THE RELIGION OF NATURALISM
SCIENCE FALSELY SO CALLED
By Gary Ray Branscome
Let me make it clear from the start, that when I speak of naturalism I am talking about metaphysical-naturalism. That is, naturalism as the basis of a fanatical secular religion whose adherents are so hostile to the Biblical claim that God exists that they shut their minds to any and all evidence to the contrary.
Because
the adherents of this religion deny the existence of God, one of their
doctrines is the belief that life originated from non-life. In other
words,
they believe that once upon a time, long long ago, in some primeval
ocean, a
tiny bit of matter came to life, and that
all other
living things have evolved from it. However, that is not only not scientific, it is contrary to all scientific
evidence, and
to reason itself.
Before the scientific method
was in use, many people believed that it was possible for nonliving
matter to
come to life. However, experimental evidence has consistently shown
that this
is not the case. For example: At one time it was widely believed that
maggots
would spontaneously generate in meat. In order to test that
"hypothesis," Francesco Redi (in 1660) devised an experiment,
consisting of two jars that both contained meat. One jar was open,
the other jar had a piece of cheesecloth stretched across the top.
Maggots not
only did not appear in the meat covered by cheesecloth, but flies were
actually
observed laying maggots on the cheesecloth.
Two centuries
later, there were still a
number of people who believed that bacteria would spontaneously
generate in
broth. In order to test that hypothesis, Louis Pasteur (in 1859)
devised an
experiment that utilized several long-necked flasks containing beef
broth.
After the broth was boiled, the necks on some of the flasks were heated
and
bent in an s-curve. As predicted, bacteria only infested the broth that
was in
flasks with straight necks. When the flasks had curved necks, the
bacteria
stuck to the side of the neck, and could not get to the broth.
Those experiments, coupled
with the invention of a dust-free box at the end of the
nineteenth-century,
convinced the scientific community that life does not come from
non-life.
Moreover, since the idea that life comes from non-life contradicts
science, it
is in the same class with belief that the world is flat. Nevertheless,
those
who have made naturalism their religion, ignore the scientific
evidence,
because it contradicts their naturalistic fairy tale, and continue to
insist
that it must have happened in spite of all evidence to the contrary.
In
the same way, the idea that all living things have evolved from a bit
of
non-living matter that came to life, is totally unscientific. No one
has ever
seen it happen. There is no biological evidence that it happened. They
simply
assert that it happened because that is what their religion teaches.
When
we look at the fossil record, we find that about forty percent of the
fossilized life forms are not extinct. We find fossilized frogs,
dragonflies,
turtles, figs, cats, and thousands of other species that are virtually
identical to their modern day living counterparts. In other words, the
fossil
record tells us that they have not evolved one bit. Furthermore, there
is no
evidence that the fossil life forms in one rock layer ever evolved into
the
fossil life forms found in another rock layer. Yet those who have made
naturalism their religion simply ignore the evidence and claim that it
happened.
Did
you ever notice the fact that they only claim that extinct animals have
evolved
into something else? For example, they will never claim that turtles
have
evolved into something else, because we still have turtles. Yet they
hold up
dinosaurs as proof of evolution, when there is not one scrap of real
evidence
that dinosaurs ever evolved into anything else. In fact, the claim that
dinosaurs evolved into birds is another naturalistic fairy tale that
contradicts science. It contradicts science, not only because the
anatomy of
birds is totally different from reptiles (different bones, respiratory
system,
digestive system, etc.), but also because all of the fossil life forms
that
have not changed, and are not extinct, are scientific evidence that
life is not
evolving.
Likewise, although there are
many fossil frogs, secularists will never claim that frogs evolved into
reptiles, because any right-thinking person would ask. “Why then do we
still
have frogs?” Instead they claim that frogs and reptiles have a common
ancestor,
or that reptiles evolved from amphibians. Likewise, they will not claim
that
men evolved from monkeys, because people would then ask. “Why then do
we still
have monkeys?” Instead they assert that men and monkeys have a common
ancestor.
However, in both cases there is no scientific evidence that a common
ancestor
ever existed, or that the evolution ever took place. They simply assert
that it
happened, because that is what their religion teaches.
In saying this I realize
that they claim to have evidence. For example, they claim that any
similarity
in appearance between men and monkeys is evidence of common ancestry.
However,
there is no proof of that! It is simply assumed. The eye of an octopus
looks
very much like a human eye, but that is not proof that we are related,
it
simply points to the fact that we both had the same designer, namely
God.
Likewise, the widely published claim that chimps are genetically
similar to humans, was based on evidence
that has been shown to have
been falsified. The devotees of naturalism simply looked for things to
support
their religious beliefs, while ignoring everything else. In other
words, they
read their own ideas into the evidence, in the same way that false
prophets
read their own ideas into statements of Scripture, while ignoring all
evidence to
the contrary.
