.
Secularists like to talk about the earth being millions or billions of years old, because that is what their religion teaches. However, while they try to find things they can interpret to support that view, they ignore all evidence to the contrary. For example, scientists have come up with about 150 methods for determining the age of the earth. Some of those methods give the earth a very old age, while others give it a relatively young age. Instead of looking at all of the evidence objectively, the secularists simply ignore any dating method that does not agree with their religious belief that the world is millions of years old.
For example, the amount of salt in the ocean is increasing at a measurable rate. If there were absolutely no salt in the ocean to begin with, it would take about sixty million years for it to acquire the amount of salt that it now has in it. Of course, that is far less time than evolution requires. Furthermore. if it had some salt to begin with, it could have acquired its present level of salt in far less time. In the same way, careful studies of erosion show that the present river deltas are only about five thousand years old. Likewise, the moon is getting further away from the earth each year. Since there are physical limits to how close the earth and moon can be, we know that the moon cannot be millions of years old. I could give several other examples, but these should suffice. The secularists simply ignore these facts because they do not agree with their naturalistic mythology.
One argument that the secularists like to advance is the claim that the layers of rock found in the world are proof of evolution. But here again, they simply read their own ideas into the data while ignoring any evidence to the contrary. For example, all evidence points to the fact that the rock layers were lain down quickly, not gradually over millions of years. One such evidence is the fact that the rocks contain fossilized jellyfish. Since a dead jellyfish will turn to a formless mass of gel in one day, those jellyfish could not have been buried slowly. Moreover, I have personally seen fossilized trees that ran vertically through several rock layers. Those trees would have rotted away if the rock layers had been laid down gradually over millions of years.
The truth is that the secularists have simply assumed that life evolved, and then dated the rocks by looking at the fossils they contained, and assigning a date based on when they thought those fossils evolved. The age given to the rocks has nothing to do with the order of the rocks in the earth. In fact, in many places the rock layers are in the opposite order that evolutionists claim they should be in.
At one time all of the rocks
that contained a kind of fish known as a coelacanth were assigned an
age of 68
million years. That is because the secular religion claimed that the
had evolved into an amphibian at that time, and was the ancestor of the
amphibians we see today. One of the books I has as a child contained a
of a coelacanth walking (on its fins) through a swamp from one puddle
another, supposedly evolving into an amphibian. However, in 1938 a
coelacanth was caught in the
Secularists have given the various rock layers names (Cambrian, Devonian, etc.). However, what many people do not know, is that those names are not determined by the kind of material the rocks are made of, or where they are found. On the contrary, the name of the rock layer is determined by the kind of fossils the rock contains. Furthermore, in some places, where we can see a rock layer running along the side of a mountain, the same layer will be given one name in one place and another name in another place. The name of the rock layer changes when the fossils in it change, even though it is the same rock layer. And, as I previously mentioned, the rock layers are often in the opposite order from the order the devotees of naturalism say they should be in.
The secularists talk about the universe being about 14 billion years old, as if they actually were there when it formed. However, since that date rests on assumption, not fact, such bravado is evidence of an unscientific mindset. A few decades ago, studies of the stars indicated that all of the stars (in every direction) were moving away from the earth. Scientists then concluded that it took them about 14 billion years to get from earth to where they now are. They then assumed that about 14 billion years ago, all of the stars began to move away from the earth in a big bang. However, that entire scenario assumes that the universe came into existence on its own. There is no proof that it is so. It is simply assumed. They make that assumption because that is what their naturalistic religion calls for. However, the stars could have just as well been far from the earth when God made them. Secularists simply close their minds to that possibility, because their naturalistic religion teaches otherwise.
They also like to claim that radiation proves that the rocks are millions of years old. However, that claim rests on assumption, not fact. Since many rocks contain radioactive particles, and radioactive decay produces daughter elements that accumulate over the centuries. They make the rocks appear old, by assuming that they contained no daughter elements to begin with. However, there is no evidence that is true. It is simply assumed to be true, because their secular religion calls for long ages. If some of the daughter elements were in the rocks to begin with, then the age of the rocks is much younger.
Another claim they often make is that the moon was once a part of the earth, and was pulled away from the earth by a passing star. However, that is absurd. You can test that fact by putting two small magnets together, and then trying to use a third magnet to pull the two apart (without attaching them to anything). It will never work because the lines of force extending from the third magnet will add to the attraction the first two magnets have for each other. As a result, the pull of the third magnet on the magnet furthest from it, will be stronger than its pull on the one nearest to it.
