SCIENCE: Weal or Woe? Series
Updated: Sep 9
Since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities
—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen,
being understood from what has been made,
so that people are without excuse.
For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God
nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile
and their foolish hearts were darkened.
Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools...”
What is science—really? Does modern science fit its description of itself? What does science have to do with weal or woe?
Despite a politically, socially, economically, and morally divided world, we can still all probably agree on this: the area of study called science—using the scientific method—originally began with people desiring to explore and learn about the material or natural world and how it works, and share and compare their findings.
In the embryonic stages of what is now called science, scientists or naturalists, and students of nature generally believed in God. They believed as the Bible relates, that God created the world, the universe, and everything in them. However—as you are probably well aware—there has been a major shift since then. Scientists no longer generally agree God even exists. What has happened? How has this shift affected science? Can what is called science actually be scientific if it insists—absolutely—scientists must divorce themselves from belief in God in order to be legitimate?
The separation from and rejection of the initial view of God’s existence and involvement has slowly crept into science (as well as into other areas of study) through various social movements. It seems to have begun during the “Enlightenment” era when subjective or moral relativism began to gain popularity over what were considered objective standards of good and evil, or morality as defined by the God of Judeo-Christian origins. The Humanist movement, which has emphasized good works by human understanding, will, and effort, alone—without God—was an outgrowth of and contributed immensely to this separation and push away from God as well.
These philosophies set the stage for the worship (idolization) of unaided human intellect and knowledge obtained through human observation, thought, and reasoning. Out of this movement arose a new religion. Ironically, science was and is at the center of it. Darwinism, also known as scientific atheism, became the heart of this new belief system of choice. A few people may be put off because I’ve labeled Darwinism a religion—but instead of tuning me out, if you’re one of these persons, please give me a minute, and consider my reasons for claiming this.
What other description more accurately fits the zealous, unquestioning, whole-hearted adherence and devotion to Darwin’s whole theory of evolution—the total, irrevocable acceptance
of it as absolute truth? And what’s more, the forming and carrying out of an edict that anyone even appearing to disagree with this creed (God and the supernatural), can and should be promptly excommunicated or excluded from membership altogether (in the scientific community)? And finally, the insistence that any dissidence or evidence against Darwinian evolution should and must, without equivocation, be summarily rejected and considered heresy (non-scientific)?
Below is one incidental (it randomly came up on a Google search) but representative example of how things have been conducted in the realm of science. It’s taken from Scientific American, Observations | Opinion, written by Mark Alpert:
For 10 years, I was an editor at Scientific American. During that time, we were diligent about exposing the falsehoods of “intelligent design” proponents who claimed to see God’s hand in the fashioning of complex biological structures such as the human eye and the bacterial flagellum.
This presupposing “scientific” agenda, implemented by disseminators of what is meant to be considered reliable science, were acting against any spirit of inquiry outside their box. They were intentionally insuring adherence to the prescribed dogmas, imposing their creed or faith on all who would call themselves members or followers (scientists). This is not science.
The dedication of strict adherents to Darwinism is total and adamant, despite Darwin’s own caveat. Darwin observed, in his book The Origin of Species: “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find no such case.”  Independent of Darwin’s concession, the general scientific community has refused to consider, for one thing, that cell biology and geology, including paleontology (the study of fossils) were in their infancy when Darwin put his theory forward. Since then, these two areas of study especially, have provided ample and substantial reasons to question Darwin’s theory—at least in part. Yet the general Darwinian “scientific” community has not allowed this consideration to influence their “scientific” inquiries.
Their focus has been exclusively on finding and declaring Darwin’s theory true in all respects. The attitude has been, “don’t bother us—the more intelligent experts—with any supposed ‘evidence’ to the contrary; it couldn’t possibly be tenable.” Instead, Darwin’s theory is considered by them to be a scientific law—a well-established fact—by the scientific community in general; and this ideology has been religiously assumed and fastidiously inserted in school textbooks at all levels of public schooling.
