An Old Religion Wearing New Clothes
One day a group of scientists got together and decided that man had come a long way and no longer needed God. So they picked one scientist to go and tell God that they were done with Him. The scientist walked up to God and said, “God, we've decided that we no longer need you. We’re to the point that we can clone people and do many miraculous things, so why don’t you just go on and mind your own business?”
God listened very patiently and kindly to the man. After the scientist was done talking, God said, “Very well, how about this? Let’s say we have a man-making contest.” To which the scientist replied, “Okay, we can handle that!” “But,” God added, “we’re going to do this just like I did back in the old days with Adam.” The scientist said, “Sure, no problem” and bent down and grabbed himself a handful of dirt. God looked at him and said, “No, no, no. You go get your own dirt.”
The Apostle Peter said that prior to Christ’s return “scoffers will come in the last days with scoffing, following their own sinful desires.” Many of these scoffers have found a home in the worldview described as Scientism.
CS Lewis defined Scientism as the "wrong-headed belief that modern science supplies the only reliable method of knowledge about the world and also … that scientists should be the ones to dictate public policy and even our moral and religious beliefs simply on the basis of their scientific expertise."
There was a similar relation between science and culture during Lewis' life. Even in Lewis’ lifetime there were:
1. claims that science provided a view that refuted the traditional religious view.
2. claims that someone is anti-science if they were skeptical of certain claims made in the name of science.
3. claims that public policy should be guided or controlled by an elite class of scientific experts.
Scientism and the evolutionary theories it undergirds open the door to the manipulation of human beings...
There are positive aspects to science, and society has benefited from them. However,
In his book, The Abolition of Man, CS Lewis noted the tendency of science towards reductionism, he said that: "As soon as we take the final step of reducing our own species to the level of mere nature, the whole process is stultified.... By treating human beings as the products of blind non-rational forces, scientific reductionism eliminates man as a rational moral agent. Man's final conquest has proved to be the abolition of man." Scientism and the evolutionary theories it undergirds open the door to the manipulation of human beings, with no effective limit on such manipulation because scientism undermines the authority of the ethical principles needed to justify those limits.
Non-Christians are convinced that Christians start out with a presupposition that clouds our judgment. In truth, however, many of our scientific friends are far more constrained by their presuppositions.
We all have a point of view, but this does not necessarily mean we are unfairly biased. Bias has nothing to do with holding a viewpoint. Bias and the assumptions it is based on, occur when a viewpoint eliminates certain forms of evidence and the conclusions they lead to before beginning the investigation. While atheists argue that Christians have this kind of bias, a quick examination of the culture’s reliance on science reveals the opposite is true. You have probably heard statements similar to this: “I am a science and evidence person. Truth can only be determined empirically, and science is the only way to really know truth.” When people make statements like this, they are revealing something more than a point of view; they may be exposing a rigid bias that is grounded in an over-reliance on science known as “scientism”.
There are three dangers in over-valuing the ability of science to determine truth:
An Over-Reliance on Science is Self-Refuting
When people say, “Science is the only way to really know the truth,” it is reasonable to ask how they “really know” that this statement is true. If they do, ask them how science helped them come to this conclusion. It turns out that the statement, “Science is the only way to really know the truth,” cannot be verified by science! This statement is a philosophical proclamation that defies its own claim: it cannot be verified or confirmed as “true” through any scientific examination or method. It turns out that, for people who make this claim, there is at least one truth they can know without the benefit of science: the fact that science is the only way to really know the truth! An obvious contradiction.
An Over-Reliance on Science is Inappropriately Limiting
There are many things that we know without the benefit of science. The previously mentioned philosophical claim is just one example. But there are more:
1. Logical and mathematical truths: these must be accepted as foundational presuppositions in order for us to engage in any scientific study, so we clearly can’t use science to determine the logic and math facts that precede science.
2. Metaphysical truths: some truths about the nature of the world (such as whether or not the external world is real in the first place) cannot be determined through the use of science.
3. Moral and ethical truths: Science cannot tell us what is morally virtuous or vile. It may, on occasion help us to know what “is” (related to the material world), but science can never tell us what “ought to be” (related to moral judgments).
4. Aesthetic truths: Science cannot help us to determine or judge what is beautiful or what is ugly.
5. Historical truths: Perhaps most important to the study of the Christian worldview, science cannot determine what is true historically. Most importantly, science can tell us nothing about the ancient claims related to the historicity of Jesus or the historical reliability of the Bible.
If we are going to reject all categories of truth that cannot be determined or verified scientifically, we are going to have to reject all truths related to logic, mathematics, morals, aesthetics, history or metaphysics. The most important claims and assertions of life would have to be ignored as untrustworthy.
Philosophical naturalism rules out an entire category of theological explanation and the miracles it records even before it seeks to determine if anything miraculous exists!
An Over-Reliance on Science is Prejudicially Biased
More importantly, an over-reliance on science eliminates possible explanations on the basis of bias. There is a difference between the scientific method (which is a rational process of testing) and scientism (which is an irrational commitment to philosophical naturalism). Philosophical naturalists refuse to consider anything outside the natural world as an explanation for the events they observe. Christians, on the other hand, are better able to let the evidence take them where it leads. If natural laws and processes can account for a particular phenomenon, so be it. If natural laws and processes fall short of providing an explanation and the evidence points to the existence of something supernatural, that explanation is still on the table. Philosophical naturalism rules out an entire category of theological explanation and the miracles it records even before it seeks to determine if anything miraculous exists!
The Christian worldview has the ability to embrace natural explanations without rejecting the miraculous out of hand.
Which of these two approaches is most prejudicial?
Which is least tolerant of the variety of explanations that are available to us?
An over-reliance on science has blinded our culture to the rich explanatory possibilities. It’s no wonder that many post-enlightenment scientists have so much trouble finding what they seek.
Scientism is its Own Religion
An article related to the existence of “Dark Matter” was published recently. It provides great insight. The title of the article is “Scientists Confounded by New Findings on Universe’s Mysterious Dark Matter.” Why are they confounded? 'Dark Matter' has been proposed as Scientism’s rescue device because all of the young-appearing galaxies that are still in pinwheels and spiral shapes, and the tight nature of galactic clusters. This shouldn't be after billions of years. They had to come up with 'dark matter' to keep them all together, otherwise, they should have spun out in shapelessness. And the clusters should be much further apart, and not in the clusters we observe.
The article states, “Research published this week revealed an unexpected discrepancy between observations of dark matter concentrations in three massive clusters of galaxies encompassing trillions of stars and theoretical computer simulations of how dark matter should be distributed.”
Frequent unexpected and surprising findings are systemic in Scientism’s continuously incorrect positions on deep time and evolution.
"Either there is a missing ingredient in the simulations or we have made a fundamental incorrect assumption about the nature of dark matter," Yale University astrophysicist Priyamvada Natarajan, a co-author of the study published in the journal Science, said.
Dark matter is proposed as the invisible glue that holds stars together inside a galaxy. It is also credited with creating an invisible scaffold that enables galaxies to form clusters. But it has very peculiar properties. It does not emit, absorb, or reflect light, and does not interact with any known particles. Being invisible and not emitting means that believing it exists requires faith.
The bulk of the matter in the universe, about 96%, is thought to be dark matter, with ordinary matter - the visible stuff that makes up stars, planets and people - a mere 4%.
And it gets worse. Dark matter supposes to take up 96% of the universe but can't be seen. The physical part is just 4%. If they used just 90% dark matter in their model, the galaxies' stars still would be dispersed into formlessness.
Dark matter's presence is proposed simply because of the assumed gravitational pull on visible matter in space. It differs from the similarly enigmatic and unseen dark energy, which is considered a property of space and is driving the universe's accelerated expansion. Dark matter attracts through gravity. Dark energy is repulsive.
They found our universe's galaxies are expanding faster AND PICKING UP SPEED the further they are away from us. More speed than expected. Once again, an unseen, immeasurable concept is created to solve the problem...dark energy.
God knows more about physics and how to work with it than today's scientists. In Isaiah 42:5 God describes Himself this way: “Thus says God, the Lord, who created the heavens and stretched them out, who spread out the earth and what comes from it, who gives breath to the people on it and spirit to those who walk in it:” In the absence of God, Scientism has created powerful, unseen, unmeasurable forces to replace Him. It’s a matter of faith. Where should we place our faith? In man’s intellect and theories, or in God?
There are many things in the world that are wrong. Some very confusingly so. But that does not necessarily mean they are things that should occupy the precious time and energy we each have available to us. We must choose our battles. Personally, I focus my attention to those things that directly affect my family, or my relationship with God and His Son Jesus Christ. And I’m usually led to recognize those things by the Holy Spirit. So choosing battles is a very spiritual experience, at least I think it should be. So while the topic of Scientism may seem very frustrating, and even disappointing, is it a battle worth engaging in? That is for every individual to decide. As I have considered this subject through the years, I suddenly had a thought. "If this principle, Scientism, is as damaging as I believe it is, its effects should be measurable.” In other words, if this was as bad as I thought it was, I should be able to quantify the damage. And so my research began. I place it under the heading:
“The Importance of Hope”
Two polls conducted in the last twenty years reveal a disturbing trend. The data is often used to imply that the more educated an individual is, the more likely they are to believe in evolution. And, that the less educated a person is, the more likely they are to believe in God. When the data is reviewed more closely, another fact becomes clear: as individuals progress through their education and are more fully indoctrinated in the theory of evolution, the less likely they are to believe in God, and to attend church regularly. The relationship is clear, and quantifiable.
A 2005 Gallup poll revealed that as education continued, with its accompanying exposure to evolutionary teachings, church attendance decreased. 72% of those who attend church regularly believed that God created human beings as they began their education, but by the time they completed their higher education, only 44% held that same belief. Among those who did not attend church regularly, their belief in God declined just as significantly, from 48% prior to their education experience, to only 9% at completion.
A 2017 Pew research poll was equally as compelling. Conducted twelve years after the Gallup poll, the effect of evolutionary teaching on those receiving higher education had a similar effect. In this poll, only 66% of those who begin their college experience believed in God, while upon graduation, the number had declined to 45%. While the final numbers are comparable, the decline in belief of those entering the education system at the higher level can be related to the “generational effect” of evolution now having been taught to the parents and grandparents in these Christian families.
Teaching evolution in our schools, particularly in Christian universities is not a victimless endeavor. Faith, and the hope it offers, is negatively affected by the indoctrination of students through secular science education and the evolution it includes. The Gallup researchers reached the conclusion that, “Belief that God created humans in their present form decreases as education increases.” The effects this change has had are frightening. During this time frame, from 2007 to 2017, the National Center for Health Statistics reported that suicide rates for persons age 10-24 increased from 6.8 per 100,000 to 10.6 per 100,000 persons, with suicide surpassing homicide rates among this age group during this same time frame. In addition, drug overdose deaths in 2017 increased to 21.7 per 100,000 persons, up from approximately 8 per 100,000 in 2005. Undoubtedly new pressures have been introduced on society during this time frame. And just as these new pressures are being felt by youth and young adults, they are being taught they cannot believe in God as creator or enjoy the hope this belief offers. When they need Him most, they are being encouraged to discard or “reconcile” their religious belief with an anti-God evolutionary theory. Both of these events, the increase in suicide deaths, and the increase in drug overdose deaths demonstrate a profound loss of hope. Suicide is an attempt at escape. Drug abuse is an attempt at escape. When circumstances are overwhelming, and there is no hope of an external rescue from someone with the ability to do so, despair is the consequence. When God has been discounted and dismissed, there is no hope for many of these young people. The indoctrination into evolution theory has left many of them hopeless and in despair.
High schools and universities all over the country have already, or are now giving in to the pressure to teach evolution. This pressure has come from a variety of sources. The current efforts are largely led by other academic institutions and teacher’s unions. However, they have been emboldened by the attitude of the public. A People for the American Way poll conducted in 2000 found that 20% of those surveyed believed that only evolution should be taught in class. Another 29% felt that evolution should be taught but mentioning creationism as a “belief” was acceptable. And a further 17% believed that God-directed creation should be taught in religion class, while evolution was taught in science class. Only 13% of respondents thought evolution and creation should be given equal treatment. This is among average Americans.
A 2017 article published by the National Center for Biotechnology Information and the American Society for Cell Biology, sponsored by the National Institutes of Health, encouraged teachers to provide “Religious Role Models” who accept evolution, and to use what they call “Cultural Competence” as a tool to discourage disagreement with evolution. . These practices have been developed into a procedure called ReCCEE that leads university teachers through six processes to indoctrinate students and gain acceptance of evolution. This article encourages the promotion of the idea that rejecting evolution is culturally intolerant. They call this approach “Cultural Competence.” In effect, if students believe in God and creation, they are told that they are being prejudice and bigoted. This article also encouraged the differentiation between “Atheistic Evolution” and “Theistic Evolution.” This approach is encouraged in spite of the fact that biologists “do not believe theistic evolution is compatible with evolution.” They do not believe theistic evolution is acceptable or the desired outcome. Theistic evolution is used to open the door, but it is not the final destination. The goal is acceptance of evolution, without any efforts to include God. They simply use those who attempt to reconcile with evolution, their “Religious Role Models” as steps in the process to gain acceptance. Several methods have been constructed to measure their success at creating “acceptance” of evolution. These include the Measure of Acceptance of the Theory of Evolution (MATE), the Inventory of Student Evolution Acceptance (I-SEA), and the Generalized Acceptance of Evolution Evaluation (GAENE). With these evaluation tools in place, the indoctrination of students has itself become a science. It is not surprising then that this article reported that only 25% of biologists are religious, with evolutionary biologists being “markedly irreligious,” with only 10% believing in God.
There should be no confusion between absolute truth, which is our belief, and tolerance, which is how we behave towards others with differing beliefs.
Students are made to feel guilty for their belief in God, using the principle of “cultural competence.” Christians do not want to feel they are being unfair, or intolerant, and so often fall prey to these attacks. In this case, tolerance is being replaced by acceptance. With the knowledge that absolute truth exists, there is no need for acceptance of false belief. This does not mean there should be intolerance. Allowing others to believe as they choose and being tolerant of those beliefs is an important principle. Accepting these beliefs, when they are in opposition to know absolute truths is not. Believing in absolute truth does not make anyone a bigot or intolerant. There should be no confusion between absolute truth, which is our belief, and tolerance, which is how we behave towards others with differing beliefs.
The discussion of a theory like evolution, even if unproven, is the norm for science. Theories are often discussed and reviewed prior to being proven. However, it is considered prudent to review the ramifications of teaching a theory as fact before embracing it, particularly in universities sponsored by religious institutions. If there was an expectation that teaching the idea of evolution would have a damaging effect on the belief of students attending the institution, then it would be reasonable to not embrace the unproven theory as fact. Especially if the reason students were attending the institution was because of its religious affiliation. There is no other valid reason for a religiously sponsored university to exist if it is not teaching within the religious beliefs of the faith. Religiously sponsored universities should be the most concerned about the effects referenced here, and yet they continue with their efforts to force feed evolution to students.
At some stage, a tipping point will be reached where so many people have been indoctrinated into evolution and its necessary rejection of Biblical Creation that even rewriting the curriculum will not turn the tide. With so many parents being the product of these same institutions, resistance to these theories is declining, as has been reported by the universities themselves. Perhaps realizing what this trend has cost our children will turn the tide. Many may not be convinced by the decline in regular church attendance. But the increase in suicide and drug-related deaths that has accompanied it should cause anyone to reconsider the cost of allowing an unproven theory to so fully consume our educational institutions, particularly those that claim to be religious schools, or are funded by members of the faith that sponsor them.
Scientism is not a victimless worldview.
Scientism is not a victimless worldview. It costs each of us and our families. It is worthwhile for us to understand its fundamental flaws and who the author of this view is. Satan intends to replace our faith in God with faith in anything else. Scientism is one of those “anything else” religions. And it is infiltrating our own universities and finding its way into our homes. We must recognize that the purpose of this belief system is to replace God and to replace Jesus Christ as Creator and author of our salvation.
Comments