SCIENCE FALSELY SO-CALLED 

Evolutionist: "Right now, it's perhaps the best scientific model for explaining the origin of life on Earth. Someday it could be completely disproved, though it's likely it will gradually change to reflect new discoveries rather than suddenly be refuted." (underlining added)

Bible Believer: The Holy Bible has already stood the test of time in not having to "change to reflect new discoveries". The word of God is still so far ahead of "science falsely so-called", that "science" will never catch up!

Evolutionist: "From science's standpoint, creationism is not at all a good theory."

Bible Believer: "From a scientific standpoint, evolution is not at all a good theory! The FACT of creation still stands as TRUE science. After all: "Here we are"!

Okay, Let's look at some background info:

"SCIENCE" is supposed to be a body of knowledge that has been proved to be so in actual reality. Science is a word which is kin to knowledge, but on a higher level. Evolution has to do more with philosophy than science, in that, evolution is a "theory" that has no proof in fact or in true knowledge. True knowledge can be "good" and/or "evil".

KNOWLEDGE, evidently then, is the bare collection of facts which a man has at his disposal. It is the sum total of what a man knows to be so or not to be so. A computer/machine has "knowledge" (DATA. :)

WISDOM is the ability to use knowledge. Since the Bible says "the fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom"; it is apparent that there are two kinds of wisdom.

UNDERSTANDING, (in the Bible), indicates that wisdom and knowledge alone are not enough, but a man must understand the relationship of his knowledge and his wisdom to God and God's will. This is USING wisdom to distinguish between good and evil, instead of using "wisdom" to look for an alibi to continue to do evil.

The wisest ordinary man (Solomon) in the Bible prayed for "wisdom" and he got it (1Kings 3:6-9), but it brought him sorrow (Ecc.1:18), made a pessimist out of him (Ecc.2:16 & 7:1-6), and throughout he confesses that what knowledge and wisdom he had, he got from natural reasoning after observing (and experimenting with) the natural revelation (Ecc.1:3; 1:9; and 6:12).

Did you ever dream you were asleep when you were awake and then went to sleep thinking that you were dreaming? (We need something more certain than thoughts like that! :)

There are three philosophical attitudes about matters of how we obtain knowledge. Philosophers call this "epistemology"--

1. Agnosticism: "A thing may be so or not so, I am not qualified to say." (An agnostic doesn't even know that he's an ignoramus! :)

2. Skepticism: "A thing may be so, but I really doubt it, or if you were to ask, I would say 'no', there is no way you can know for certain." (NO-faith/belief, i.e. doubting Thomas :)

3. Affirmation: "There are certain things you CAN know for certain and have no doubts about!" (Absolutism - There really is TRUTH! :)

Criteria for truth

And now the question pops up that if you can know something for certain, by what means do you arrive at this certainty or knowledge? Philosophers call this next stage "criteria for truth". This has to do with the sources of our information, and the means by which we arrive at truth:

1. INTUITION: You have a "feeling" or a "hunch" that a thing is true and it turns out that way. (As Galileo, Columbus, Edison, etc.)

2. EXPERIENCE or experiments: You prove the thing to be true by working at it and demonstrating it till it is "observable". All inventors use this method, and no invention "evolves" anymore than anything does. Anything that progresses is worked on or developed or grows. Evolution has no meaning directly or indirectly in any science, nor is it related practically or theoretically to anything any man ever discovered about any "process".

3. REASON: A man sits down and "reasons" the thing out. Mathematics and computers have their "heyday" in this field. They do fine 'till they encounter something unreasonable, such as: man and history. (The only thing men learn from history is that they never learn! :)

4. CUSTOM or TRADITION: This is the "catholic" way of obtaining knowledge. i.e. "When in Rome, do as the Romans do..."

5. AUTHORITY: This is accepting a thing to be true because some powerful voice says that it is so. This is the "Daddy said so, so it's true". The result of this "blind" accepting is a child in the "federal school system" who says: "I exercised my OWN individual judgment in the matter and after a careful and completely objective analysis of all the FACTS involved I came to the same conclusions as the immoral, left-wing socialists who taught me!"

6. GUESSWORK: This is somewhat kin to instinct as a means of obtaining knowledge. (The thinking is that by "doing what comes naturally", you will find the answer to the problem.)

