THE DARKNESS OF THE HUMAN HEART
Part 2
How the Cultic Mind Subverts Science
An Indictment of Our Culture by
Gary Ray Branscome
“The
time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but according to their
own lusts, will surround themselves with teachers who tell them what their ears
itch to hear” (2Timothy 4:3).
Because the Bible is the Word of God, everything that
it says is “sound doctrine”!
Therefore, those who close their mind to what the Bible says, professing themselves to be wise by
making up secular explanations for the origin of life and the universe around
them have a cultic mentality and a “spirit
of error” (Romans 1:22 and 1John 4:6).
Our society, and the world in general, is in the mess
it is in today because instead of faithfully believing and teaching what the
Bible clearly says many Christians make up explanations of what is said, read
unscriptural ideas into the text, explain away passages that do not agree with
their ideas, and fight like cats and dogs over man-made “interpretations”, thus
discrediting Scripture, in the eyes of the world.
As a result, those who have lost confidence in
Scripture turn to “science” for answers, blind to the fact that many scientists
interpret observable facts in the same way that cults interpret Scripture;
making up explanations, reading unscriptural ideas into what is observed, and
explaining away any facts that do not fit their secular worldview. The only
difference is that they hide any disagreement over their man-made
interpretations of the evidence.
The purpose of this essay is to expose the cultic
mindset behind secular science while calling God’s people back to the
plainly-stated truth of His Word.
Minds That Are Closed
To Any Facts That Agree with Scripture
At present, there is a great deal of disagreement
among scientists as to how the facts of science should be interpreted, and what
conclusions should be drawn from them. There are thousands of scientists who
are convinced that all of the observable evidence agrees with Scripture. Yet, while
many scientists are aware of facts that agree with the Bible, the fact that scientists
have lost funding and even been blacklisted for voicing such knowledge keeps
most of them quiet.
When Charles Darwin observed warm little ponds that
were full of living things, that observation was science; however, when he
assumed that in such a pond non-living matter could come to life that was
conjecture, not science. A good scientist should never just assume something
like that. Instead, he should look for evidence as to where those living things
came from. And, since the time of
When Charles Darwin observed small differences in the
size of finch beaks and changes produced by carefully breeding pigeons, those
observations were science. However, when he assumed
that (given enough time) those small changes could change one kind of animal
into an entirely different kind of animal that was conjecture. A good scientist
should never assume something like that. Instead he should look at the evidence
to see if there is a limit to the change. And, since the time of
Like typical cultists, secular-scientists simply make
up claims that are passed off as fact while ignoring and explaining away any
evidence that does not fit their claims. For example: They line up pictures of
apes and men in a row, and then claim that each one is an ancestor of the next
one in line even though there is not one scrap of evidence to support such a
claim. In fact, one complaint has been that they misrepresent the fossil
evidence by making some apes look more human and some humans look more apelike.
That is not the way honest scientists deal with the evidence. They simply use pictures
and charts to convey ideas not supported by the evidence.
One of their bogus claims is that the first people on
earth talked in grunts, and that language gradually evolved from simple to
complex. But that is just a made up story! The fact is that older languages are
more complex, and languages tend to get simplified over time.
Another bogus claim is that the first men did know how
to make fire, but ate meat raw. Yet they have no evidence for that claim. It is
just another made-up story that is passed off to the unsuspecting public as
fact.
One popular claim is that dinosaurs became extinct as
the result of a meteor hitting the
Other “scientists” claim that dinosaurs evolved into
birds. Yet again they have no evidence for that claim. They just need a story
to explain where birds came from so they make one up. The fact is that fossil
birds have been found in the same strata as fossil dinosaurs, proving that both
were alive at the same time. But, they need a story so in typical cult fashion
they just ignore the facts.
I could go on and on! Whenever “scientists” need a
story they just make one up, and they often go on using it decades after it has
been shown to be a fraud. The claim that human embryos have gill slits was
shown to be a fraud over one-hundred years ago, yet that claim still appears in
some textbooks. The claim that whales evolved from an extinct “possum-like”
animal is nothing more than a fairy tale for adults, yet it appears in
textbooks, where it is palmed off as fact.
That sort of fraud is the mark of a cult.
Contrary to secular claims, whenever an animal found
in the fossil record has not become extinct it is not substantially different
from its modern day counterparts. That fact should be seen by every honest
researcher as evidence that living things are not evolving. Yet secularists
brush this evidence aside, claiming that those living things simply stopped
evolving. Isn’t it curious that according to the secular worldview only extinct
plants or animals have evolved, while those which are not extinct are
experiencing a “stasis in their evolution”? The actual fact is that there is no
evidence that any plant or animal ever evolved into a totally different kind of
plant or animal. That is why they claim that evolution happens too slowly to be
observed.
Cultic Opposition to Research
Well into the nineteenth century
scientists held to the belief that disease was caused by bad air. Therefore,
when Dr. Ignaz Phillip Semmelweis (1818-65), saw evidence that disease was
being spread by dirty hands, and acted on that observation by requiring the
doctors working under him to wash thoroughly, those doctors (trained in the
science of medicine) fought his rules, ignored him, slandered him, had him
demoted, and eventually drove him from the hospital. As to the evidence, like
cultists in general, they just ignored and explained away the fact that while
the rules of cleanliness that he set in place were being practiced the number
of deaths at the hospital decreased radically.
At about the same time, research done
by Louis Pasteur (1822-95) highlighted evidence that disease was caused by
microbes (thus supporting the observations of Dr. Semmelweis).
However, many doctors ignored him, mocked him, called him a quack because his field
was chemistry rather than medicine, and derisively spoke of vaccination as
injecting filth into people.
In that same era, Joseph Lister
(1827-1912), who was aware of the findings of Pasteur and Semmelweiss,
found that he could go beyond just washing hands and medical instruments by
using carbolic acid to actually sterilize wounds, hands and instruments. Yet
again, many doctors not only refused to look at the evidence, or even let their
nurses assist him in surgery (where they might be influenced by him), but blindly
insisted that pus purified wounds.
To give one final example: On the first page of his
book, “The Blind watchmaker” (second paragraph) the atheist Richard
Dawkins writes. “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the
appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” However, since his book
was written to explain away that obvious fact, we need to ask this question. If a dog, a horse, or any other animal looked
at those ‘complicated things,’ would it conclude that they had been ‘designed
for a purpose’? If not, then the reason they appear to humans as being designed
is because our reason tells us that they have been designed. And, if that is
the case, then Richard Dawkins’ denial of that fact is a rejection of reason. Now,
is a rejection of reason the mark of true science or cultic deception?
Conclusion
Only science that honestly reports
what has been observed — drawing only those conclusions actually warranted by
the facts, not secular bias — can truly be called science. There is a world of
difference between the precise mathematical science used to put a man on the
moon, and the antiscientific rejection of any evidence that points to the
truthfulness of Scripture. While the opinions of men may contradict the words
of scripture, the facts never do.