RSS

Secular Science & the Believer

29 Aug

INTRODUCTION:
The church has a problem. It has been invaded by those who take the words and methods of the unbelieving world who use those deceived ideas to alter God’s word and teach what God has not taught. They also misrepresent God casting a different picture about him, one that God does not paint of himself.

 
Sadly, these people are respected and held in high esteem and many in the church are led to alternative beliefs which are not of God and not biblically taught. In this piece we are going to look at some of the favored ‘tools’ used by secular and alternative believing people as well as two theories, which are also held in high esteem.

 
There is an old saying, ‘when confronted with printing the truth or the legend, you print the legend.’ That is what secular science does. It prints the legend, the best explanation, not the truth. As Dr. Del Ratzsch recorded in his book, The Battle of Beginnings, and many other authors have done so as well, secular science does not want God as a part of their work and when you remove the truth from guiding you then you have no hope of coming upon the truth.

 
Yes they do get bits and pieces of truth but every con man knows that if your con is void of any truth it will not hold up. Some truth has to be included in order for the lie to sound convincing and work.

 
I. Interpretation: This is nothing more than eisegesis at work. People who use this inadequate and vastly inferior tool read into other people’s words their own ideas, thoughts, beliefs, preconceptions and misconceptions.

 
It is not automatic as some people claim and can be removed in order to do discussion, hearing, listening correctly. Jesus prayed that we would know God and his truth, he also told us that we would know the truth but those who use interpretation do not get to the truth because they have altered the intent and meaning behind the words of the other person.

 
This is what makes the idea behind sexual harassment so erroneous. It is not how the receiver takes the words spoken or written for the listener/reader does not have the gospel truth concerning what others say or write. This idea allows people to misunderstand what is being said or written and place the misunderstanding in greater standing than the actual intent of the words spoken/written.

 
This faulty reasoning, and interpretation does this as well, brings injustice to innocent people as it claims to know the original intent and meaning over the person bring the words. That is impossible. The responsibility to make sure one has understood what has been said/written is upon the receiver not the speaker/writer.

 
Interpretation, while it is a possibility it can lead one to some truth, usually leads people away from the truth and allows for false teaching to enter into the lives of those who use this tool. They often misunderstand what was said/written and fail to clarify in order to respond correctly to the spoken/written word.

 
By placing your own ideas upon other people’s words, you are not responding to their thoughts but your own ideas. You also can hurt innocent people by using this tool as your interpretation does more damage than you think.
The Bible does not teach anyone to use this inferior tool as it leads to confusion and confusion is not of God. This tool places subjectivity, existentialism above God’s objectivism and that is very wrong.

 

II. Observation: Many in the secular scientific field place a high regard on this very inferior tool as they think observation is a key to understanding any given situation. Unfortunately for them observation can only lead to a multiple reasons for any action observed and the multiple choice they are left with only includes the truth as one possibility.

 
Observation needs more information for it to work effectively and getting that information can be and is often very difficult. We use the analogy of a man and a woman are observed leaving a hotel room. This observation may come to the correct conclusion but it still needs confession to verify and validate its claim

 
The observed situation actually has over 6 different possibilities for the two to be exiting the hotel room and the illicit affair is only one of the possibilities. Others include, they are actually man and wife, they are on a honeymoon, the owner or clerk is getting an estimate for work to be done, the clerk is showing a perspective guest the room and on it goes.

 
Observation alone cannot ferret out the truth and it needs the help of other sources providing the correct information to get to the truth. Observation merely puts a person on the path to getting to the truth and if the observer makes an error or decides to go after false information then their work is worthless as any claims made from faulty conclusions could hurt innocent lives, just like interpretation does.

 

 

III. Prediction: This is pseudo-science dressed up to be factual science. There is no other term for this as predictions come from fortune telling not scientific, rational thought. There is no objective authority that states we are to use prediction in any of our investigations. In fact, in criminal investigations predictions are frowned upon and consider unjust and unfair.

 
Why secular science has adopted this as a lynch pin in its work can only be answered by the fact that secular science is evil influenced and led not God led or influenced. The fact that secular scientists only proclaim the predictions that work shows how dishonest they are. The many unfulfilled predictions that so many scientists encounter are ignored as the secular scientist tries to present an ideal picture of their field of research even though those failed predictions would disqualify the secular scientist from achieving any credibility and demonstrate that their theory does not work and is not true.

 
1 prediction correct in a thousand or even 500 or 50 is not a good track record and shows that secular science is not doing anything correctly and is far from the correct information. This predictions are often very generalized and do not exclude other sources from producing the same results. In other words, predictions do not exclude anything but simply muddy the waters a lot more. They do not pinpoint a source but make it easier for false theories like evolution or micro-evolution to get a foothold in the minds of the unwary or those who do not want to believe the Bible.

