by Dennis Edwards:
Very few people today realize that modern science is based on naturalistic assumptions. Modern science is based on the philosophy or belief system of naturalism. Naturalism is the belief or philosophy which states the following:
1. Only the natural exists. There is no metaphysical or supernatural.
2. Everything can be explained as a result of random natural causes.
The Merriam-Webster on-line dictionary states it in a similar way: “a theory denying that an event or object has a supernatural significance; specifically: the doctrine that scientific laws are adequate to account for all phenomena.”[1]These are the foundation stones upon which naturalism is built and of which the General Theory of Evolution is the outgrowth.
In the past science was defined as knowledge, or the search for knowledge or the search for the truth of the how and the why of nature and the physical world around us. Using the search for knowledge and truth as their definition of science, scientist of the past did not separate their belief in God from their science. In fact, their science was an outgrowth of their belief in God.
If there was a rational God who created a rational world then, scientists reasoned, they could search and find out the rationale that God used to uphold His creation. Like Kepler said, “We were merely thinking God’s thoughts after Him.”[2] Because scientists believed in a rational creator, they searched for the rationale behind the creation. Their belief in a Divine Creator did not deter their scientific investigation, but rather justified and enhanced their scientific inquiry. Indeed, their scientific inquiry was a result of their belief system and their belief system justified scientific inquiry and predicted the results: scientific discoveries of the laws of nature, physics, chemistry etc. Kepler went on to say, “I had the intention of becoming a theologian… but now I see how God is, by my endeavors, also glorified in astronomy, for ‘the heavens declare the glory of God.’”[3]
Today we see how the definition of science has shifted in favor of the naturalistic interpretation of life. The Merriam-Webster on-line dictionary defines science as “a: knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through the scientific method. b: such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena.”[4]
But how can we examine the events of life’s origins through the scientific method? We cannot to go back in time and watch the beginning events and put them through experimentation. Rather, we speculate about the past and do our science in the present, where it only can be done. We then extrapolate backwards in time and see if our speculation matches the data or evidence from the past, which we have here in the present. Both scientists who believe in creation and those who believe in evolution use speculation about past events in their science. Some scientists prefer to name such speculative science as historical or origins science. It is philosophical in nature because it starts with philosophical assumptions which then affect the interpretation of the data or evidence.
However, in a purely naturalistic world, why should we expect that there be any laws of nature, if everything is a result of random, non-caused processes as evolutionist claim? C.S. Lewis, the famous author and atheist turned Christian, put forth the following question. “If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents - the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else's. But if their thoughts - i.e., Materialism and Astronomy - are mere accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the other accidents. It's like expecting the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milk-jug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset.”[5] In other words, naturalism does not make sense. It doesn´t give us the deep answers that we seek for. Nevertheless, it appeals to man’s baser instincts and therefore it took hold on the hearts and minds of men wanting to be free from the moral constraints of formalized religion and a God of retribution.
Throughout history we see reactions against the moral constraints placed upon society by religious institutions. The Reformation and the political revolutions that followed were an outgrowth of the political, social and moral restrictions placed on European man by the Catholic Church during the Dark Ages and its Inquisition. As a result of the new Protestantism, another set of moral restrictions fell upon the shoulders of man. Cromwell in the 17th century had even tried to change laws in accordance to Biblical principles. The Swiss had also tried their hand at Protestant political and social rule under John Calvin and others in the mid-1500’s.
By the end of the 18th and the beginning of the 19th century, learned men wishing to free themselves from the shackles of religiosity, began to oppose Biblical interpretations of nature. The opposition to the Bible was an outgrowth of the Age of Reason or Enlightenment, as opposed to the previous ages where men accepted things by faith, because that is what the Church had taught. Therefore, it was before and during the political and social upheavals of the 18th century, the French and American Revolutions, when enlighten thinkers began to promote naturalism, in both science and theology.
Thomas Paine’s booklet the Age of Reason was published in 1794. In it he laid out his personal creed which was available to the elite of that day and was influential in France, England and the USA. On page fifty of the booklet he states the following:
I believe in one God, and no more; and I hope for happiness beyond this life.