7. TIME: This is kin to experience and simply means, "Since we have always done it and it worked, we'll keep on doing IT." (pragmatism)

8. MAJORITY RULE: This is the acceptance of a thing on the basis of authority (#5), but it is group authority, not of an individual.

9. REVELATION: This is knowing a thing by grasping the reality of it when it is revealed to the recipient. The "enlightenment" that comes from sudden possession of "samadhi" and "nirvana" (Buddha), is never a reasoned process. It might be called a "revelation" or "break-through" or the classical "I saw the LITE"...

To summarize "criteria for truth": You can discover pragmatically or experimentally that Buddhism (false revelation), catholicism (faked authority and tradition), intuition and instinct, reason and logic, plus guesswork and experience, produce nothing permanent and nothing stable, and you can find yourself no closer to absolute truth than a monkey.

Criteria for error

The third area of epistomology ("How do we obtain truth") is called: "THE CRITERIA OF ERROR." This is the philosophy of "By what ways are men mis-led so they fail to apprehend/understand the truth?"--

1. AMBIGUITY: A statement that can mean two different things at the same time. For instance, a man in a restaurant asks: "Do you serve CRABS?" and the waiter answers: "Yes sir, we serve anybody".

2. FIGURE OF SPEECH: The speaker/writer doesn't mean what he is saying literally. (The Bible uses about forty different figures of speech, because they are a very common thing in the ordinary, everyday conversations of men. And they are so common that the Bible would fail to do reality justice, if it did not use them! :)

3. FEELINGS: Fickle Feelings are the most unreliable reports of "facts" that we have. Feelings can report fear where there is no fear. Feelings can convict of sin where no sin is being committed; (as in the case of some catholics who are afraid to attend a Baptist church, but are not afraid of the sin of gambling at "Bingo!" :)

4. PROPAGANDA: With the vast increase in communications and transportation, there can be 10,000 problems arising now, that the 19th century did not have. This causes all countries and ethnic groups (plus political and religious groups) to develop means of self-defense against "bad press" or "bad world image." To do this, 40,000 news media people are engaged 24-hours a day on this globe turning out one-sided, biased, false material that will make their own particular group "look good".

5. ABSTRACTION: This briefly means, taking a text out of a context. It is a common practice in legal cases and the Biblical cases are without number.

6. AMPHIBOLOGY: (Lotta fancy words, huh?! :) Examples: "I'm engaged to a man with a wooden leg; should I break IT off?" (Break off what? the engagement or the "leg"? Tricky stuff! :) Here's a double example (the same statement with different emphasis of punctuation:) "Woman, without her man, is a beast", or: "Woman, without her, man is a beast". In the 1st case, the woman is a beast. In the 2nd, men are "beasts." (as in Eccl.3:18p :)

7. PERVERSION: This seems to be one of the most common criteria for falsehood these days and it simply means that the philosophers and "scientists" (so-called), with the aid of the "scholars" and the news media, have conspired to use WORDS that do not mean what they mean in the dictionary! Example: Hitler's "shower room" (gas chamber), or "resettlement" (extermination). The word "integration" was adopted as a substitute for "race-mixing". The word "sex" is used instead of a lot of other words such as: "Fornication", "Incest", "Beastiality", and etc. (And who can figure out what "meaningful" means? :)

At any rate, all of the preceding falls under the category of what the philosophers call "epistomology" or How to obtain knowledge. (Philosophers can sure make a hard thing out of a simple question! :)

Metaphysics

METAPHYSICS is the second major division of philosophy after "epistomology". Metaphysics deals with the universe and the earth, the nature of physical reality and perception of physical realities. (Metaphysics is a fancy-pants way of saying: "What is REAL?"

Like epistomology, metaphysics also has three "attitudes" and that, when reality approaches the subject of absolute truth:

1. Truth is absolute. [The Bible]
2. Truth is subjective and therefore relative. [Manipulated "truths"]
3. Truth is unattainable [agnosticism (Forever ignorant! :) ]

Metaphysics will involve discussions on:

1. Cosmology - the order and structure of things
2. Causality - the source and cause of things
3. Ontogeny - the existence of things and why they exist
4. Man and God - (theism, agnosticism, pantheism, polytheism,etc.)
5. "number" -
    a. Monism - single unity (Buddha and Brahminism)
    b. Duality - (the Bible)
    c. Pluralism - (this is the one big happy family approach where
        murderers, perverts, thieves, and everyone, are "brothers")

Axiology

AXIOLOGY is the third major division of philosophy. After saying, What it is, and Why it is, and Where it came from, the inevitable question enters: What are you going to do about it? (That's axiology)

A man's beliefs are bound to affect his actions, whether his beliefs come from custom, tradition, experience, ambiguity, the news media, revelation, authority, intuition, abstraction or propaganda.