 
You will notice that the Bible does not teach the use of predictions but does state to thoroughly investigate a matter. Predictions are not part of a thorough investigation but a lazy, cheating way to avoid the truth and get one’s pet theory a hearing. These also allow for injustice to take place as well as teach people to accept lies over God’s truth

 
IV. Assumption: It seems that secular science has taken every bad thing, things we are taught by our parents, grandparents, teachers and pastors not to do, and declared them good and useful. Assumption is never good and needs lots of correcting as the person making the assumptions needs the time to remove their feet from their mouths.

 
Assumptions are never good and are very misleading. Declarations that have the words, ‘we believe’, ‘we think’, ‘it may’, it is a possibility’ are not proven fact and cannot be taken seriously. What someone thinks or believes does not make it truth or even close to the truth. It is their ideas they are expounding not what God has said or done.

 
We can put the terms ‘speculation’ and ‘conjecture’ in with assumption but unlike the last action the former two can lead one to being put on the right track to the truth. Assumption is a belief or preconceived idea that has no foundation and too many people take that preconceived idea to their experiments and all objectivity is lost as is all hope of finding the truth.

 
Assumption distorts what is observed and wrongly influences predictions. It also influences interpretation to go for the error over looking for the truth. The same verse used earlier about investigating thoroughly applies here as well as assumption does not investigate thoroughly but takes the wrong shortcuts which end up ruining an investigation, which then has to be done all over again. Assumption is not honesty and has no role in the Christian’s life.

 

V. Einstein’s Relativity: I place this and the following topic here as they illustrate how brilliant men can make mistakes and how those mistakes are blindly accepted and adopted by lesser individuals then taught to generations of unwary students.

 
Einstein’s theory of relativity has a fatal flaw and it resides in his assumption that gravity affects time and that mechanical or atomic clocks are the source of time. But time is not a material entity that is influenced by gravity. It is a separate non-material factor in our human lives which runs at the same pace no matter what is taking place in this world.

 
Time’s source is not a terrestrial clock but was created by God in Genesis 1 when he created light and separated it from the darkness. Terrestrial clocks, whether mechanical or atomic or whatever material they are made of, do not produce time, they can only measure its passing, thus if a person travels for 60 minutes by walking and a person travels 60 minutes at the speed of light, they both have aged by 60 minutes.

 
Time is not relative and it is not governed by speed either. While gravity can and does influence and slow down material objects, like atomic and mechanical clocks, it has no control over immaterial entities like Time.

 
Time passes the same for everyone no matter what they are doing.

 

VI. Hubble’s Expanding Universe: I had a blogger/scholar tell me once that Hubble’s expanding universe theory and his equations (Hubble’s constant) were refuted and rejected by astronomers long ago. He was wrong, of course, as both remain very active in the research on the universe and the moving galaxies.

 
The problem with Hubble’s theory, and I am well aware he was not the originator of it others contributed to its construction, is first he ignores those galaxies that are not moving outward but inward. He calls then anomalies. (Must be nice to disregard important information when doing research and get away with it)

 
Second, it assumes that the outward movement comes from some explosion that took place 14 billion years ago. That theory has many problems to it as well, one being how could that event produce energy so great that 14 billion years later it is still influencing the movement of galaxies. That thinking just demonstrates the irrational, illogical and unrealistic thinking of secular scientists and secular science.

 
It is unrealistic as how can anyone expect a force to last 14 billion years? The assumption that it does is distorted thinking and a distorted view of the evidence.
Third, Hubble’s theory is undermined by the fact that no one at any time has ever seen the edge of the universe. There is no way to measure any expansion. We have no ‘stretch marks’ that reveal the different boundaries of the universe over time and no other markers that can be used to support the thinking that the universe expands or has expanded.

 
Moving galaxies are not evidence and using those as evidence is like saying, the city of Denver is expanding because cars are travelling away from the city. Without accurate, constant historical records measuring the expansion of the universe the expanding universe theory falls flat as moving galaxies only prove that God gave the galaxies enough room to ‘live’ and move in.

 
God shows his protection of the earth and the solar system it resides by this fact. He also verifies those verses which state that he has set the foundations of the earth and those foundations shall not be moved.

 
VII. Secular Scientists: The believer needs to remember one very important fact about secular scientists. They have not been redeemed by Jesus, they have not been made a new creature nor has the old man been removed from their lives.

 
These people are deceived, blind and under the influence of evil thus their ideas, theories, conclusions, etc., will not be the truth. Though they may contain elements of the truth, this is merely a trap to deceive believers into leaving the truth for the lies of evil.

 
No amount of education, no amount of experience, no amount of conducted experiments will overcome this fact. The secular scientist remains in sin, a prisoner of evil and blind to the truth. At no time does the Bible teach that we are to follow the unbelieving world and at no time are we taught anywhere in scriptures that we are to adopt or adapt their theories, ideas or conclusions.