I believe in the equality of man; and I believe that religious duties consist in doing justice, loving mercy, and endeavoring to make our fellow-creatures happy.
But, lest it should be supposed that I believe many other things in addition to these, I shall, in the progress of this work, declare the things I do not believe, and my reasons for not believing them.
I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish Church, by the Roman Church, by the Greek Church, by the Turkish Church,(He mentions the Turkish Church because this was during the period of the Ottoman Empire.) by the Protestant Church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church.
All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.
I do not mean by this declaration to condemn those who believe otherwise; they have the same right to their belief as I have to mine. But it is necessary to the happiness of man that he be mentally faithful to himself. Infidelity does not consist in believing, or in disbelieving; it consists in professing to believe what he does not believe.[6]
We can see that by the late 1700’s and early 1800’s naturalism made headway in the scientific and theological or intellectual community. Scotland’s James Hutton had published his book The Theory of the Earth in 1788 which promoted uniformitarianism, the belief that only natural processes happening in the present could be used to explain the world around us and its past history. Hutton’s mantra was “the present is the key to the past.” Later, Charles Lyell’s Principles of Geology published in 1830 built on Hutton’s ideas and propagated his naturalistic interpretations as the correct way to do science and interpret the world around us. Lyell’s goal was to get Moses out of science, and he greatly succeeded. His geological tome was the most important scientific geological work of the first half of the 19th century. Hutton and Lyell’s ideological opinions had affected their scientific beliefs, observations and conclusions and the society as a whole.
Before long the idea that all of life and natural occurrences could be explained by unguided natural forces became the accepted scientific and theological doctrine. No longer was there need to solicit the supernatural for explanations. Naturalistic theology began to dominate Biblical interpretations of past events. By 1855, four years before Charles Darwin published the Origins of the Species, we see Charles Spurgeon, the famous British Baptist evangelist admitting his acceptance of naturalistic assumptions and millions of years. He said, “Can any man tell me when the beginning was? Years ago we thought the beginning of the world was when Adam came upon it. But we have discovered that thousands of years before that God was preparing chaotic matter to make it a fit abode for man, putting races of creatures upon it, who might die and leave behind the marks of his handiwork and marvelous skill, before he tried his hand on man.”[7]
It was the Scottish theologian Thomas Chalmers, in the 1830’s, who first popularized the gap theory mainly for the purpose of accommodating the great ages demanded by uniformitarian geologists like Hutton.[8] Hutton’s natural geology opposed the tradition Flood geology. Chalmers’ new theology was called natural theology and placed the millions of years demanded by the uniformitarian view between Genesis verses 1 and 2, contrary to the Bible–based Flood geology of the past and the traditional literal interpretation of Genesis as just a 6-day creation where no millions of years were required.[9]
Gap creationism became increasingly attractive because it allowed religious geologists (who composed the majority of the geological community at the time) to reconcile their faith in the Bible with the new authority of science. According to the doctrine of natural theology, science was in this period considered a second revelation, God's word in nature as well as in Scripture, so the two could not contradict each other.[10] Whereas in the past, scripture had been before science, now science came before scripture. Science became the ultimate authority over the Bible.
Gap creationist Thomas Chalmers was also “a professor at the University of Edinburgh, and founder of the Free Church of Scotland. His Bridgewater Treatise, in the series On the Power, Wisdom and Goodness of God as Manifested in the Adaptation of External Nature to the Moral and Intellectual Constitution of Man, appeared in two volumes in 1833 and went through 6 editions. These books effectively represent an encyclopedia of pre-evolutionary natural history, commissioned and published whilst Charles Darwin was on board The Beagle. In the area of natural theology and the Christian evidences Chalmers advocated the method of reconciling the Mosaic narrative with the indefinite antiquity of the globe.”[11] So we see a large part of the intellectual and religious society in Britain prior to Darwin had already capitulated to accepting the millions of years necessary for evolution.