The early evolutionists (Smith, Darwin, Haekel, Huxley, Paley, etc.) were little more than philosophers. They philosophized on what they found and called their philosophies scientific "facts". The illusion that the passage of time (especially great passages of time) changes things radically is a delusion of the most dangerous kind. Time does absolutely nothing to change basic truths after they have been tried and tested more than 40 million times on 5 continents through 5998 years. The truths laid down in "Job" and "Proverbs" are just as good and just as fixed and absolute now, as they were the day they were written.

"God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise..."

"Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ."

(Are we having fun yet? :)

Well, there you have philosophy in a "nut-shell". And you can see why Science ceases to be true science when philosophy colors the picture. Those of you who have seen or heard many of my messages may have noticed my frequent quoting of a certain phrase from the Bible: Let God be true, but every man a liar. Whether or not you believe the first part of that phrase ("God") to be true, we have to acknowledge none of us can claim to always tell the truth. Therefore we all need to take heed to this: "Be not deceived."

SCIENCE is supposed to be a body of knowledge that has been proved to be true by actual demonstration. The word "science" appears only twice in the Bible. Once in the Old, and once in the New Testament:

"And the king spake unto Ashpenaz the master of his eunuchs, that he should bring certain of the children of Israel, and of the king's seed, and of the princes; Children in whom was no blemish, but well favoured, and skilful in all wisdom, and cunning in knowledge, and understanding science, and such as had ability in them to stand in the king's palace, and whom they might teach the learning and the tongue of the Chaldeans." --Daniel 1:3,4

"O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen." --1Timothy 6:20,21

In the first passage (Dan.1:3,4) are some of the words which I gave definitions for previously: Knowledge, Wisdom, Understanding and Science. Observe also the words: Skilful and Cunning.

Here are the associations:
1. Skilful - Wisdom
2. Cunning - Knowledge
3. Understanding - Science

We can assume that the usage of "science" in Daniel is in a good sense, and that the usage of "science" in 1st Timothy is in a bad, or non-good (i.e. evil) sense.

Let's get to the central issue here. Face it: The Universe is here! For, "Here we are"! (Job 38:35p) The basic problem is how did it get here? (The philosopher would call this "casuality" and put it into a bracket called "cosmology" - which would fall under "metaphysics"). But forget the fancy (20-dollar) words. Let's just call it: What happened? and How did it happen?

Here we see trees, oceans, the sun, the moon, planets, stars, clouds, wind, critters, plants, rocks, mountains and people. How did they get here? It is that simple. Since Evolution cannot demonstrate its own thesis (that it all came about accidently by a "fortuitous concurrence" of atoms), we shall have to put on our thinking caps and figure it out rationally, going by what we can OBSERVE and by what we can demonstrate. (That is, if we are true "scientists"! :)

Here are the FOUR possibilities:

2. "It has not always been here." (This is the "there was a time when nothing was here and then accidently, through a "big bang" or a dust cloud, it was 'created' naturally out of nothing.)

3. "It is not really here!" (This is the "you just think it is here" mentality. That is, "I think, therefore I thank my thunk-ness! :)

4. "It was created supernaturally and miraculously by a superior intelligence that is self-existing." (This is the view of Jesus Christ, Moses, David and Paul. Most people call that possibility by the heading of: Creationism)

There are no other possibilities. Reality as you know it has come into being by ONE of the above four possibilities. There doesn't live on this planet any evolutionist who has concocted one theory on "origins", beyond the four possibilities listed above. But, you can't find those four listed in any public school textbook. The reason for this is that the physical "scientists", led by the naturalistic, materialistic philosophers, have already demonstrated, both empirically and phenomenally, that three of the theories above are contrary to the real facts of science!

The first two laws of thermodynamics were stated in Nehemiah 9:6 and Isaiah 51:6, before Copernicus or Newton knew the difference between gravity and gravy.