Don’t get me wrong. I don’t deny that Darwin’s theory of evolution has contributed to scientific studies. Micro-evolution, involving changes within a species or kind is supported by generally accepted, uncontrived evidence. For example, there is ample proof that birds’ beaks do adapt (though it also appears they revert to a normative standard when environmental stressors are removed). Other micro-adaptions have also been observed within other species (plants, insects, animals) as well. In this sense—of micro-evolution—Darwin’s theory of evolution has proven viable and valuable.
However, macro-evolution, which supposes transition from one species or kind into another, has not been and cannot be definitively proven. Especially of late, finds in biology and geology, again, including paleontology, have strongly indicated otherwise. There is no real proof that primates evolved into humans, sea creatures into land animals, or even bacteria into anything other than a modified form of similar bacteria.
There have been artistic manipulations of “finds” into contrived, but convincing charts that appear to support macro-evolution. And there has been the tampering with or putting forward of false “evidence” to prove “links,” which could be otherwise translated. These kinds of exercises have not made the news or been presented in a way that has exposed them for what they are—contrived, falsified information.
Ignoring both non-supporting outside evidence and their own internal dishonesty, devotees of Darwinism vehemently hold to the whole theory, both micro- and macro-evolution. It doesn’t matter if findings that differ are obtained through a faithful or diligent application of the scientific method. That’s because macro-evolution, which all devout Darwinians believe in, is a faith-based ideology.
Adherents of Darwinian evolution have placed their faith in human knowledge and humans eventually proving this theory as fact, but they’re accepting it as fact before the proof. There’s no revision of the hypothesis going on here—no spirit of inquiry—no real science involved. At this point, “science” has stopped being science. And, there seems to be no awareness of, or glimmer of concern about, this non-scientific bent among the most loyal devotees and disciples of Darwin. Instead, “scientific” time, energy, and resources are constantly being funneled into erecting monuments and statues of Darwin and building altars and temples for the worship of him and his theory.
I’ve mentioned that this is not all. Proponents of Darwinian “science” are seriously dedicated to ensuring that anyone who calls themselves a scientist should also not believe in God. They are dogmatic about this and assertive in their implementation of it. They don’t want anyone who believes there is a God or who would consider “Intelligent Design” as a possibility to be taken seriously in the scientific community. They have used their greater numbers and academic authority against scientists who differ from them. This tyranny has included threats and the actual removal of status, employment, or credentials of non-adherents to Darwinian atheism. While they are often unkind to each other regarding their competitive theories, they are united and even more rabid in their persecution of “ignorant” theists, potential theists, and proponents of intelligent design.
It appears that the one main combined purpose of Darwinian “science” is to fervidly, religiously, maintain the belief and doctrine among all who call themselves scientists that there is no God. This dictatorial stance not only squelches and goes against the spirit of inquiry—against true science, but it is also a socially unhealthy tyranny. This attitude in any society, but especially in the scientific community, ought to set off alarm bells. (And it has for a few honest souls.)
In one sense, Darwinian evolutionists are justified. Why? Science, by its very nature, can only deal with the material or tangible universe and what can be known through the five senses—taste, smell, touch, hearing, and sight. And God, by His very nature, is supernatural. If one is only “allowed” to consider material evidence, the evolutionist’s stance is a somewhat more defensible position. However, what people don’t generally consider is that science was never meant to be applied directly to understanding or proving the supernatural. What’s supernatural, by definition, exists outside the natural or material world and is distinct from what our physical bodies can sense or grasp.
Nevertheless, many, many people (including myself at one time) have presumed that science and the scientific method have given or can give satisfactory answers concerning the spiritual or nonmaterial realm. When the truth is that God, origins, purpose, morality, the essence of the human soul, love and relationships, spirits, demons, and so on are all metaphysical or—as the Merriam-Webster online dictionary puts it—“a reality beyond what is perceptible to the senses.”