In 1981 the atheistic evolutionist Derek Ager commented on the pre-evolution period of history when he wrote, “My excuse for this lengthy and amateur digression into history is that I have been trying to show how I think geology got into the hands of the theoreticians (Hutton, Lyell and Chalmers amongst others) who were conditioned by social and political history of their day more than by observations in the field…” “In other words, we have allowed ourselves to be brain-washed into avoiding any interpretation of the past that involves extreme and what might be termed ‘castastrophic’ processes!” [12]
Dr. James Shea, editor of the Journal of Geological Education, wrote in 1982: “Furthermore, much of Lyell’s uniformitarianism, specifically his ideas on identity of ancient and modern cause, gradualism, and constancy of rate, has been explicitly refuted by the definitive modern sources as well as by an overwhelming preponderance of evidence that, as substantive theories, his ideas on these matters were simply wrong.”[13]
Evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould (1941-2002) when writing about the Great Scablands debate, an argument of whether or not an ancient flood had caused the Scabland deposits, said something similar. “The ‘establishment,’ as represented by the United States Geological Society (a modern day scientific organization), closed ranks in opposition (to a scientist’s interpretation of a geological feature, the Great Scablands, because it hinted of Biblical Flood Geology)…. Instead of testing Bretz’s flood (module) on its own merits, they rejected it on general principles… Bretz stood against a firm, highly restrictive dogma (belief system-uniformitarianism) that never had made any sense: the emperor had been naked for a century. Charles Lyell, the godfather of geological gradualism (uniformitarianism), had pulled a fast one in establishing the doctrine of imperceptible change (uniformitarianism).”[14]
Therefore, we see that it was not scientific dating methods that gave us the millions of years, not scientific observations in the field, but theoreticians who had rejected the traditional Biblical analysis of the geological column. The acceptance of millions of years came before any modern day scientific dating methods were developed and was not a result of observation in the field but was a doctrinal decision made before viewing and interpreting the strata.
The dating methods also came after the fact and were in a way similar to the experiment of early 17 century Flemish physician and chemist Dr. Jan Baptista von Helmont. Dr. von Helmont developed an experiment to justify the idea of spontaneous generation which Aristotle in the 4th century B.C. had embraced. In his classic experiment the Dr. describes proof that mice were spontaneously generated from dirty underwear and wheat over a period of two weeks.[15] The experiment verified Aristotle’s conclusion without really delving into the obvious problems of spontaneous generation. “Trying to prove what other scientists already believe is actually bad science. It leads to an artificial body of knowledge, which becomes self-supporting and circular in its proofs.”[16] It wasn’t until 1668, 28 years after von Helmont’s death that Dr. Francesco Redi, an Italian physician and scientist, proved spontaneous generation wrong with his cheesecloth over the rotting meat experiment. Later in 1859, the same year in which the Origins was published, “Louis Pasteur, the French chemist, began a series of experiments with the intention of ending the various opinions of his day regarding spontaneous generation. With his experiments, he refuted the theory of spontaneous generation”[17], though Neo-Darwinians have raised it back to life with their abiogenesis theory.
Today’s modern dating methods all too often appear like von Helmont’s experiment which was made only to justify an already believed dogma. The dating methods are not carefully calculated and analyzed for their possible faults. The evolutionary scenario of millions of years is believed to be true and therefore a confirmation of such is sought out. The dating methods are accepted because they confirm the already believed dates. The initial assumptions are not looked at critically and therefore bias results could and do occur as has been discovered by the recent RATE report amongst many others. See the following link: http://www.icr.org/article/fluctuations-show-radioisotope-decay/.[18] Richard Mauger writing about K-Ar dating method ages given to rocks stated, “In general, dates in the correct ballpark are assumed to be correct and are published, but those in disagreement with other data are seldom published, nor are the discrepancies fully explained.”[19]
A real scientist would be open to looking at the data and assumptions of differing scientist to test their theories in order to verify their validity and find out why such above discrepancies exist. Modern evolutionary scientists today often mock the creation scientists rather than carefully considering their work. Evolutionists will not accept the Biblical assumptions as true and therefore reject creation science outright. An objective scientist would not see the creation scientist’s assumptions as any different from an evolutionary scientist’s assumptions and would be willing to give them both due considerations. However, since evolutionary assumptions are of a religious nature and evolutionist’s religious beliefs are being threatened, the evolutionary scientist does not take lightly to giving creation science any due objectivity. As a result we end up with ideological prejudice and not real objective scientific thinking.
