Scientists Say It. We’re Forced to Believe It. That Settles It.


Scientists Say It. We’re Forced to Believe It. That Settles It.

“The first to plead his case seems right,
Until another comes and examines him” (Prov. 18:17).

Is there such a thing as “science”? There isn’t. Science is not a thing like a shovel used for digging, a microscope for viewing what can’t be seen with the naked eye, or a gun to send a projectile through the air. To “follow the science” means to follow the opinions, theories, and conclusions of people who collect and organize knowledge (the meaning of the Latin scientia) in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the world.

The process of scientific discovery requires many first principles that exist before science can be done. A scientist must presuppose the reasonableness of reason, the logic of logic, that what is done experimentally today will work in the way under the same circumstances tomorrow:

Every scientific outcome will be determined a priori by the presuppositions that the scientist, who is engaged in the scientific endeavor, holds by faith. Nobody is presupposition-free, but we all need presuppositions, by way of worldview, in order to make sense of reality. In other words, before a person — Christian or non-Christian — begins any scientific endeavor, he or she already holds basic presuppositions concerning metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics. A person holds these presuppositions or assumptions by faith since he or she cannot gain any knowledge or understanding without having a concept about reality (metaphysics), knowledge (epistemology), and morality (ethics) first.


The scientist who thinks that he is neutral, or “facts-only,” as is often claimed, has already fallen into the trap of his own biases without even knowing it.[1]

Science, the process of gaining knowledge, comes in different forms. When Galileo saw craters on the moon by use of a telescope, that observation changed the way people understood extra-terrestrial bodies. There was an increase in knowledge. The is true with Galileo’s experiment with different weighted spheres and by Italian experimenters a few decades earlier. For centuries, scientists, following Aristotelian physics and cosmology, believed that different weighted objects fell at different rates of speed. A simple experiment proved Aristotle wrong. The same was true of Copernicus’ heliocentric (sun-centered) solar system that proved Aristotle’s geocentric model incorrect where the earth was said to be the center of the cosmos, and the planets, the sun, and the moon, and the stars circle it. The new knowledge replaced the old knowledge but not before a great deal of debate took place. For example, Andreas Osiander (1498–1552) wrote the anonymous preface to Copernicus’s Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres (1543) which was published after the death of Copernicus stating that “the theory was only meant to be a hypothesis and was not presented as fact.” This was not the opinion of Copernicus. “Osiander had penned his preface because he found the idea of the earth rushing through space at high speed while simultaneously spinning on its axis ridiculous, and he knew Europe’s intellectual elite would agree.”[2]

Myths, Lies, and Half-Truths

Myths, Lies, and Half-Truths

Christianity’s failure to show itself practical in the past 150 years has guaranteed the success of secularism and militant Islam, both of which are doing incalculable harm at home and abroad. The rejection of any type of ‘this-worldly’ application of the Bible has resulted in the proliferation of man-centered worldviews that have steadily drained the life out of our world and left behind a spiritual vacuum.BUY NOW

Even though there was nearly universal opposition to the Copernican hypothesis at the time, the work was published, and point and counterpoints commenced.

Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species (1859) and The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex (1871) faced similar opposition and debate. Interestingly, Darwin was not a university-trained scientist and yet his theory, along with the independent work of Alfred Russel Wallace, have won the day to such an extent that debate is no longer permitted in most academic circles. It cannot be challenged in government schools. For example, the Victoria Institute was formed in 1865 to challenge the new evolutionary theory. It was rebranded in 1932 as the Evolution Protest Movement which issued the following statement of purpose:

We feel the public are being deceived. Evolution propaganda does not present the facts impartially; it dwells upon those which favour the theory, while suppressing those which oppose it. Such are not the methods of true, but of false, science. Few people realise that the tactics which Evolution employs would be regarded as ‘special pleading’[3] in a Court of Law; and that many scientists have declared that Evolution is both unproved and unprovable.