"Thou, even thou, art LORD alone; thou hast made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth, and all things that are therein, the seas, and all that is therein, and thou preservest them all; and the host of heaven worshippeth thee." (Neh.9:6)

"Lift up your eyes to the heavens and look upon the earth beneath: for the heavens shall vanish away like smoke, and the earth shall wax old like a garment, and they that dwell therein shall die in like manner: but my salvation shall be for ever, and my righteousness shall not be abolished." (Isa.51:6)

Law number 1 indicates that neither energy nor matter can be created or destroyed; they can only be altered or transformed. In plainer terms, you cannot create using something and then claim that the "something" you used was nothing. This "law" which can be proved in any laboratory on the face of the planet, does away with the theory of origins in theory number 2 listed previously. The universe that accidently "big-banged" out of nothing is non-scientific.

Law number 2 indicates that There is always "entropy" in a closed system. (Murphy's law: "Everything Runs Down"!) For instance: All the present observable facts of material nature which can be seen show no processes of creation OR evolution of any kind. They demonstrate rather, conservation, dissipation, disintegration, decay, and degeneration: Not evolution, devolution!

Law number 2, which can be proved by experimentation in any laboratory on the face of the planet, eliminates Theory number 1 which was previously stated. If the universe were "eternal", and had "always been here", then it would have turned to a colorless, tasteless, odorless, formless, shapeless gray mush at least 900,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 years ago (give or take a few "thousands of millions"! :)

The demonstrable laws of thermo-dynamics not only prove that theories 1 and 2 are nonscientific jokes, but the demonstrable laws of biogenetics add their weight. Those laws indicate that "life comes from life"! Every living organism came from a living organism, and NO scientist living or dead has ever demonstrated that a living thing could come from a dead thing.

Since matter and energy does not appear to be created now, and life does not appear to come from the inanimate now, and an "increased complexity in organisms" is obviously not taking place now, the whole structure of evolution falls to the ground; for the prideful boast of every deceived person who took the theory to be rational was: the present reveals the past; or by studying the processes going on in nature now, we know what took place then.

Now, having eliminated their own "faith" in evolution by empirical data, the "scientists" (so-called) are faced with the two remaining theories. In plainer words, God has given them the "options" of believing (4) Genesis 1:1; or of (3) losing their minds!

A man would have to deny reality to take theory No.3. He would have to retire into that dark realm of abnormal psychiatry where his senses will not report what is going on and his mind cannot assimilate what his senses experience. He becomes psychotic, and ends up saying that Black is the same as White, or that Males are equal with Females, or perhaps that all faiths are the same, or that prayer can bring "peace on earth", or that changing the economic system would solve all of society's problems... (or other LUNACY! :)

A man MUST reject theory number 3 as nonscientific, otherwise he will have to cease conducting experiments of any kind, for his experiments only "prove themselves" to his physical senses, and if his senses are illusion, and his materials are illusion, then his conclusion is a delusion. It can prove nothing and solve nothing. (Murphy's law: Never go to bed with anyone crazier than yourself! :)

So, what do the philosopher/scientists do with the fourth theory? Well, they cancel the fourth theory of origins by pretending that it is "religious" and not "scientific", so it has no "relevancy".

Evolutionist: "[Creationism] relies on the assumption that God deliberately made everything in the Universe (except the Bible) indicate that the Universe was billions of years old. While this is certainly possible, since God can do anything he wants, the question is why would He do that? What is the probability that He would do that instead of telling us the truth? Creationism is backed only by the Bible."

Bible Believer: He DID tell you the truth: (How do you think GOD views your calling him a LIAR? :) "In the beginning GOD....." That is, before anything else, there is GOD! "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." Creationism is backed by the whole creation!

"THE heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge. There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard. There line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun. Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race. His going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it: and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof. The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple. The statutes of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes. The fear of the LORD is clean, enduring for ever: the judgments of the LORD are true and righteous altogether." (Psalm 19:1-9)

Remember that Jesus is the Lord, and that life comes from Life, as he said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life"! ("Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved, and thy house." :)

But yet there are some of whom it is said, that "because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause GOD shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be d-a-m-n-e-d who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness."

My heart truly hopes that such will not be the case with thee. The word of faith says, That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved! (What are you waiting for? :)

The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with us all. Amen. --Richard