 
The choice is you either believe God or you believe secular scientists (evil) There is no middle ground.

 
Conclusion:

 
These points should help the believer to see the weakness and inferiority of secular science and the error of adopting its terminologies. This does not mean that the believer cannot ‘do science’ but help them understand that they must ‘do science’ God’s way not the secular world’s way. The believer must go for the truth not the best explanation as again I point people to Jesus’ prayer to his father were he says ‘that they may know your truth for you are truth.’ (paraphrased)

 
At no time do either God or Jesus teach anyone to go for the best explanation. For example secular scientists proclaim that evolution is the best explanation for our origins and variety we see in the world today. But how can the ideas of sinful, secular, deceived, fallible, corrupt men trump the revelation of the most holy, infallible, incorrupt, sinless God who did the actual creating?

 
They tell us to go for the truth and the truth does not depend upon interpretation, observation, predictions or assumptions and so on. It depends upon getting to the facts through careful and thorough investigation under the guidance of the HS. The secular world does not have the spirit of truth helping them and Jesus made that very clear in John 16.

 
No matter what some supposed believers say, the unbelieving world is influenced by the father of lies not by the holy God. This includes the area of all scientific research fields that reject the inclusion of God, which secular science does vigorously. Without doing science God’s way and following the HS to the truth, one cannot expect to have the truth.

 
The believer cannot partner with the secular world not adopt its terms or theories for that would be a violation of God’s instructions in 1 Corinthians. Nor can they compromise and ‘Christianize’ those theories or terms, keeping what God has defined as false teaching but trying to justify those faulty ideas with altering scripture.
The believer must stand with God, represent him as he represents himself and investigate biblical terms thoroughly so that they completely understand the truth about what God is saying instead of using those verses to support the lies of secular science.

 
The believer is NOT anti-science, they are against the lies told by secular science and scientists. A guideline to this is if science disagrees with the Bible then it is not the Bible that is in error.

 
Science, any variety, was not given the authority to over-rule or alter God’s word and it does not possess a monopoly upon the truth. It is NOT the only source for truth it is merely a tool to find knowledge but that objective does not mean that the knowledge it uncovers is correct, true or perfect. Since science is not immune to the sin and corruption that entered the world at Adam’s sin, its conclusions, theories and ideas are very suspect as well as usually wrong.

 
We cannot take any secular scientific idea blindly but investigate it thoroughly and when it turns out to be false, like evolution, big bang and micro-evolution theories, we toss them aside for we go for the truth not the false alternatives.

 
Science, any variety, does not know more than God or the Bible.

Advertisements
 

14 responses to “Secular Science & the Believer

  1. Ashley Haworth-roberts

    August 29, 2016 at 8:48 pm

    And you, Sir, are a bigot.

     
  2. darthtimon

    August 30, 2016 at 9:59 pm

    TA, I openly challenge your assertions here

     
  3. darthtimon

    August 31, 2016 at 1:33 pm

    You keep referring to science as evil. It’s via science that we have life-saving medicines. Is this evil?

     
    • theologyarchaeology

      September 1, 2016 at 10:04 am

      I am tired of the word assertions as people use it to avoid hearing the truth and I am tired of those people who use the term.

       
      • darthtimon

        September 1, 2016 at 1:17 pm

        Except your assertions are exactly that – assertions. You aren’t making fact-based arguments – you are making interpretive assertions. In fact, for all your complaints about interpretation, you are blind to how you are guilty of exactly that. You have a rigid interpretation of the Bible as literal truth, but that’s only one possible interpretation of the Bible.

         
        • theologyarchaeology

          September 2, 2016 at 12:45 am

          Sorry that is only your subjective opinion which is influenced by the evil you allow to reign in your life.

           
          • darthtimon

            September 2, 2016 at 6:18 am

            What evil is that? Treat everyone fairly without judgement based upon my religious beliefs? A refusal to impose my beliefs upon others?

             
    • theologyarchaeology

      September 1, 2016 at 10:06 am

      You obviously did not read what I said and it is typical of people who defend science to highlight only one small fraction of what science, especially medical science, does.

      is it good to keep people tied to machines financially ruining them and their families?

       
      • darthtimon

        September 1, 2016 at 1:23 pm

        Your comment does what you also did in the article – it conflates and misleads. The financial implications of treatments vary from country to country and are the result of different political and social policies – this has nothing to do with science developing the means to save lives.
        Also, in focusing on the minute (the use of machines to keep people alive) you are guilty of your own accusation – namely of highlighting only one detail. There are many procedures and medicines available to us today that we wouldn’t have if not for the efforts of science.

        Also, we wouldn’t have cars, trains, planes, the Internet, refrigerators, advanced farming, or power for our homes without science. But I guess all this is evil too right?