Things like the existence of God, the spirit or breath of life, the soul, intelligence, conscience, influence, power, and such cannot be concretely measured or observed except through their impact or the results of their spiritual existence on the material world. These kinds of things cannot be concretely proven or disproven to exist materially by scientific means because they aren’t material. Yet because of social training and habit, science is still what people tend to look to for answers to supernatural or spiritual questions and concerns.
There are at least three choices and ways of approaching the study or field of science. One is to be exclusive to the material world and closed off entirely to the possibility of the supernatural. Another is to be open to the possibility of the supernatural, but not interested in pursuing this option. And thirdly there is the choice of being open to the possibility of the supernatural and actively exploring probabilities in both the natural and the supernatural realms.
When scientific atheists confess that they simply will not entertain the possibility of the supernatural—no matter what evidence might come to light—they might see themselves as being the most scientific of all, but are they? Many atheistic scientists have made this kind of determination and declaration. But when these “scientists” adamantly, dogmatically, obstinately, and even systematically refute the possibility of God’s existence—based on science—what is this?
Again, it’s not science. It doesn’t fit or follow the original intent and spirit of inquiry. Simply put, it is biased. It has set itself up as superior to all other realms or fields of study. It’s accountable only to itself. It has closed off any possibilities of rational thought outside itself. It wants to annihilate loyalty to anything outside itself. It’s totalitarian and exclusive. It inculcates an unteachable and arrogant attitude in its most committed adherents.
Should this kind of belief system, this stance, this practice, this whole entity be called science? Has hard-core Darwinianism or atheistic “science” not devolved into being a spurious, fanatical, even harmful, religious cult? Does such a religion—neither belonging to God nor truly belonging to the realm of study called science—deserve to be called anything but heretical?
And who knows? Maybe there is something much deeper and darker at work influencing the minds and hearts of persons faithful to this cult. Something that these persons, who are not even willing to acknowledge they have a soul, would not be able to recognize because it’s supernatural? Some spirit that is deeply opposed to God, to God’s definition of good and evil, and to God’s ways? An arrogant, vain, self-superior spirit? Wouldn’t this be ironic?
Whatever is behind this overzealous religious cult of “scientific” atheism, we would all do well to learn from it. We all need to keep in mind that science alone was never meant to, nor is it able to provide ultimate or eternal truth about non-material realities. This is especially true of questions involving God’s purposes, plans, and promises; as well as the eternal health and well-being of the complex human soul. What is the most promising option for learning truth about the supernatural realm?
Paradoxically, the natural world—the earth, the seas, the heavens (or the atmosphere and space), and all that they contain—is meant by God to be material evidence for His existence and a means through which He can communicate some of His love, character, and attributes, to humankind. Everything in the material world is a symbolic picture in one way or another of things in the spiritual realm—though one should be truly careful how one interprets these indications. Those who do believe in God view the order, complexity, interconnectedness, harmony, design, life, energy, and so on in the material world as tangible evidence for God’s supernatural existence and of His wisdom, power, generosity, omniscience, and so on. As David the Psalmist wrote (and sang):
“The heavens declare the glory of God;
the skies proclaim the work of his hands.
Day after day they pour forth speech;
night after night they reveal knowledge.
They have no speech, they use no words;
no sound is heard from them.
Yet their voice goes out into all the earth,
their words to the ends of the world.”
Another paradox atheistic scientists don’t realize is just how much their scientific—and personal—worlds rely on faith in non-material things that they cannot measure or detect by the five senses. For example, while many scientists deny they have a God-given conscience or choice (a will), they depend on themselves and everyone else to choose to practice certain of (God’s) objective absolute moral and social laws to at least some degree or another. Reliable, good, sound science (and society) cannot happen without at least an attempt at some honesty, exactitude, integrity, or reliability. Irresponsibility in doing experiments, following procedures, or making observations will cause the results to be worthless. Putting forward false claims or evidence to bolster one’s theory will discount one’s theory in the end. Even the suppositions needed to develop a scientific hypothesis or theory require hope for yet intangible evidence. Naturalistic scientists who delight in destroying any belief in God—leaving a void of amorality—are destroying the foundations for good science and society as well.
