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 not 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.