Little has changed. It’s important to note “that a good deal of the opposition came not from wounded religious sensibilities but from common-sense objections arising from people’s instinctive trust in everyday forms of logic…. The whole descent-with-modification theory of animal metamorphosis was widely rejected for being ‘imaginary,’ especially since readers had noted that Darwin himself admitted that the fossil evidence was simply not there (yet) to support his claims.”[4] It’s still not there. That’s why “punk-eek” theory was created to account for the astounding numbers of gaps in the fossil record. From The Scientific American:

The fossil record is notoriously stingy in doling out clues about the history of life. Biologists agonize over whether they are inferring a distorted view of the past from the bits of bone that they pluck from the vast expanse of the earth’s accumulated sediments. But because evolution proceeds so slowly, scientists cannot test their ideas by watching it unfold in real time.[5]

The irrationality, illogic, and undying push to accept the absurd is part of the demand to “follow the science” no matter where it takes us because of who says it. Consider the following from the high priest of evolutionary dogmatism Richard Dawkins:

Natural selection happens naturally, all by itself, as the automatic consequences of which individuals survive long enough to reproduce, and which don’t…. Given enough generations, ancestors that look like newts can change into descendants that look like frogs. Given even more generations, ancestors that look like fish can change into descendants that look like monkeys. Given yet more generations, ancestors that look like bacteria can change into descendants that look like humans.

The above is from page 20 of his book The Magic of Reality: How We Know What’s Really True. There is no way that Dawkins can confirm any of what he wrote as being true. He is describing magic and not scientific reality. His claim of “what’s really true” does not compare to Galileo’s discovery of mountains and craters on the moon or his experiments with the speed at which different weighted objects fall. Dawkins is spewing speculation and calling it science!

All of this has a bearing on where we are today on the push to “follow the science.”

Try to question abortion, homosexuality, transgenderism, multiple genders, climate change. The science is settled so there’s nothing to debate. There is no debate over the COVID vaccines. Anyone who questions anything about what’s going on with the vaccine is banished, censored, or canceled. Those who claim to follow the science are not being scientific. To offer alternatives and question the science behind the science is what science is all about.

Many highly educated and responsible doctors and politicians claim with good reason that vaccine mandates at the state and federal levels are all about maintaining power and control to push a political agenda. Why is it anti-science to treat COVID-19 with Ivermectin, a safe and effective treatment that’s being used around the world? Pharmacists are refusing to fill prescriptions from doctors who are prescribing it. Read about it here. But medical marijuana and addictive opioids are legal and prescribed every waking hour.

A claim has been made that more than 500,000 adverse events have been reported after COVID vaccines, from temps to neuropathy. Shouldn’t this be reported and investigated as part of following the science?

There is a great deal of science regarding abortion. Pro-abortions claim that their unborn baby is their body. It isn’t. “Keep Your Hands Off My Uterus” is a popular slogan used by pro-abortionists at rallies. The slogan is anti-science. An unborn baby is not a woman’s uterus. Consider that actress Jennifer Lawrence — who is expecting her first child with husband Cooke Maroney — joined a march to support a woman’s right to kill her unborn baby. It would be great if Lawrence considers that her “baby bump” is a baby rather than some thing akin to an appendix. It’s called following the science!

Restoring the Foundation of Civilization

Restoring the Foundation of Civilization

There are many Christians who will not participate in civilization-building efforts that include economics, journalism, politics, education, and science because they believe (or have been taught to believe) these areas of thought are outside the realm of what constitutes a Christian worldview. Nothing could be further from the truth.BUY NOW

[1]Ben Hayes and Sacha Walicord, “Science vs. Faith: The Great False Dichotomy,” Pro Rege, Vol. 47:44, Art. 8 (June 2019):

[2]James Hannam, The Genesis of Science: How the Christian Middle Ages Launched the Scientific Revolution (Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing Co., 2011), 273.

[3]An argument where an advocate for a position deliberately ignores aspects that are unfavorable to his or her point of view.

[4]Neil Thomas, Taking Leave of Darwin: A Longtime Agnostic Discoveres the Case for Design (Seattle, WA: Discovery Institute Press, 2021), 35.

