A Study By
Gary Ray Branscome

 Paul warned Timothy to, "keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called." (1 Timothy 6:20).

    True science is supposed to consist of what we know, not conjecture. In fact, the word “science” is simply the Latin word for knowledge. However, the kind of knowledge that science deals with has to do with things that can be observed and repeated. That does not mean that other facts are not true. It simply means that they are beyond the limits of scientific inquiry. For example: If you saw an angel, you might know that you really saw one, but no one else would know. While some might take your word for it, others would think that you were deluded or are dishonest. Nevertheless, because they would not be able to repeat and test your experience, that experience would be outside of the realm of science. Science would not be able to prove that you saw an angel, nor would it be able to prove that you did not.

    Therefore, because the Bible deals with history, and history consists of events that cannot be repeated, much of what the Bible says is beyond the limits of scientific inquiry. That does not make what the Bible says any less true! That just means that we cannot observe or repeat the things that happened. At the same time, the fact that men have been trying for centuries to prove the Bible false, without succeeding, is in itself a powerful testimony to the truth of Scripture. While some of them have interpreted one passage to contradict another, because the passages in question could just as well have been interpreted to agree, they proved nothing. Others have tried to interpret certain facts in a way that would make them appear contradict the Bible. However, facts can be interpreted to support just about any idea, especially if one picks out some facts while ignoring others, but that is not science.

    True science begins with repeatable observation, and then offers a testable hypothesis as to the reason behind what has been observed. We then test that hypothesis by using it to predict the outcome of an experiment. If the outcome of the experiment is predicted accurately, more experiments are sought. If it is not predicted accurately, the hypothesis is discarded. After being used to accurately predict the outcome of several experiments, a hypothesis it regarded as a theory, and a theory that has stood the test of time (as well as many experiments) is regarded as a law.


    Since the evolution of one species into another has never been observed, the claim that it has happened is conjecture, not science. Furthermore, because Darwinian evolution assumes that life originally came from nonliving matter, while actual scientific experimentation has consistently demonstrated that life comes only from preexisting life, Darwin’s conjecture flies in the face of true science.  

    At the time Darwin wrote his book many scientists thought that microorganisms could spring into existence without the benefit of progenitors [that idea is known as spontaneous generation]. However, because scientists were divided on the issue, the French Academy of Sciences sponsored a contest for the best experiment either proving or disproving spontaneous generation. The winning experiment, devised by Louis Pasteur, consisted of heating meat broth in a flask that had a long curved neck. Because airborne microorganisms attached themselves to the neck of the flask before reaching the broth, no bacteria grew in the broth as long as the flasks remained upright. However, once the flasks were tilted, allowing the broth to reach any bacteria stuck inside the curved neck, the broth quickly became cloudy, thus proving that microorganisms did not just spring into existence but were transported by the air. A few years later, a dust free box designed by John Tyndall further confirmed these findings. As a result, the rule that life comes only from preexisting life has become a firmly established principle of science. However, while all scientists now agree that life in our world does not come from non-life, evolutionists sidestep the evidence by claiming that it must have happened. In other words, they ignore the evidence while continuing to believe that once upon a time a teeny weeny bit of matter did come to life and that all living things have evolved from it. That is mythology not science.

    In the name of science it is also dogmatically asserted that, given enough time, one life form may change into a completely different life form. Nevertheless, as with spontaneous generation, no one has ever seen it happen. Furthermore, genetic research has demonstrated that the amount of change any organism may experience is limited. In short, because the changes that do take place result from a loss of genetic information, not a gain, the more an organism changes, the less it is able to change. For example: Suppose I started with a multi colored dog and, by selective breeding, came up with a breed that was all black. Even though that breed would be different from the one I started with, the change would consist of losing genetic information, not gaining, for the other colors would be lost. That is why breeders talk about “breeding out” unwanted characteristics. There is absolutely no scientific evidence that any organism has ever gained genetic information by changing.

    Furthermore, while many species have become extinct, there is no record of any new one ever coming into existence. Therefore, the fact that so many people believe the opposite is true is a sad commentary on our intellectual community. Unfortunately the myth of evolution has spun off a whole family of pseudo-sciences (Luke 1:51, 1Corinthians 3:19).