         
        • theologyarchaeology

          September 2, 2016 at 12:44 am

          this is what secular science supporters do, they distort and misrepresent secular science and only paint a partial picture of that research field and what it produces. In other words they lie.

          Not only does medical science ruin people financially but it helps doctors violate their Hippocratic oath but extending the suffering of those who are ill, especially those who are terminally ill.

          Then to answer his claims, secular science has also produced– pollution, weapons, bullets, missiles, mustard gas and other poisonous gases, pesticides, carbon dioxide, reduced our natural resources, reduced our financial resources by wasting money on theories and processes that do not exist and the list can go on and on and on,

          The full picture of secular science is not a pretty one nor a beneficial one as we can add torture techniques to that list as well as plastics which do not erode away quickly. How many fish have been killed or mutilated by the plastic 6 pack containers?

          I could go on but i think that is enough evidence for now.

           
          • darthtimon

            September 2, 2016 at 10:00 am

            I urge you to take a look at your first sentence and consider that it is in fact, you who is distorting science.

            In the original post, you adopted examples that have nothing to do with science and tried to use those examples to disprove the scientific method. This demonstrates horrible ignorance of the scientific method. You are also ‘painting a partial picture’ of science (I imagine this means you too are lying, no?). Plus, once AGAIN you conflate science with other fields.

            The cost implications of medical treatment have nothing to do with the science behind those treatments. You are using the strawman argument (yet again). The cost (or lack thereof) of medical treatments varies from one country to the next, and is based on a variety of factors, none of which are to do with the actual procedure itself. Trying to mislead with false statements about ‘science ruining lives’ is a deliberate and wilful misrepresentation of what we’re discussing.

            Likewise your comment about the Hippocratic oath. You do know what this oath is don’t you? It’s first rule is to do no harm. Letting someone die might be considered the ultimate harm – but obviously letting people suffer in pain is doing harm as well. It’s an ethical dilemma, but it’s NOT a scientific dilemma. This is once again a wilful and misleading statement from you.

            Science has not actually produced directly anything of the things you claim science has produced. The manner in which scientific knowledge is used is a different question, but you’re trying (yet again) to confuse the two. Torture techniques… seriously?

            Science is neither good nor evil. It is how that knowledge is USED that is key, and you would throw the baby out with the bathwater in your haste to dismiss all the good that knowledge has managed. Millions of people survive illnesses and injuries that just a century earlier would have been fatal. People have heat and light in their properties, we have the means to stay in touch with people who are all the way around the world, developed the means to protect crops and grow more, hardier crops, and generally moved on from the Dark Ages that you would have us live in.

             
  4. darthtimon

    September 2, 2016 at 12:46 pm

    As I am not certain I pressed ‘reply’ when I typed out a response last time, this is my latest: What evil is that? Treat everyone fairly without judgement based upon my religious beliefs? A refusal to impose my beliefs upon others?

    I urge you to take a look at your first sentence and consider that it is in fact, you who is distorting science.

    In the original post, you adopted examples that have nothing to do with science and tried to use those examples to disprove the scientific method. This demonstrates horrible ignorance of the scientific method. You are also ‘painting a partial picture’ of science (I imagine this means you too are lying, no?). Plus, once AGAIN you conflate science with other fields.

    The cost implications of medical treatment have nothing to do with the science behind those treatments. You are using the strawman argument (yet again). The cost (or lack thereof) of medical treatments varies from one country to the next, and is based on a variety of factors, none of which are to do with the actual procedure itself. Trying to mislead with false statements about ‘science ruining lives’ is a deliberate and wilful misrepresentation of what we’re discussing.

    Likewise your comment about the Hippocratic oath. You do know what this oath is don’t you? It’s first rule is to do no harm. Letting someone die might be considered the ultimate harm – but obviously letting people suffer in pain is doing harm as well. It’s an ethical dilemma, but it’s NOT a scientific dilemma. This is once again a wilful and misleading statement from you.

    Science has not actually produced directly anything of the things you claim science has produced. The manner in which scientific knowledge is used is a different question, but you’re trying (yet again) to confuse the two. Torture techniques… seriously?

    Science is neither good nor evil. It is how that knowledge is USED that is key, and you would throw the baby out with the bathwater in your haste to dismiss all the good that knowledge has managed. Millions of people survive illnesses and injuries that just a century earlier would have been fatal. People have heat and light in their properties, we have the means to stay in touch with people who are all the way around the world, developed the means to protect crops and grow more, hardier crops, and generally moved on from the Dark Ages that you would have us live in.

     
  5. theologyarchaeology

    September 3, 2016 at 7:31 am

    We will probably deal with Darthtimon’s responses in a post titled Answering Darthtimon. These responses get far too long to address in the comment section.

     
 
%d bloggers like this: