top of page

The Destruction of Science

Updated: Apr 20, 2020

One of the great debates that has raged for probably hundreds of years if not longer is the debate and supposed divide between science and Christianity or science and religion. Indeed, I recall in the fairly early days of my doing podcasts back then on Blog Talk Radio taking a call from a skeptic. He asked what one item I would take on a desert island. But more relevantly he made the remark that I had to believe that the earth was 6,000 years old. I told him I did not believe that at all and he said if I didn't then I had to contradict the book, the Bible, I claimed to believe. I said again this was not the case and the call ended shortly thereafter as I believe he hung up. I followed up I believe with my very next podcast a subject specifically devoted to the fact that the Bible did not say this earth was 6,000 years old.

As a matter of fact the bible of course does not remotely say the world is 6,000 years old. What trips most people up is not realizing or understanding that there is some passage of time between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. The Hebrew word, Strong's word 1961, hayah, almost always is better translated as became as something that would come to pass rather than something that naturally existed or was created in that manner. Indeed, I would argue that Hebrew word 1933. hava, is a word that would better refer to a natural state of being. But hava is not the word that God, or the human writer Moses used. And when one reads of the tohu va bohu (with form and void) and takes that back to the Hebrew one hopefully gains an understanding that something cataclysmic happened to the earth.

Indeed, lest anyone be tripped up God provides I believe at least a second and a third witness in both Jeremiah and in Isaiah. In the 4th chapter of Jeremiah starting with the 23 verse, we have the exact same language almost word for word that we see in Genesis 1:2. But as we move on the next 2 or three verses, what else do we see? The birds of heaven fleeing, cities, yes cities of man broken down by God's anger. This is why we find ruins and different items on this earth that we date back much further at times than 6,000 years old. There were cities and there was both animal and human life when this world was created in Genesis 1:1 and there was a time in which all that life was removed from the earth at Satan's rebellion. Your third witness is Isaiah 45:18 where God Himself again says that He created this world not in vain but to be inhabited. But what is the word vain in the Hebrew? It is the same word that we have for void way back in Genesis 1:2, which was tohu. So this is a word from God Himself for all the "young earth creationists", telling them He did not create the world tohu, void or vain, and they had better search things out and consider them in His Word before telling His people that!

It is a sad thing indeed that so much of the Word of God is incorrectly taught and the real truths are not shared by so called teachers, preachers, pastors, and would be shepherds today. But that's another issue. We're here today in this piece to talk about science. For God's Word and true science do not contradict. But again, how much true science is even done today?

Science has supposedly always relied on something called the scientific method. First of all, I don't know how much experimenting is even being done with control groups where appropriate or if it is a bunch of people just "guessing" at things and presenting their best guesses as evidence and science. I'm afraid a lot of it is just that.

But the other thing about science and the scientific method is by design it is to rigorously accept that what is often hypothesized at the outset may be wrong. If there is credible evidence that is introduced to show that a hypothesis is flawed than that evidence is scrutinized, examined, experimented with, and often a brand new hypothesis is formed. The point is, as many have said, science is very rarely "settled". There are lots of theories and hypotheses. There are by comparison very few scientific laws. If credible and respected voices in the scientific community are doubting a hypothesis and more relevantly showing evidence that it should be doubted or at least reexamined, those voices aren't supposed to be ridiculed, marginalized, and dismissed as conspiracy theorists or bribed or bought out in some way. Yet that anymore is what happens over and over again.

We know that this planet has seen climatory changes over and over again throughout the planet's history. Ice ages and mini ice ages and warming periods all the time. Yet, we are told the science is "settled" and everyone who disagrees is a climate denier or a science denier. We're told this even as tens of thousands of scientists have said "hold your horses on all of this."

Now we literally have a "journalist" whose only backing or experience I can find in science is speaking and writing on "climate science" as well as apparently claiming expertise in subverting the teaching of science and evolution. How someone becomes an expert in such things is I'm sure as much a mystery to you as it is to me. More than anything she would seem to be a rather vigorous activist against Christianity. But don't take my word for it. Take her own word for it. What's funny is that if it became obvious that I had that much of an axe to grind with certain people of a different religious faith or social views the media would likely not give me the same platform. If they did, it would almost assuredly be to present me as some kind of backward "fundamentalist wacko" who needs to get with the times. Yet Katherine Stewart not only penned a New York Times op/ed about how Christians were to blame for the spread of coronavirus. No, it seemed like that impressed MSNBC so much that they put her on the air. So she speaks in code and calls them, and no doubt you and I, "right wing religious nationalists". But again the real point here being that she has no background in science and claims that those who disagree with her are hostile to science and reject expertise and critical thinking. First of all, there are times in which rejecting expertise are strong evidence of critical thinking.

But more to the point, a study came out that was conducted by the radical right wing religious nationalist Christians at Stanford University. What they found was that perhaps many more people in Santa Clara County California have been exposed to and infected by coronavirus than has been reported or expected. As in 50 to 85 times the number of people who may have been infected. Which means what exactly? Well, I think the good people at Green Med Info have it right when they say it would indicate one of two things. The first is that when people test positive for coronavirus, they might be testing positive for any one of dozens of possible strains of coronavirus that circulates through communities every year and includes viruses like the common cold. One would hope that with testing and identification of this specific strain that they would have it properly separated and diagnosed. But given that this is allegedly a novel, or new strain, zoonotic even they claim, as well as the haphazard start testing got off to maybe they aren't properly separating it. This is a common problem with flu shots as well. Every year flu vaccines are made that don't necessarily match the strain of flu that spreads through a community. Which not so coincidentally again shows how boosting one's immune system is the best defense against any and all viruses regardless. But the second option is that indeed this particular strain of coronavirus or Covid-19 has indeed spread quickly through communities but negatively or severely effected very few people. Which the mainstream has essentially already told us in saying 80% of those who get it won't even know they had it. Quite possibly given information such as this maybe it's even higher than 80%. That study is linked here.

But then that leaves the main question for people such as Katherine Stewart who willfully dismiss information from medical experts and refuse to critically evaluate evidence that contradicts her fear driven beliefs. Are they really following the science or are they setting up their own religion? Given the irrational reflex to arrogantly dismiss, insult, and blame people who don't think like she does, it would seem that her views fall more in line with a pseudo religious dogma than anything that is remotely scientific. Unfortunately it's all too common with those who call some of the rest of us science deniers. Allow for true science to be done and then we'll talk.


8 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All

Who Is The Antichrist?

So, this obviously is a big question that has been debated and thought upon basically since it was mentioned in the Bible. You have all sorts of people with all sorts of theories about who it is, who


Post: Blog2_Post
bottom of page