An interesting documentary on objective scientific thinking, ideological prejudice and academic freedom is Ben Stein’s Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, found on YouTube at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5EPymcWp-g. Dr. William Lane Craig’s comments about the film further pursue the ideas of naturalism and the ideological prejudices and lack of academic freedom in the American Academic Community: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kstf4qeDsMA. It is interesting that Dr. Craig notices how the atheist Richard Dawkins is willing to accept that there is design in nature. Dawkins goes on to say that the design we see may be a result of aliens “seeding” the first life forms on planet earth and not an act of God. He emphasizes that of course the alien life itself was a result of Darwinian or naturalistic processes. In other words, he is saying that “intelligent design” that we see in nature is not an indication of an intelligent God creator/designer, but the result of random causeless natural processes, naturalism. As a true atheist Dawkins holds steadily to his naturalistic assumptions necessary to negate God’s existence.
It was back in the beginning of the 19th century when Biblical interpretations began to be seen as unscientific. Naturalism became accepted as the philosophy of science and religion, as we have discussed above. Men began to reject traditional Biblical interpretations, although few men admitted that it was because of the restrictive moral implications forced on society by the religious institutions. However, from the time of the French Revolution there was a new awakening in man’s desire to be a free moral agent, following his own dictates rather than those imposed upon him by ancient institutions as we have seen in the writings of Thomas Paine. With the new catch phrases ‘liberty, equality and fraternity’ men wanted to be free from the laws of touch not, taste not, think not, etc. Religion was seen by many as a hindrance to intellectual progress and, therefore, political and scientific progress.
Naturalism was embraced because it eliminated God from scientific inquiry and at the same time freed man from the moral confines that religion demanded. If the world around us could be explained by purely naturalistic means, man would not need to invoke the help of the supernatural and could in a sense free himself from its moral restrictions. Man could be free to act and behave according to his own dictates and not to those of a Book written thousands of years before to an entirely different culture and people. These underlining reasons helped lead to the rejection of Biblical interpretations and were well present during the time of the American and French Revolution at the end of the 18th century.
Later in the 20th century, we see an interesting confession by Aldous Huxley, the grandson of Thomas Huxley. Thomas Huxley was called ‘Darwin’s Bulldog’ and was his close friend. He did much to help defend the evolutionary theory at its beginnings. He is also credited with winning the famous Evolution/Creation debate against abolitionist William Wilberforce. Huxley did more to defend evolution than Darwin himself and invented the word ‘agnostic’ to describe his own religious beliefs.[20] However, it is interesting to note that he was not totally convinced of Darwin’s mechanism for evolution, as neither was Charles Lyell, much to Darwin’s dismay.
In 1960, grandson Aldous Huxley, one of the most influential liberal writers of the 20th century and author of The Brave New World spoke honestly about his hidden sexual agenda. He said, "I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning, consequently assumed it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world (and this is what evolution ultimately teaches) is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics; he is also concerned to prove there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do (moral freedom is the goal, to be free from religion’s restrictive confines). For myself, as no doubt for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom."[21]
So here we see Aldous Huxley confessing that his rejection of a creator and his support of atheistic/naturalistic philosophy stemmed from his desire for sexual liberty. The Apostle Peter in prophetic words had said the following some 1900 years before: “Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,(sexual liberty) and saying, ‘Where is the promise of his coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.’ (Uniformitarianism teaches that the present natural processes are the same continuous processes that have acted in the past.) For thus they are willing ignorant of (or refuse to see) that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished.”[22] In other words, they are willingly ignorant of the creation act by God and the historical global catastrophic flood of Noah.
What has happened down through the centuries is that the false hypocritical religious systems have driven men from God. As men rejected God, they became proud in mind and their foolish hearts became darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they in fact became fools believing in the illogical and contradictory. They invented new religious myths, clothed in scientific jargon, which proposed to bring them freedom but in the end brought them into a new bondage. As Apostle Peter has said, “While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought into bondage.”[23] Being freed from the religious hypocrisy of the past, man has been forced into the heartless arms of naturalistic philosophy and has been brought into a new bondage to relative morality and life without meaning, purpose or goal.
