The Folly of Modern Science

Matthew R. Gamel

 “The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament showeth His handiwork,” exclaimed the psalmist in Psalm 19. I was pondering this last night as I stumbled on a page maintained by NASA and managed to find the following image (which is updated in real-time):

This is an image of the sun viewed through a special apparatus. I urge you to stop for a few minutes and ponder the greatness of God and His infinite wisdom. I am not sure about you, but I believe that this image exemplifies our Creator and His handiwork. To seriously consider the magnitude of creation ought to prompt one to worship; in fact, it ought to overload your senses because to fully ponder God’s greatness as a fallen being is impossible and I know that in my life, I often overlook the mighty hand of our Lord. As the hymn-writer put it,

Lord, how Thy wonders are displayed where-e’re I turn my eye: if I survey the ground I tread or gaze upon the sky.

It is utterly mind-boggling when I contemplate that the Creator of the universe spoke this into existence. Consider even the simplest organism such as a prokaryotic cell – the complexity at such a microscopic level is absolutely awe-inspiring.

The Big Bang Theory: Proof the Humanists May Have Actually Evolved from the Ape

As most of you are probably aware, most of the folks that study these images would probably tell you that this universe magically came into existence billions of years ago via the highly scientific process of nothing. It just happened. In the beginning there was dirt. Actually, there was a very dense amount of dirt, the size of an infinitesimal point and that very dense amount of dirt was spinning, in a vacuum, and somehow enough energy magically appeared from nowhere and that small, infinitesimal grain of dirt exploded giving birth to the universe. Thus, in layman’s terms, says the so-called “Big Bang Theory.” In fact, one of the “open” questions in science is from where did the infinitesimal dot come? Thankfully, we have brilliant men like Alan Guth to answer this question for us. He wrote, in Scientific American that

… the observable universe could have evolved from an infinitesimal region. It’s then tempting to go one step further and speculate that the entire universe evolved from literally nothing.

Folks, is it just me or is this absolutely unbelievable? A five-year-old child would be able to tell you that this is absolutely stupid and irrational (in fact, I believe that a five year old child could teach a few things to these “know-it-alls” in our universities). To put things in perspective, my “theory” of how the universe came into existence is rather simplistic, as many would suggest. I simply believe that a self-existing eternal being not constrained by space nor time created space, time, and matter thus engendering the physical laws that have been studied for centuries. Many professors reject such a theory because, as some contend, it is too simplistic.

On the other hand, the humanists basically believe that an infinitesimal spinning dot blew up somehow but can’t explain the numerous contradictions with basic Newtonian mechanics and the laws of thermodynamic that arise from such a theory. So, they brush these contradictions aside as being “open” questions that have not yet been answered (i.e. they never will be answered). In fact, they can’t even explain the origin of the spinning grain of dirt so they hypothesize that it came from nowhere. Their view is so convoluted and nebulous that it is often times near impossible to understand what any given person means when they discuss this issue, not to mention that their views contradict much of classical physics.

This is just the beginning – we have not even begun to discuss chemical evolution and other forms of evolution but there is no need to. Chemical evolution and macroevolution, for instance, are natural corollaries of Big Bang; they are certainly as silly and ludicrous, if not more, than the Big Bang theory. The Big Bang theory is merely a form of cosmic evolution as biological evolution merely postulates that life, as opposed to the universe, spontaneously appeared from nothing. And this, ladies and gentlemen, is what you are paying to have your children taught by the Empire in the government “schools” (especially the universities; see my last article for a rant about what your kids are learning there). Incidentally, the term “universe” comes from the Latin word universum whose prefix, unus means “single” or “one” and postfix versus is the past participle form of the term vertere meaning “to turn” which is where we get our term “verse” from (i.e. a poetic line, stanza, hymn). Hence the term implies creation of that which it describes.

What is Science?

Most of my colleagues in the mathematics department are humanists and subscribe to the theory that I have just described. It never ceases to amaze me to observe the great lengths that individuals will take so that they might escape moral consequence. To do this, they come up with this pathetic, inadequate, irrational, illogical heap of nonsense, call it science, and then teach it in the government “schools” as if it were fact. We must understand that the origin of the universe is not a scientific question. Those that vigorously hail the scientific method implicitly deny every bit of it when they acknowledge the “Big Bang” theory. The “Big Bang” theory is not testable, repeatable, and observable in any lab.

Perhaps I will concede from my position when a scientist is able to successfully create another universe in the lab (which would, incidentally, destroy my faith because while my faith is placed in that which is unseen, faith is not necessarily blind). Until then, I will never seriously consider giving any bit of legitimacy to this “theory.” This is precisely why they need the excuse of “billions of years” – so that they can reply, using what I like to call the anti-scientific method that they can’t test it because of the amount of time it would take. Well, then, its not science because you have just admitted that you cannot apply the scientific method to your theory. These are the primary characteristics that define science. Yet, too many people have subscribed to this sorry line of reasoning. If I wrote my mathematics dissertation using this type of reasoning, I’d be labeled a “fruitcake” and kicked out of the program.

Modern Science as Political Propaganda

There has been a turning point in the history of science from whence science no longer seeks rational answers to observable phenomenon but rather seeks philosophical answers to questions that cannot be answered by repetitious experimentation. I believe that this stems from the period of history known as the Enlightenment (or, as Dr. Hill of the League calls it, the “Endarkenment”). Much of modern science is nothing more than mere speculation and propaganda to push a political agenda. Scientists today operate from a fundamental humanist worldview, and as such, their conclusions will be consistent with this worldview whether or not they are logically or scientifically valid.

They begin, as a mathematician would begin, with an axiom, which is essentially a statement that is accepted without formal proof and a statement from which all other statements may be logically derived from. Thus, to the modern scientist, every conclusion to be drawn is based not upon an experimental set of laws, such as Newton’s laws or the laws of thermodynamics, but rather the philosophical law that there is no God. This must be distinguished from a scientific law. For a scientific law is formulated by experimentation coupled with a set of axioms. To equate the scientific procedures used to deduce the “Big Bang” theory with those used to deduce, say, the theory of electrodynamics is to compare that which cannot be compared.

For example, experimentation has clearly shown that the magnitude of the force between two point charges is inversely proportional to their distance squared (this should be review to you homsechoolers out there. If experimentation ever invalidated such a claim, the mathematical theory would have to be re-examined and hence any of the mathematics dependent upon such a claim would also have to be re-examined. From this, we observe why most scientists will not concede from their “Big Bang” theory; because it is highly unlikely that anyone in this world (apart from the regenerating power of the Spirit) will ever be able to convince them that their initial premise that there is no God is false.

Another good example of a false scientific theory is the theory of “global warming.” A few decades ago, the latest scientific fad was “global cooling” and every major publication theorized that we would be in the midst of an ice age by now. And yes, this is a fad; how many times have you heard radical environmentalists use the terms “global warming” when attempting to justify their communo-eco-fascist legislation? Actually, sometimes I wish it were true; it is quite hot and humid in east Texas. Yet, it has never occurred to any of these “intellectuals” that perhaps the earth goes through phases of being warm and then cool again. There is data to suggest this. And, no one has speculated that the sun *gasp* (of all things) might have something to do with this phenomenon.

On second thought, perhaps I am not giving our government propagandists who call themselves scientists enough credit. It is conceivable that these people know full and well that their theories are lousy and belong in the garbage. Many good meaning Christians dismiss evolutionists and scientists as having good intentions but are simply in the dark. While this is true, and while I believe that there are many that truly do have a desire for truth, I believe that the elite or the academic “intelligentsia” (i.e. the Berkeley, Yale, Harvard types) know precisely what they are doing and know full well that these theories are full of “c” concatenated with “rap.”

I call them government propagandists because that’s what they are. Their research is usually financed by the Empire (i.e. NSF, NIH, EPA, etc) and, in turn, used by the Empire to justify and legitimize dangerous entanglements such as Agenda 21 and other horrid pieces of legislation that trample on private property rights, gun rights, and even legitimize abortion and homosexual rights. This is another reason why equating psychology with science is dangerous; because the Empire will fund so called psychological experiments and use the “results” to tear children from their parents and force psycho-drugs down their throats to keep them dependent and compliant.