Yet another significant paradox is that God—the very creator of everything that all scientists study—somehow transported Himself from the spiritual realm and came in the flesh, in material form, to the earth as Jesus Christ, Emmanuel (God with us). However, the adherents of Darwinian “science” thoroughly reject the very idea of this, and so they also miss seeing God in His incarnate manifestation. They won’t and can’t recognize Him for who He is because their eyes are only on the material.
The Bible accounts are also a tangible record of words, symbols, pictures or types, examples, prophecies, and more that God, through His Spirit, inspired and gave to humankind to point to Jesus’ coming (and future return) in the flesh—and the reason for it. Jesus Christ (Messiah/Anointed One) and the work He came to do on earth have been foretold and promised since the beginning of time and affirmed through the ages. He is the culmination of God’s supernatural work in the natural realm on behalf of all humankind.
Those who believe in Jesus are empowered by God—as He has promised—to be able to supernaturally see and hear, by His Spirit, the truth about God and the supernatural realm. Along with everything in natural creation, the moral realm, and the Bible that points to (promises) and testifies of Jesus by the Spirit who inspired it—believers or God’s people, who follow the Lord in Spirit and in truth, are meant with all of these to be both tangible and spiritual (supernatural) witnesses for God to other humans.
Of all these paradoxes, the greatest one of all is that there is material evidence for God and the supernatural everywhere in the universe and beyond, but the materialist can’t see it because of their intentional choice not to believe in the supernatural. There is no blinder faith than theirs.
Finally, how is this all tied to weal and woe (‘shalom’ or ‘ra,’ prosperity or destruction)? There is only one way to a true knowledge of God and the supernatural, and to a right understanding of the material world He created. It is through the incarnate and supernatural Jesus, the Christ of God. And the only way we can receive the weal, or peace and prosperity, God means for us and has prepared for us to have forever is through Jesus. Without Him, all that’s left for us is eternal woe, or evil, death, and destruction.
Is it worth it to hold on to naturalism—at all costs? This is something to consider seriously. If you have an everlasting soul and this earthly life is a comparative blip in eternity, would it not be worthwhile to conduct a personal experiment to see if God exists? and then to learn the truth about Him? He has promised if you are sincere, He won’t leave you to wonder. Just be sure you don’t mistake Him for counterfeit spirits.
Where then does wisdom come from?
Where does understanding dwell?
It is hidden from the eyes of every living thing...
Destruction and Death say,
“Only a rumor of it has reached our ears.”
God understands the way to it
and he alone knows where it dwells,
for he views the ends of the earth
and sees everything under the heavens.
And [God] said to the human race,
“The fear of the Lord—that is wisdom,
and to shun evil is understanding.”