Instead of man being made in God’s image, we have become descendants of creeping things, birds and four-footed beats, the Theory of Evolution. Saint Paul prophetically predicted the very same in his letter to the Romans. “Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful, but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four-footed beats and creeping things.”[24]
At this point, I would like to look at the speech of evolutionist Julian Huxley, Aldous’ older brother,“a zoologist and one of the scientific founders of the Neo-Darwinian synthesis, the modern version of Darwin’s theory. He was also the promoter of a naturalistic religion called evolutionary humanism, and the founding secretary general of UNESCO, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. In short, Julian Huxley was one of the most influential intellectuals of the mid-twentieth century, and 1959 (the 100 year anniversary of Darwin’s book) was the high-water mark of his influence. Here are some excerpts from Huxley’s remarks at the centennial:”[25]
“Future historians will perhaps take this Centennial Week as epitomizing an important critical period in the history of this earth of ours-the period when the process of evolution, in the person of inquiring man, began to be truly conscious of itself…. This is one of the first public occasions which it has been frankly faced that all aspects of reality are subject to evolution, from atoms and stars to fish and flowers, from fish and flowers to human societies and values-indeed, that all reality is a single process of evolution……In the evolutionary pattern of thought there is no longer either need or room for the supernatural. The earth was not created, it evolved. So did all the animals and plants that inhabit it, including our human selves, mind and soul as well as brain and body. So did religion.”[26]
Phillip Johnson makes the following comment in his book Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds in reference to the above quote: “In short, the triumph of Darwinism implied the death of God and set the stage for replacing biblical religion with a new faith based on evolutionary naturalism. That new faith would become the basis not just of science but also of government, law and morality. It would be the established religious philosophy of the modern world.”[27] Indeed, this is what has happened.
Most people today do not realize they have bought into naturalistic assumptions by accepting the Big Bang and the General Theory of Evolution. Naturalism is so strongly accepted into our society, we no longer reject its tenants conscientiously. Naturalistic assumptions have become the framework for our modern thinking and educational system. We do not realize that the scientific modules that we are taught as truths are those modules that assume naturalistic assumptions and steer clear of Biblical ones. These modules assume there is no metaphysical. They assume that past events can be explained by random natural forces happening today.
Let’s look at the Big Bang for a moment. Do we realize that the postulating of the theory of the Big Bang was done in a way to eliminate any assumptions that could appear to uphold a Biblical worldview? That is why when scientists talk about the expansion of the universe they make clear to state that the universe is not expanding from any one point. If it were expanding from a set point, that point could be given significant importance. The Biblical history of the creation week puts the earth in a position of importance in the universe. Modern scientists have formulated the Big Bang theory in a way to purposely avoid having any position in the universe more important than any other position in the universe.
When talking about the Big Bang module, internationally renowned Astrophysicist George F. R. Ellis has said, "People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations….For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center,(like the Biblical module) and you cannot disprove it based on observations….You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that.( He is saying he does not think it is wrong to exclude a module on philosophical grounds, because that is what he does when he excludes any element in the module that correlates to a Biblical module.) What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that."[28] But at least he confesses up to what he does.
An interesting alternative to the Big Bang theory is Dr. Russell Humphreys’ module. He uses the same mathematical equations and the same physics as the evolutionary scientist but starts with different assumptions, ones that are in line with the Biblical interpretation of creation rather than the naturalistic assumptions. It can be seen on the YouTube at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCK8y4RBeWI.
But are the naturalistic assumptions justified. We need to review the first tenant of the philosophy of naturalism.
1. Only the natural world exists. There is no metaphysical.
Is this a true statement? Does the metaphysical or supernatural exist? I believe most people in the world today, even after many years of evolutionary indoctrination will still say that the supernatural exists. I believe that most people reading this will agree that they believe in the supernatural to some extent. They may not have had a supernatural experience themselves, but they know someone who has or have heard of someone who has. The New Testament is a whole book written by men each of whom claimed to have had a supernatural experience. The New Age Movement and all the religions of the world are founded on the tenant that there is a supernatural. They have been founded by men who claimed to have experienced it and who try to relate their experience to others.