Unfortunately, there is no true interest in academia with intellectual debate and discourse concerning these humanistic theories. In fact, there is no true interest in diversity of thought in our public universities at all. I have read stories of scientists that lost their jobs because their research would, if published, poke sufficiently large holes in this vacuous theory. In fact many times, it was not the intention of the researcher to actually attempt to refute Big Bang – it was merely the natural outcome of their research. Only diversity of Marxist thought (or something similar) is tolerated at our universities. They are meant to be safe-havens for these types. I mean, where else can one find a male feminist, a gay fascist, and a black communist but at our public universities? See, they are all for diversity.

Essentially, the point I am attempting to make is that modern science is intentionally philosophical in nature. It purposefully attempts to address things that it cannot so that it can be used as a tool to push a political agenda. The Yankee compulsory education has been rather effective in creating social change because now, our young people are convinced that there is a difference between religion and science and have been taught that science is always superior. Now, when I use the term “science,” I am not referring to anything that is testable and repeatable in the lab because all of these things are consistent with the Word of God. I am referring to these theories that are lacking in substance that present the illusion of being scientific. We have trained a bunch of good humanists and have destroyed most traditional worldviews in our young people. When one contends that man’s reasoning is superior to Scripture, one is essentially stating that they are a humanist (if not, then whatever position it is, it certainly is not Christian). Thus, anything that is presented with the label of being “scientific” must be accepted over anything else. When we have acceptance of evolution, Big Bang, global warming, etc we will be more apt to accept government control of private property and the coming police state. We will be more apt to beg and cry that the United Nations protect us from ourselves in the name of earth worship and radical environmentalism.

Trading Scripture for Modern Science

What pains my heart is the fact that many Christians have accepted this idea that these false scientific theories must conform the Scriptures for one to believe them. Essentially, deciding whether or not to believe the Scriptures with or without mans wisdom boils down to the following question: where does truth ultimately originate? Does it come from God Himself or does it come from man. If it comes from man, then indeed truth changes, nothing is fixed, and science is the closest thing we have to decipher the meaning of life. That which is observable has never contradicted the Word of God. In fact, in most instances, it readily supports the claims of the Scriptures. Yet our society along with the Empire has purposefully confused the meaning of science and its realm and scope. Too many Christians have bought into these lies and it’s about time that we start teaching our children to beware of these individuals. Peter said the following, which I believe could be applied to the current situation here:

Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 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 creation. For this they willingly are ignorant of, 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:

Friends, there are many scoffers out there that desire to destroy families and their faith and lead multitudes astray. Unfortunately, it looks like they have managed to deceive a good number of unsuspecting individuals. As Peter said in his first epistle “Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary, the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour.” Dear brethren, we must always be intellectually on-guard because it is too easy to be led astray in this media driven, propaganda ridden, and deceitful age. Those that scoff at our Lord are quite clever and have mastered the art of manipulation.

It has been said time and time again but we should begin to act: we must take our children out of the public schools, first and foremost, as this is one of the roots of the problem. I believe that the so-called “conservatives” of the mainstream religious right are fighting a battle they will never win; we will never reform our schools because in the eyes of Big Brother, the schools don’t need any reforming. In fact, to the Empire, the schools must be secular shrines that engineer good, compliant, little humanists. I don’t mean to sound pessimistic but we must understand that public education is always used as a tool for social engineering and hence we must reject it; the educational philosophy of our schools is based on the philosophy of John Dewey. It should not be surprising that our schools are hostile towards anyone that has a traditional worldview. It is imperative that we understand this.

To put things in perspective, when the communists shoved their ideology down the throats of the Russians, public schools were essential. In fact, the first thing the children learned was not how to be a good communist; it was evolution so that any other views that the people had would be destroyed and replaced with an exalted view of man. We can only expect the situation to become worse as more and more propaganda and political rhetoric is disseminated through the government “schools.” We must remember that the Empire controls them along with its globalist conglomerates and now, in part, by the UN thanks Bush as he pushed us back into UNESCO. If we don’t teach our children, our enemies will gladly do so. Public education is the enemy of anyone who loves God, liberty, and family. I will close with the words of the Apostle Paul:

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.

October 12, 2004

Matt Gamel is graduate student at Texas A&M and eventually desires to go to seminary to study to be a Biblical scholar. He may be reached for comment here.

Back to daveblackonline