In my last posting I mentioned a number of false secular religions. Among them is the religion of science. If this isn’t the worst and all-pervasive of the lot, it’s close.


In the religion of science, the subject of worship is scientific achievement, particularly the knowledge acquired in the last four hundred years or so, and definitely including the works of Isaac Newton (1642-1727), the inventor of the mathematical branches of differential and integral calculus and of the discipline of physics, which received an enormous boost from the application of the calculus to the basic principles of physics as formulated by Newton.


Newton’s contributions to science, in fact, comprise a substantial component of science’s repertoire of achievements. It is ironic, therefore, that if Newton were alive today, he would be very disappointed in the manner in which science has been elevated to the status of godhood. He was among the most fervent Christians of his era, automatically placing his own accomplishments in the context of God’s guiding Hand. He was so humbled by the kindness of God in showing him facets of His Creation that he spent the latter forty years of his life as a priest.


Science hasn’t seen itself in that way for centuries, particularly since the time Darwin published his Origin of Species in 1859 with a far more speculative, unverifiable and imprecise vision that represented at best a mere possibility. Baser minds than Newton were quick to grasp the implication that Darwin’s theory removed the necessity of a creative God in the universe and beefed the theory up by coupling it with the equally insubstantial Principle of Uniformity to come up with a worldview that superseded the Judeo-Christian God.


Evolution (macroevolution) and Uniformity are necessary bedfellows, because Darwin’s mechanism of the operation of natural selection on chance modifications was such a terribly weak force that incredibly large blocks of time were required to make the theory appear viable. Uniformity insists, without any logical reason, that there was nothing that occurred in the past that can’t be observed in the present. Applied to earth history, it means that mountains have been formed and moved by the slow, minuscule erosive processes of wind, rain, ice, snow and the odd volcano or earthquake or so. It postulates enormous time periods for the geological formations we see today as well as the “evolution” of life.


While a number of intellectual luminaries like Fourier, LaPlace and Maxwell continued to build upon the Newton’s edifice of the hard mathematical and physical sciences that have produced a cornucopia of technological wonders, a host of others were contributing to the “softer” sciences that demanded speculative conclusions. Although they are placed under the same category as “science”, they aren’t even in the same league. While the hard sciences are worthy of our respect and do nothing to undercut godly faith, the soft sciences demand for acceptance a large measure of blind faith, and they do indeed demand a shift in faith from God to science.


If the soft sciences’ dubious achievements were the only issue, their existence would simply represent a waste of time and energy. But they’ve created a companion issue that’s far worse. By linking themselves with the hard sciences, they’ve come to demand without any justification whatsoever the same kind of respect, as if their pronouncements were factual beyond question. One can see example of this in the manner in which the National Geographic organization’s media outlets treat macroevolution as factual, or in the way childrens’ textbooks attempt to factualize mere speculation, demanding of our next generation’s crop of adults unconditional allegiance to concepts that not only are unproven, but attempt to render our Judeo-Christian God unnecessary and irrelevant to their lives.


Those in positions of advancing the status of science in the community have cleverly helped along the process of replacing God with science. The National Academy of Sciences, for example, declared several years ago that religion and science occupied non-overlapping spheres of human interest, wherein religion occupied itself with matters of ethics and morality while science addressed itself to all issues pertaining to the “real” world about us. Not only does that wholesale turf grab toss Newton’s humble thanks to God into the dumpster, but it attempts to trash the Genesis Creation Epic. Science has been eminently successful in that endeavor. It has also misled the public about its nature as a religion. Demanding both worship and faith, it is every bit as much of a religion as the Christianity it intends to supplant.


Unlike Christianity, which is far more logical and verifiable than the soft sciences, those “sciences” for the most part are demonstrably false. In particular, recent advances in the molecular biology subfield of the biological sciences, which I consider to be among the hard sciences, have refuted much of Darwinian and neo-Darwinian theory. Additionally, the discovery by the father/son Alvarez team of the catastrophic demise of dinosaurs has effectively refuted the principle of uniformity.


Some so-called Christians, playing a repeat of the accommodation of England’s Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain to Hitler’s power grab, think it possible to embrace Darwinian evolution with Christianity. If, common to Christians, Scripture is understood to be the inspired Word of God, such accommodation is not possible. In the first place, the notion of evolution attempts to refute the Creation Epic in Genesis; at best it implies a God who is only remotely connected to our everyday affairs. That’s not how the Bible presents God. Secondly, “theistic evolution” is a futile effort that demonstrates not only the accommodater’s lack of knowledge regarding the Bible, but his lack of knowledge regarding biology: evolution is in the process of rejection by all who truly understand Darwin’s mechanism as opposed to the advances made in the field of molecular biology. As scientist Wolfgang Pauli famously sneered “It isn’t even false” regarding the view of another scientist, one almost could say about Darwinian evolution, “it isn’t even science”. The only thing holding that particular sneer back from being absolute is that Darwinian evolution does indeed work, but at such a tiny level of productivity and at the expense of information loss that the attempt to apply it to big changes is truly unscientific.


God had anticipated this situation. Through Paul, God said in 1Timothy 6:20 and 21:


“O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called, which some, professing, have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.”



Published by Art Perkins