[5]John Horgan, “Score One For Punk Eek,” Scientific American (July 21, 1996):


Sign up to receive emails about new articles, events, and products

Biblical Worldview: Order and Communication

By Dr. Joel McDurmon (, Jun 27, 2018

In the last section, we introduced a Biblical sanction for human works and business. We discussed also a few points taken from the first verses of the creation narrative (Gen. 1:1–2). The first primal creation scene gives us lessons on initiative, confidence, and attitude, among other things. The narrative of the six days of creation provides us even more insight into God’s works.

As we said before, Christianity today seems to have no shortage of reference to the seventh-day rest; but we have precious little preaching or teaching on “six days shalt thou labor.” When we look at these, we can see all kinds of aspects of work. Here are some of them from the first day.

Communication and Law-Order

Among the first acts of God in creation is to speak. He does this in two ways. The first is simple speech, “said.” By this Word, God created light. The second is more like public proclamation and rule: God “called” the darkness and light, “night” and “day.”

This latter aspect of naming is one we see God have Adam perform after him explicitly. In Genesis 2:19–20, God brings all the animals to Adam and has the man name each one. When God finally creates Eve, Adam names her, too: “woman,” for she was divided out and taken from man.

God exemplified all of this for us initially in another fundamental act of creation: division. He divided the light from the darkness. He classified them and named them. This is the science of “taxonomy,” and God himself was the first taxonomist.

These actions all work together as parts of God’s work of creation, and they are all properly parts of the works and business of man. In fact, they are vital to good and productive work.

Speaking, communicating, dividing, classifying, and naming are all aspects of the dominion God gave Adam (Gen. 1:26–28). In doing such works, man not only produces value, income, and can build wealth, he also grows experienced and wiser. The process of naming the animals had at least a two-fold purpose for Adam. One was for him to exercise, and thus realize and acknowledge, the dominion God had given him. This was a learning experience about his strengths and exclusive position in creation. The second, however, was for him to realize his need for a companion, and that the animals would not suffice for this. Thus, he also learned his weakness and need for a companion specifically meet for him.

Another key feature of God’s speaking is that it was the Word of God Himself at work. Paul tells us this was Christ (Col. 1:15–16), and John calls him logos, meaning “Word” or “Reason.” Specifically, the works of the first day reveal to us also the three fundamental aspects of the logic or reason of man as well—the logic God built into creation.

First is called the law of identity. “Identity” finds its ultimate source in the self-identity of God (Ex. 3:14). He imputes (or “names” via His Word) identity to His creation (see Heb. 1:3). The law of identity says, “A is A,” or “A thing is the same as itself.” This law undergirds all objective truth: If something is true, then it must be true unequivocally—not true sometimes, or true if, but plainly, simply true.

What we commonly call the law of non-contradiction builds upon identity: it says, “Something cannot be A and not-A at the same time and in the same relationship.” In other words, “A cannot be both true and false simultaneously.” In creation, we experience a diversity of things. We cannot rightfully claim that that which has an “identity of not-A” is the same as that which has an “identity of A.”

Finally, the law of excluded middle traditionally claims that something must be either true or false. Just as something cannot be both, it also cannot be neither. Something must be either “A” or “not-A.” This law reminds us again that reality is objective, but it also reinforces the fact that there is no ultimate neutrality. Either something is, or it is not; it is either true or false. No “middle” option exists.

In God’s naming-speech of the first day, we see the law of identity at work. In his division and giving separate names, we see the laws of excluded middle and non-contradiction. Day is day, and night is night. Day is not night, and night is not day.

God’s speaking and naming is not only orderly, it has direction and purpose. It is not empty nor a mere boast. It has meaning. Meaning adds to meaning to give direction, and direction leads toward the goal.

Likewise, God’s speech is not into an absolute void, but has an audience: himself, the Triune God. God creates; the Word is spoken; the Spirit hovers, the job is done. God’s speech here is not a soliloquy. It is divine communication.

Light, direction, rule, and logic are all fundamental aspects of planning and communication which work together to make God’s creation a law-order. God demonstrates this for us. The creation functions accordingly. Mankind is to image God’s law-order after him.

The Bible and Welfare (3)


…you provided in Your goodness for the poor, O God (Ps.68:10).