At this point I want to make it clear that, the claim that natural selection will produce new life forms is another myth. It may be a doctrine of the secular religion, but it is based on the assumption that life evolved, not on scientific observation. The word “selection” in “natural selection” comes from the phrase “selective breeding”. The idea is that, just as farmers can produce new breeds by selective breeding, natural events can produce new species when they affect the breeding stock. However, what these dreamers fail to realize is that farmers produce new breeds by breeding out unwanted characteristics. In other words, the characteristics they want must be there to begin with. The breeder then uses selection to eliminate animals that lack those traits from the breeding stock, so the desired characteristics become dominant. Selection never produces something that is not there to begin with. Likewise, when it comes to survival of the fittest, animals must have the characteristics needed to survive to begin with, before those characteristics can help them survive. The struggle to survive does not produce anything new. On the contrary, the amount of change that is possible in any living organism is limited by the genes. Breeding can bring out latent characteristics, but it cannot bring out something that is not there to begin with.
The fact that the advocates of “natural selection” claim that every peculiar characteristic an animal has, evolved to help it survive, undermines their credibility. Since amphibians have legs, they claim that legs evolved because they helped amphibians to survive. Since snakes do not have legs, they claim that snakes lost their legs because not having legs helped them to survive. There is no scientific evidence that that is true. It is simply assumed to be true because the religion of naturalism calls for it.
Since the time of the “Enlightenment”, the advocates of naturalism have gradually expanded their views into a secular religion. The doctrines of that religion have developed over the past two centuries, as they labored to fit all scientific knowledge into a naturalistic worldview. Communism, Nazism, and Secular Humanism are all manifestations of that one secular religion. They may differ in some of their doctrines, but their core beliefs are all the same. Humanists, Communists, and Nazis all advocate gun control, abortion, centralized government, control of education, socialism, and evolution. Margaret Sanger, the founder of planned parenthood, held views on eugenics virtually identical to those held by Hitler. B.F. Skinner, one of the founders of modern psychology, wrote a book, “Beyond Freedom and Dignity” advocating a Nazi style dictatorship under the guidance of psychologists. Regulatory agencies were invented by Mussolini, and were quickly copied by American secularists, even though our Constitution does not allow for them. The Nazis may have killed six million, but the humanists have killed over fifty million babies in America alone, and the Communists have killed millions more.
When it comes to social issues the advocates of naturalism simply take the opposite position that the Bible takes. The Bible condemns homosexuality, so they are for it. The Bible endorses capital punishment, so they are against it. The Bible teaches that God designed men and women for different roles, so they deny that there should be any difference in roles. Etc. Since the Biblical roles of men and women were designed to protect women, while getting men to shoulder the responsibility for protecting their family, providing for their family, and providing spiritual leadership in the home, they try to portray any difference in roles as oppression. [The absurdity of that last claim can be see by simply looking at what the roles traditionally entailed. The men were expected to lift the heaviest loads, and do the most dangerous work. That is kindness, not oppression. The Biblical pattern for the relationship of man and wife is found in Christ’s love for His church, and His willingness to sacrifice Himself for it.]
Actually there is no such thing as a Communist government. Communism is not a form of government, it is a secular religion that uses dictatorship to advance its naturalistic beliefs. And while the secularists in this country may be more subtle than the Communists, they are just as determined to force their secular religion on everyone. To that end they have redefined separation of church and state to mean something totally different from what Martin Luther, or early Baptists, meant by it. Under the guise of separation of church and state, they use the power of government to force Christians out of the public arena, and to exclude Christian values and every expression of Christian belief from the halls of government. As a result, Christians have been reduced to second class citizens who are not allowed express their beliefs in the political arena. However, if we really had separation of church and state in this country, a Christian congressman could stand up in congress and say, “I am introducing this bill to stop abortion, because I believe that it is murder.” And everyone would say, “He has just as much right to his opinion as anyone else, put it to a vote.” As it is, Christians are not allowed an equal voice in government, and if they advocate legislation, they must come up with secular arguments to justify it.
Furthermore, Christians are forced to support institutions designed to advance the secular religion, institutions that promote doctrines totally at variance with their religious beliefs. What is that other than a secular establishment of religion? Forcing Christians to finance schools and universities that teach doctrines contrary to their religious beliefs is no different than forcing them to finance a state church that teaches doctrines contrary to what they believe.
Naturalism, by whatever name you call it (secularism, Communism, Nazism, humanism, etc.) is a religion. And because it is a religion, it has no right to be exalted over Christian beliefs in the halls of government. And those who advocate it know perfectly well that it is a religion as the following quote reveals.
“I am convinced that the battle for humankind's future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new faith: a religion of humanity that recognizes and respects the spark of what theologians call divinity in every human being. They will be ministers of another sort utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey humanist values in whatever subject they teach – Pre school day care or large state university.” (Quoted from A RELIGION FOR A NEW AGE, by John Durphy, HUMANIST MAGAZINE, Jan.-Feb. 1983)