    The idea that religion has evolved through several stages; beginning with animism, and gradually developing first into polytheism and then into monotheism, is but one example of a widely accepted pseudo-scientific myth. That myth was originally palmed off on the “intellectual” community by a man named Edward Tylor (1871). Tylor “theorized” that primitive men first assumed that they had a spirit (because of dreams), then assumed that other things had spirits as well, then assumed that some spirits had great power and must be appeased (Polytheism), and finally assumed that one spirit must be supreme (monotheism). The trouble with that “theory” is that it does not square with the facts. It is simply a pipe dream conjured up by a lazy scholar in an ivory tower. However, while you might think that the intellectual community would have laughed Tylor out of town, many notable scholars gave him their wholehearted support. Moreover, those who bought into his myth were quick to reject and ridicule the Biblical record of the origin of religion. Nevertheless, one of Tylor's students, Andrew Lang, began to research what primitive peoples actually believed, and once he began to look at the facts, it soon become obvious that Tylor was wrong. Contrary to Tylor's theory, the most primitive people were usually monotheistic. As culture developed, this monotheism usually degraded into pantheism and then into polytheism. Did the intellectual community accept Lang's finding? Not on your life! Lang was virtually ostracized by his fellow scholars, and died in 1912. Nonetheless, Wilhelm Schmidt carried on his research, and by 1955, after he accumulated more than 4,000 pages of evidence in 23 large volumes, the field of anthropology finally rejected Tylor's myth. Unfortunately, by that time Tylor’s views had been incorporated into other fields of study, and in those fields (such as sociology), continue to be taught to this very day. (For a detailed account see, “Eternity In Their Hearts” by Dan Richardson.)

    Since honest research has shown such myths as “Tylorism” and “spontaneous generation” to be false, clergymen who continue to hold those beliefs do so in opposition to both the Bible and science. In fact, all forms of “theistic-evolution” are contrary to both the Bible and science. The idea that Moses was really trying to describe Darwinian Evolution when he penned the first chapters of Genesis is anti-intellectual, to say the least. In that same vein, the myth known as JEDP, rejects all of the historical evidence as to the authorship of the first five books of the Bible, while replacing the facts with a fantasy that has no basis in reality. Those who hold that view claim that an unknown editor combined the writings of two unknown religions to create the first five books of the Bible, yet there is not one scrap of historical evidence to support any of it. Nevertheless, the mythmakers wax eloquent in their description of how this all happened, totally oblivious to the fact that their entire scenario is nothing more than wild-eyed conjecture.

    Far from being scientific, such myths belong in the same class as belief in a lucky rabbit's foot or in a St. Christopher medal. In fact, I had one professor who had rejected Christianity, but, in his own words, continued to wear a St. Christopher medal “ just in case”. Such blind superstition is a sad commentary on our so called, “intellectual community.”


    One man wrote a book aimed at convincing people that (Christ's) corpse was buried in a shallow grave and eaten by dogs, yet such a claim is shear madness, for it flies in the face of all evidence. The author was not there, and he does not know anyone who was. Like a fool, he is simply making up something and then trying to make-believe it happened. Normally we regard such people as insane. However, when they have a degree behind their name, our decadent academic community exalts their ravings as highest truth. [The ancient Jews did even bury their dead in graves, they used tombs.]

    Some years ago, a woman wrote a book denying that Jesus was born of a virgin. Like the man mentioned in the previous paragraph, she had no evidence. She never talked to Mary, and she knows nothing about Mary’s private life. She is just one more person who cannot distinguish between fantasy and fact.

    Some have rejected what the Bible says about Christ’s birth, because they believe that science has proven that a “virgin birth” is impossible. However, science has proven no such thing! At most, science can only prove that a virgin birth will never happen naturally. The so called “laws” of nature can no more prevent God from causing a virgin to conceive and bear a child, than they can prevent me from moving a rock that would never move by itself. In other words, what could or could not happen naturally, has nothing to do with what a living being is able to bring to pass.

    A few years ago, a woman who had taken nude photos of her children had those photos exhibited as “art” at a local university. If that woman had not had a degree behind her name she would have been accused of child abuse, yet our decadent academic community praised her work.


    Since the truth will never contradict itself, true science will never contradict the Bible. Therefore, if you have been disturbed by pseudoscientific attacks on your faith, rest assured that the facts are on our side. Don’t take my word for it! You need only to look at the evidence, for those who oppose the Word of God make up “facts” while ignoring the evidence.