But, as a reaction against the false superstitions of the past and the religious hypocrisy and moral restrictions of the religious element placed upon society, modern man has changed the definition of science to mean only the natural processes by which we can explain the world around us. Modern day science has thereby eliminated God from the discussion and conned mankind into accepting its naturalistic philosophy without mankind even realizing it.
Mankind is left with Science as God. We even see in the New Age Movement the tendency to use scientific terminology when talking of the supernatural. They may use terms like the ‘universal life force,’ a kind of scientific spirituality. People are more open to accept a new belief system if it is scientifically robed. Mankind has faith in Science. However, in the end, mankind’s new faith, scientific naturalism, answers not his questions of meaning and purpose in life and the reason for death. He hungers for he knows not what, only knowing that his new found faith, though having granted him sexual license, has not filled that aching void within his heart. He is left filled with froth, but empty deep within. It may cause him to commit suicide, or become a terrorist or live a life of debauchery. Or, he may just conform to a meaningless existence while deep down within his heart aches and cries for answers. Will anyone hear his cry?
Few people realize a war is taking place. It is a spiritual war for the hearts and minds of men. In 1905 the document called the Protocols containing the plans for World Government was made public in a Russian publication. Members of the Illuminati, who believe that Lucifer is the true son of God and that Jesus is the counterfeit, have forged a plan for the eventual takeover of the planet. Henry Ford, the famed auto pioneer said, “The only statement I care to make about the Protocols is that they fit in with what is going on. They are at least sixteen years old, and they have fitted the world situation up to this time. They fit it now.”[29]
I do not want to get into the Protocols too deeply at this time as they are a large subject in themselves. However, here is a quote to get your interest and to further confirm what I have argued above. “The masses are not guided by practical use of unprejudiced historical observation, but by theoretical routine without any critical regard for consequent results. (In other words, the masses are led by theories and not critical thinking or historical observations.)We need not, therefore, take any account of them-let them amuse themselves until the hour strikes, or live on hopes of new forms of enterprising pastimes, (TV, computer games, sports) or on the memories (old movies?)of all they have enjoyed. For them, let that play the principal part which we have persuaded them to accept as the dictates of science. (We have persuaded them to accept the dictates of science by the press which we control.) It is with this object in view that we are constantly, by means of the press, arousing a blind confidence in these theories. The intellectuals of the masses will puff themselves up with their knowledge and, without any verification of them, (like the evolutionary theory and men like Stephen Hawking and Richard Dawkins) will put into effect all the information available from science, which our special agents (Unless Hawking and Dawkins are the special agents?) have cunningly pieced together for the purpose of educating their minds (the minds of the masses) in the direction we want. Do not suppose for a moment that these statements are empty words: think carefully of the successes we arranged for Darwinism, Marxism, Nietzche-ism. (Darwin’s success was not an accident, but part of the plan.)To us, at any rate, it should be plain to see what a disintegrating importance these directives have had upon the minds of the masses.”[30]
Dr. Henry Morris wrote in his classic book The Long War Against God, “The one thing that all of the influences brought to bear on Charles Darwin seemed to have in common, however, was their strong opposition to biblical Christianity, both before and after publication of the Origins. If there really was a conspiracy involved, therefore, it must have been spiritual.” He goes on to say, “It is nothing less than a new and critical phase in the age long conflict between the only two basic world views. One is centered in the Creator of the world and his redemptive work on behalf of the lost world; the other is centered in the creatures of that world, not only man and his self-oriented goals, but also in the devil himself, who is ultimately behind all rebellion against God.”[31] Apostle Paul said something similar in his letters to the Ephesians, “We wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.”[32] Please take heed and become informed.