Secularists like to talk
about the earth being millions or billions of years old, because that
is what
their religion teaches. However, while they try to find things they can
interpret to support that view, they ignore all evidence to the
contrary. For
example, scientists have come up with about 150 methods for determining
the age
of the earth. Some of those methods give the earth a very old age,
while others
give it a relatively young age. Instead of looking at all of the
evidence objectively,
the secularists simply ignore any dating method that does not agree
with their
religious belief that the world is millions of years old.
For example, the amount of
salt in the ocean is increasing at a measurable rate. If there were
absolutely
no salt in the ocean to begin with, it would take about sixty million
years
for it to acquire the amount of salt that it now has in it. Of course,
that is far less time than evolution requires. Furthermore.
if it
had some salt to begin with, it could have acquired its present level
of salt
in far less time. In the same way, careful studies of erosion show that
the
present river deltas are only about five thousand years old. Likewise,
the moon
is getting further away from the earth each year. Since there are
physical
limits to how close the earth and moon can be, we know that the moon
cannot be
millions of years old. I could give several other examples, but these
should
suffice. The secularists simply ignore these facts because they do not
agree
with their naturalistic mythology.
One argument that the secularists
like to advance is the claim that the layers of rock found in the world
are
proof of evolution. But here again, they simply read their own ideas
into the
data while ignoring any evidence to the contrary. For example, all
evidence
points to the fact that the rock layers were lain down quickly, not
gradually
over millions of years. One such evidence is the fact that the rocks
contain
fossilized jellyfish. Since a dead jellyfish will turn to a formless
mass of
gel in one day, those jellyfish could not have been buried slowly.
Moreover, I
have personally seen fossilized trees that ran vertically through
several rock
layers. Those trees would have rotted away if the rock layers had been
laid
down gradually over millions of years.
The truth is that the secularists
have simply assumed that life evolved, and then dated the rocks by
looking at
the fossils they contained, and assigning a date based on when they
thought
those fossils evolved. The age given to the rocks has nothing to do
with the
order of the rocks in the earth. In fact, in many places the rock
layers are in
the opposite order that evolutionists claim
they
should be in.
At one time all of the rocks
that contained a kind of fish known as a coelacanth were assigned an
age of 68
million years. That is because the secular religion claimed that the
coelacanth
had evolved into an amphibian at that time, and was the ancestor of the
amphibians we see today. One of the books I has as a child contained a
picture
of a coelacanth walking (on its fins) through a swamp from one puddle
to
another, supposedly evolving into an amphibian. However, in 1938 a
living
coelacanth was caught in the
Secularists have given the
various rock layers names (Cambrian, Devonian, etc.). However, what
many people
do not know, is that those names are not
determined by
the kind of material the rocks are made of, or where they are found. On
the
contrary, the name of the rock layer is determined by the kind of
fossils the
rock contains. Furthermore, in some places, where we can see a rock
layer
running along the side of a mountain, the same layer will be given one
name in
one place and another name in another place. The name of the rock layer
changes
when the fossils in it change, even though it is the same rock layer.
And, as I
previously mentioned, the rock layers are often in the opposite order
from the
order the devotees of naturalism say they should be in.
The secularists talk about
the universe being about 14 billion years old, as if they actually were
there
when it formed. However, since that date rests on assumption, not fact,
such
bravado is evidence of an unscientific mindset. A few decades ago,
studies of
the stars indicated that all of the stars (in every direction) were
moving away
from the earth. Scientists then concluded that it took them about 14
billion
years to get from earth to where they now are. They then assumed that
about 14
billion years ago, all of the stars began to move away from the earth
in a big
bang. However, that entire scenario assumes that the universe came into
existence on its own. There is no proof that it is so. It is simply
assumed.
They make that assumption because that is what their naturalistic
religion
calls for. However, the stars could have just as well been far from the
earth
when God made them. Secularists simply close their minds to that
possibility,
because their naturalistic religion teaches otherwise.
They also like to claim that
radiation proves that the rocks are millions of years old. However,
that claim
rests on assumption, not fact. Since many rocks
contain
radioactive particles, and radioactive decay produces daughter elements
that
accumulate over the centuries. They make the rocks appear old,
by
assuming that they contained no daughter elements to begin with.
However, there
is no evidence that is true. It is simply assumed to be true, because
their
secular religion calls for long ages. If some of the daughter elements
were in
the rocks to begin with, then the age of the rocks is much younger.
Another claim they often
make is that the moon was once a part of the earth, and was pulled away
from
the earth by a passing star. However, that is absurd. You can test that
fact by
putting two small magnets together, and then trying to use a third
magnet to
pull the two apart (without attaching them to anything). It will never
work
because the lines of force extending from the third magnet will add to
the
attraction the first two magnets have for each other. As a result, the
pull of
the third magnet on the magnet furthest from it, will be stronger than
its pull
on the one nearest to it.
At this point I want to make
it clear that, the claim that natural selection will produce new life
forms is
another myth. It may be a doctrine of the secular religion, but it is
based on
the assumption that life evolved, not on scientific observation. The
word
“selection” in “natural selection” comes from the phrase “selective
breeding”.
The idea is that, just as farmers can produce new breeds by selective
breeding,
natural events can produce new species when they affect the breeding
stock.