Getting a proper perspective on welfare is essential for the future and health of the church. And it’s important not just for the church, but for the world too.


Because the world needs a Biblical understanding of welfare. The godless notion of welfare in the modern era has become a means of government abuse of the taxpayer for generations, and this is consistent with scripture, which teaches us that “…the compassion of the wicked is cruel” (Prov.12:10). This has been linked to the church’s failure to competently teach and implement Biblical principles of welfare.

The Psalmist exclaimed:

Oh, that the salvation of Israel would come out of Zion! When God restores His captive people, let Jacob rejoice, let Israel be glad (Ps.53:6).

The judgements against Sodom in Genesis 19 were not merely for her blatant homosexuality. Genesis has no direct references to the poor, but later the Holy Spirit nonetheless spoke through Ezekiel about how the poor had been mistreated in Sodom, before God’s judgement.

Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughter had arrogance, abundant food and careless ease, but she did not help the poor and needy (Ezek.16:49).

In stark contrast, it appears that Job may have been a compatriot of Abraham, and Job clearly had a compassionate attitude towards poor people. He claimed that

I delivered the poor who cried for help, and the orphan who had no helper. The blessing of the one ready to perish came upon me, and I made the widow’s heart to sing for joy. I put on righteousness, and it clothed me; my justice was like a robe and a turban. I was eyes to the blind and feet to the lame. I was a father to the needy, and I investigated the case which I did not know. I broke the jaws of the wicked and snatched the prey from his teeth (Job 29:12-17).

In this passage (and in Job 31:13-22), Job detailed exactly who would be the recipients of his charity and care: the poor, the orphan, the one “ready to perish,” the widow, the blind and the lame. These individuals in Job’s community remarkably replicate those whom the law of God (given to Moses at Sinai) stipulated should be the recipients of welfare.

Where did Job get these ideas from, if he lived before the giving of the law?

Before the Fall, God communicated a great deal to Adam and Eve. This information was either written down, or communicated orally from generation to generation, or both. We know this, because God explained to Isaac that

Abraham obeyed Me and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes and My laws (Gen.26:5).

God would not have held Sodom to account for her sins, if she had committed them in ignorance. Thus the law of God (in all its parts, including His requirements for welfare) was in some way publicly available for people in the Genesis era.

Are there differences in the administration of welfare, from Job’s era, to what we tend to do today?

There must be a willingness to involve ourselves in specific, individual needs, firstly amongst God’s people, and then in the broader community. The Bible speaks of this:

“Thus says the Lord, “Do justice and righteousness, and deliver the one who has been robbed from the power of his oppressor. Also do not mistreat or do violence to the stranger, the orphan, or the widow; and do not shed innocent blood in this place” (Jer.22:3).

Since Jesus Christ, God has established His church. Thus welfare today is to be an individual, a family and a church responsibility. The elders of every local church are to govern the church, and to set down the parameters for how the church is to administer welfare locally. (Paul gave Timothy some plain direction on this in relation to widows, in I Tim.5:3-16).

The apostles clearly took seriously the issue of welfare, beginning with the care of widows in Acts 6, which led to the establishment of the deaconate. In this regard, there seems to have been a seamless transition from the Old Testament to the New. Paul appealed for help from the Macedonians and the Corinthians when the church in Jerusalem was poverty-stricken (see II Cor.8-9), he spoke of his desire to help the poor in his apostolic ministry (see Gal.2:10), and he explained in general terms what should be the motivation for godly welfare:

So then, while we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, and especially to those who are of the household of the faith (Gal.6:10).


If believers today want to see the church grow in legitimate authority, it will only come about by the church taking responsibility in the fields it has been called to, and this specifically includes welfare. We don’t want any cheques from government to do this, for this would lead to dependence on those cheques, only fostering the continuance of high taxation. We would be indirectly perpetuating ungodliness; the last thing we would want to do.

What we do need to begin with, is believers who are faithfully tithing, so the church has some resources to bring to the table. And we’ll need to educate the saints about our responsibilities.

Ready to roll up your sleeves?  There’ll be plenty to do.