Do you know the God who created the universe? Have you met Jesus? Call upon Him with all your heart and He will reveal Himself to you. He says, “Call upon me and I will answer you and show you great and mighty things that you know not of.”[33] Paul goes on to tell us, “God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwells not in temples made with hands; neither is worshiped with men’s hands, as though he needed anything, seeing he gives to all life, and breath, and all things; and has made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all face of the earth, and has determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; that they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, though he be not far from every one of us: for in him we live, and move, and have our being.”[34]
Please call upon Jesus if you have not done so yet. He stands at the door of your heart waiting to come in and give you peace of mind, heart and spirit. “Behold, I stand at the door and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.”[35] He wants to have daily fellowship with you and lead you by the hand through the perilous days that are ahead. If you have not received Jesus as yet, you could say a prayer similar to the following: “Dear Jesus, I realize I have gone my own way for these many years. I confused you with the hypocritical false religious system. I sincerely open my life to you. I want to know the truth, no matter how difficult it is for me to receive. I do not want to live in delusion. Open my heart and mind to you, to the Holy Spirit, to your word. Please forgive me for the offenses I have made in my life by being selfish and unloving to others. Cleanse me of all in my life that is not pleasing to you. Help me to follow you where you lead. In Jesus name, I pray.”
If you have prayed this prayer or one similar, Jesus has answered and has come into your heart. He will continue to work in you as you yield to him. Please pick up a New Testament and make a commitment to read it through. Meditate on its words as you do and let them affect change in your mental habits and ways of thinking. There are answers to those deep questions you have had about life. You do not need to be in confusion or doubt or despair. If you need any help in your spiritual quest and growth, I will be glad to share what I have learned and help you to grow in love and in the knowledge of the word of God and its truth. Jesus said, “If you continue in my word, then are you my disciples indeed; and ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free.”[36]
Footnotes:
2. Morris, Men of Science-Men of Faith, pg.13.
3. James Perloff, Tornado in a Junkyard, pg.242 as quoted from John Hudson Tiner’s Johannes Kepler: Giant of Faith and Science, 1977, i.
6. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Age_of_Reason, Thomas Paine, pg 50.
7. http://books.google.pt/books?isbn=1614581894,The Spurgeon Series 1855 & 1856: Unabridged Sermons In Modern Language , pg 78.
8. http://www.icr.org/article/826/174/ John Morris
9. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gap_creationism Gap Theory
10. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Chalmers
11. Ibid
12. Derek Ager, The Nature of the Stratigraphical Record, Macmillan, 1981, pg. 46 & 47.
13. James H. Shea, “Twelve Fallacies of Uniformitarianism,” Geology 10 (Sept. 1982): 456.
14. Stephen Jay Gould, The Great Scablands Debate, Natural History, Vol. 87:7 (Aug.Sep 1978) pg. 12-14.
15. Dr. Carl Werner, Evolution the Grand Experiment, Audio Visual Consultants, 2007, page 12.
16. Ibid, pg. 22.
17. Ibid, pg. 16-19.
19. Richard Mauger, K-Ar ages of biotich from tuffs in Eocene rocks of the Green River, Contributions to Geology, University of Wyoming, vol 15:1, 1977, pg.37.
21. Aldous Huxley, "Confessions of a Professed Atheist," Report: Perspective on the News, Vol. 3, June 1966, p. 19.
22. 2 Peter 3:3-6, the New Testament.
23. 2 Peter 2:19, the New Testament.
24. Romans 1:21-23, the New Testament.
25. Phillip E. Johnson, Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds, IVP, 1997, pg. 98.
26. Ibid, pg. 98-99.
27. Ibid, pg. 99.
28. W. Wayt Gibbs, "Profile: George F. R. Ellis," Scientific American, October 1995, Vol. 273, No.4, p. 55; http://www.big-bang-theory.com/.
29. Henry Ford, New York World, February 17, 1921; quoted by Des Griffin, Fourth Reich of the Rich, Emissary Publications, 1976, pg. 209.
30. Ibid, pg. 213.
31. Dr. Henry Morris, The Long War Against God, Master Books, 2000, pg.198 & 199.
32. Ephesians 6:12
33. Jeremiah 33:3
34. Acts 17:24-28
35. Revelation 3:20
36. John 8:31-32
0 Comments:
Post a Comment