However, what these dreamers fail to realize is that farmers produce
new breeds
by breeding out unwanted characteristics. In other words, the
characteristics
they want must be there to begin with. The breeder then uses selection
to
eliminate animals that lack those traits from the breeding stock, so
the
desired characteristics become dominant. Selection never produces
something
that is not there to begin with. Likewise, when it comes to survival of
the
fittest, animals must have the characteristics needed to survive to
begin with,
before those characteristics can help them survive. The struggle to
survive
does not produce anything new. On the contrary, the amount of change
that is
possible in any living organism is limited by the genes. Breeding can
bring out
latent characteristics, but it cannot bring out something that is not
there to
begin with.
The fact that the advocates
of “natural selection” claim that every peculiar characteristic an
animal has,
evolved to help it survive, undermines their credibility. Since
amphibians have
legs, they claim that legs evolved because they helped amphibians to
survive.
Since snakes do not have legs, they claim that snakes lost their legs
because
not having legs helped them to survive. There is no scientific evidence
that
that is true. It is simply assumed to be true because the religion of
naturalism calls for it.
Since the time of the
“Enlightenment”, the advocates of naturalism have gradually expanded
their
views into a secular religion. The doctrines of that religion have
developed
over the past two centuries, as they labored to fit all scientific
knowledge
into a naturalistic worldview. Communism, Nazism, and Secular Humanism
are all
manifestations of that one secular religion. They may differ in some of
their
doctrines, but their core beliefs are all the same. Humanists,
Communists, and
Nazis all advocate gun control, abortion, centralized government,
control of
education, socialism, and evolution. Margaret Sanger, the founder of
Planned
Parenthood, held views on eugenics virtually identical to those held by
Hitler.
B.F. Skinner, one of the founders of modern psychology, wrote a book,
“Beyond
Freedom and Dignity” advocating a Nazi style dictatorship under the
guidance of
psychologists. Regulatory agencies were invented by Mussolini, and were
quickly
copied by American secularists, even though our Constitution does not
allow for
them. The Nazis may have killed six million, but the humanists have
killed over
sixty million babies in America alone, and the Communists have killed
millions
more.
When it comes to social
issues the advocates of naturalism simply take the opposite position
that the
Bible takes. The Bible condemns homosexuality, so they are for it. The
Bible
endorses capital punishment, so they are against it. The Bible teaches
that God
designed men and women for different roles, so they deny that there
should be
any difference in roles. Etc. Since the Biblical roles of men and women
were
designed to protect women, while getting men to shoulder the
responsibility for
protecting their family, providing for their family, and providing
spiritual
leadership in the home, they try to portray any difference in roles as
oppression.
[The absurdity of that last claim can be see by simply looking at what
the
roles traditionally entailed. The men were expected to lift the
heaviest loads,
and do the most dangerous work. That is kindness, not oppression. The
Biblical
pattern for the relationship of man and wife is found in Christ’s love
for His
church, and His willingness to sacrifice Himself for it.]
Actually there is no such
thing as a Communist government. Communism is not a form of government,
it is a
secular religion that uses dictatorship to advance its naturalistic
beliefs.
And while the secularists in this country may be more subtle than the
Communists, they are just as determined to force their secular religion
on
everyone. To that end they have redefined separation of church and
state to
mean something totally different from what Martin Luther, or early
Baptists,
meant by it. Under the guise of separation of church and state, they
use the
power of government to force Christians out of the public arena, and to
exclude
Christian values and every expression of Christian belief from the
halls of
government. As a result, Christians have been reduced to second class
citizens
who are not allowed express their beliefs in the political arena.
However, if
we really had separation of church and state in this country, a
Christian
congressman could stand up in congress and say, “I am introducing this
bill to
stop abortion, because I believe that it is murder.” And everyone would
say,
“He has just as much right to his opinion as anyone else, put it to a
vote.” As
it is, Christians are not allowed an equal voice in government, and if
they
advocate legislation, they must come up with secular arguments to
justify it.
Furthermore, Christians are
forced to support institutions designed to advance the secular
religion,
institutions that promote doctrines totally at variance with their
religious
beliefs. What is that other than a secular establishment of religion?
Forcing
Christians to finance schools and universities that teach doctrines
contrary to
their religious beliefs is no different than forcing them to finance a
state
church that teaches doctrines contrary to what they believe.
Naturalism, by whatever name you call it (secularism, Communism, Nazism, humanism, etc.) is a religion. And because it is a religion, it has no right to be exalted over Christian beliefs in the halls of government. And those who advocate it know perfectly well that it is a religion as the following quote reveals.
“I am convinced that the battle for humankind's future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new faith: a religion of humanity that recognizes and respects the spark of what theologians call divinity in every human being. They will be ministers of another sort utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey humanist values in whatever subject they teach – Pre school day care or large state university.” (Quoted from A RELIGION FOR A NEW AGE, by John Durphy, HUMANIST MAGAZINE, Jan.-Feb. 1983)