(Job 28:20-21, 28)
 See the introductory chapter for this series, “Weal or Woe?”: https://www.wordsintime.net/post/weal-or-woe-an-introduction  “Moral relativism is the idea that there is no universal or absolute set of moral principles.” (“Moral Relativism,” Ethics Unwrapped, Texas: McCombs School of Business, accessed 1/18/2023, https://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/glossary/moral-relativism) Moral relativism is the view that moral judgments are true or false only relative to some particular standpoint (for instance, that of a culture or a historical period) and that no standpoint is uniquely privileged over all others. It has often been associated with other claims about morality: notably, the thesis that different cultures often exhibit radically different moral values; the denial that there are universal moral values shared by every human society; and the insistence that we should refrain from passing moral judgments on beliefs and practices characteristic of cultures other than our own. (Westacott, Emrys, “Moral Relativism,” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (IEP): A Peer-Reviewed Academic Resource, ISSN 2161-0002, accessed 1/18/2023, https://iep.utm.edu/moral-re/)  If you are interested in a little more background, check out this example of a relatively objective (yes, tongue in cheek) paper on relativism: Kosalka, Pauline, “Enlightenment roots of relativism,” The Interim: Society & Culture, August 28, 2010, accessed 1/18/2023, https://theinterim.com/issues/society-culture/enlightenment-roots-of-relativism/  Alpert, Mark, “Can Science Rule Out God?” Scientific American, Observations | Opinion, December 23, 2019, accessed 1/23/2023, https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/can-science-rule-out-god/  Darwin, Charles, Origin of Species, Goodreads, accessed 1/18/2023, https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/344545-if-it-could-be-demonstrated-that-any-complex-organ-existed  For resources and reading or viewing with reliable information and references addressing these topics see: · Unlocking the Mystery of Life: The Scientists Beginning to Doubt the Theory of Evolution, Parable – Religious History Documentaries, YouTube, accessed 2/17/2023, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GgbwySSd0PM&t=32s · Meyer, Stephen C. PhD., Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design, Harper Collins Publishers, 2009. · Behe, Michael J. PhD., Darwin’s Black Box: A Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, Free Press, 2006. · Denton, Michael, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis: New Developments in Science are Challenging Orthodox Darwinism, Adler & Adler, 2002 · Denton, Michael, Evolution: Still a Theory in Crisis, Discovery Institute, 2016 · Tackett, Del, Is Genesis History?, Film/Documentary/YouTube, https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCzjPwFPxtpZTJ1dq7cAkb3g · Tackett, Del, The Truth Project: Science: What is True? Lesson 5, part 1 and 2, Focus on the Family, thetruthproject.org · Reasons to Believe resources, https://reasons.org/explore  Wood, Todd C., PhD., The Potential of Created Kinds, Is Genesis History?, Film/Documentary/YouTube, https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCzjPwFPxtpZTJ1dq7cAkb3g  For example, see: Thomas, Brian, PH.D., “Cretaceous Bird Beak Pecks Holes in Evolution,” Institute for Creation Research (ICR), December 21, 2020 [with references], accessed 1/18/2023, https://www.icr.org/article/cretaceous-bird-beak-pecks-holes-in-evolution/  See above resources.  For example, see: · Cobb, Matthew, How fudged embryo illustrations led to drawn-out lies, NewScientist, accessed 1/17/2023, https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22530041-200-how-fudged-embryo-illustrations-led-to-drawn-out-lies/. · Luskin, Casey, Haeckel’s Fraudulent Embryo Drawings Are Still Present in Biology Textbooks—Here’s a List, Evolution News & Science Today, April 3, 2015, https://evolutionnews.org/2015/04/haeckels_fraudu/. · Blake, Kevin, On the Origins of “The March of Progress,” Washington University ProSPER, Science, December 17, 2018, https://sites.wustl.edu/prosper/on-the-origins-of-the-march-of-progress/. · Wheeler, Quentin; Antonio G. Valdecasas, and Cristina Canovas, That popular monky-to-man chart gets evolution all wrong, QUARTZ, THIS IS BANANAS, September 4, 2019, https://qz.com/1701855/why-that-popular-evolution-of-man-chart-is-all-wrong.  Written and fact-checked by The Editors of Encyclopedia Britannica, scientific method: mathematical and experimental technique employed in the sciences. More specifically, it is the technique used in the construction and testing of a scientific hypothesis. The process of observing, asking questions, and seeking answers through tests and experiments is not unique to any one field of science. Accessed 2/17/2023, https://www.britannica.com/science/scientific-method  The most thought-provoking address on this issue I’ve seen or read is the documentary film, directed by Nathan Frankowski, starring Ben Stein, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, 2008.  metaphysical, Merriam-Webster online dictionary, accessed 1/23/2023, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/metaphysical  Del Tackett shares one of the best collections of actual quotes from noted scientists on this score in his presentation, The Truth Project: Science: What is True? Lesson 5, part 1 and 2, Focus on the Family, thetruthproject.org  See: Deut. 4:29; Prov. 8:17; Jer. 5:1; Matt. 7:7–11; Luke 11:2–13; Acts 17:22–31.