The Blaze wrote a commentary piece a while back about the hijacking of science by both the ruling class in government and the scientists they subsidize, [1] and how the Mainstream Manure Pile (Mainstream media) and Big Tech venues [2] such as Fartface (Facebook) Instagram, Vimeo, YouTube, Instagram, Pinterest, the Google search engine, Reddit, Pinterest, and, before being acquired by entrepreneur Elon Musk, Twitter have tried to eliminate as much dissent from their favored narratives, no matter how nonfactual and preposterous they may be, from their respective platforms whether it be anything pertaining to COVID, climate change, or social issues such as abortion and LGBT behavior.
“Issues like climate change and COVID, for example, are used by scientists and politicians to control what people hear and say and to discourage dissent,” [3] the item goes on to state, further citing Mark Levin who pointed out that “This is because the debate on science is actually a debate on politics. And the debate on politics is actually a debate on conformity and is actually not a debate at all,” [4, 5]
The commentary piece was a review of a two-part series by radio talk show host Mark Levin called, The Death Of Science (I have the links to both parts in the end notes section of this post for those of you who might be interested in watching it). As I was working on this post, I took some time to watch it, both parts by the way, each part being but a few minutes long and while I did find it informative as to how science can become politicized, neither the Blaze, nor Levin, or most others who have reported on and written about the hijacking and politicization of science dig deep enough nor go back far enough to when and how science became weaponized and politicized and before anyone can really understand how science became hijacked and politicized, they have to understand what science was really intended for and what it was not intended for before they can begin to understand how it was weaponized and against whom and what it was weaponized and when they understand how it became weaponized and against whom and what it became weaponized and why, they will then begin to understand how it became politicized and when science becomes politicized, it is no longer science but instead becomes propaganda that is passed off as science which in reality is a pseudo-science being propagated to the masses to achieve an objective which turns out to be anything but one of driven by benevolent motives.
And this same weaponized and politicized science that instilled unnecessary fear and panic over a virus that possesses a very low mortality rate, shut down entire economies around the world, destroyed livelihoods, locked people in their homes and prevented them from visiting their friends and loved ones, that scared our places of worship into shutting their doors which otherwise would have been open during their respective assembly hours, which drove millions to take vaccines and boosters whose effects have turned out to be worse for many than the disease they were purported to cure, and which proclaims climate change doomsday scenarios that have never happened or ever will, and which teaches our children that gender is not biologically determined, is also that same weaponized and politicized science that tells us that an unborn baby is nothing more than a mound of flesh, that we are no more or less significant than any beast, that everything was created by the unthinking and unplanning processes of time and chance, and that we are somehow descended from lower life-forms, and that everything that religion faith deems immoral, perverse, wrong, and evil is just a product of natural inclinations instilled into us but this so-called science has been taught in our academic institutions, propagated by our media, affirmed by our entertainment industry, and even endorsed by unfortunately too many within the faith-based community for decades and any information and discovery challenging that science is suppressed and hidden and any dissent from or challenge to the favored narratives is threatened and even punished with disciplinary action against students who question the so-called science, job losses suffered by teachers, professors, and even journalists who dare challenge the favored science or even lawsuits to bankrupt those institutions that would allow for an honest and civil debate over theories and ideas that have serious ramifications for the course of each life and society and how we view life itself alongside a host of other issues including moral ones.
This hijacking and weaponization of science would not be seen in full force until after Charles Darwin published his best known work, On The Origin Of the Species, and a lesser known work, The Descent of Man; his philosophy which we now know as being the theory of evolution or Darwinism, quickly overtaking every field of science and becoming firmly entrenched as a dominant worldview by the early twentieth century and with devastating consequences for once his works had been published, the stage had already been set for the weaponization of science.
Charles Darwin concluded that the preservation of favored races and species would require the elimination of those unfavored and not only that, he also concluded that this evolutionary process applied not only to plants and animals but also to mankind:
With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed. [6]
Further going on to predict:
At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races. [7]
But Darwin was not the first to suggest that mankind consisted of both superiors and inferiors and that it was necessary for the inferior peoples to be allowed to die off.
The Reverend Thomas Malthus, whose works had a hand in shaping both Darwinism and also Marxism stated decades before also stated that it was necessary for inferior specimens, even among men, to die off and even be kept from reproducing in order make way for the existence and preservation of a much stronger and resilient race of men:
It does not…by any means, seem impossible, that by an attention to breed, a certain degree of improvement, similar to that among animals, might take place among men.
Whether intellect could be communicated may be a matter of doubt: but size,
strength, beauty, complexion, and perhaps even longevity are in a degree transmissible.
The error does not seem to lie, in supposing a small degree of improvement possible, but in not discriminating between a small improvement, the limit of which is undefined, and an improvement really unlimited. As the human race however could not be improved in this this way, without condemning all the bad specimens to celibacy, it is not probable, that an attention to breed should ever become general…[8]
He even said that as a means of population control, that the poor should be subject to pestilence, further showing contempt for any effort to lower the mortality rate among men.
…we should facilitate, instead of foolishly and vainly endeavouring to impede, the operations of nature in producing this mortality; and if we dread the too frequent visitation of the horrid form of famine, we should sedulously encourage the other forms of destruction, which we compel nature to use. Instead of recommending cleanliness to the poor, we should encourage contrary habits. In our towns we should make the streets narrower, crowd more people into the houses, and court the return of the plague. In the country, we should build our villages near stagnant pools, and particularly encourage settlements in all marshy and unwholesome situations.
But above all, we should reprobate specific remedies for ravaging diseases; and those benevolent, but much mistaken men, who have thought they were doing a service to mankind by projecting schemes for the total extirpation of particular disorders. [9]
In the early twentieth century, Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood (I call it Planned Murderhood) which was formerly called the American Birth Control League (ABCL) saw the poor, mentally-handicapped, the infirm, and physically impaired as a threat to society:
The lack of balance between the birth rate of the "unfit" and the "fit," admittedly the
greatest present menace to civilization, can never be rectified by the inauguration of a
cradle competition between these two classes. The example of the inferior classes, the fertility of the feeble-minded, the mentally defective, the poverty-stricken, should not be held up for
emulation to the mentally and physically fit, and therefore less fertile, parents of the educated and well-to-do classes. On the contrary, the most urgent problem to-day is how to limit
and discourage the over-fertility of the mentally and physically defective. Possibly drastic and Spartan methods may be forced upon American society if it continues complacently
to encourage the chance and chaotic breeding that has resulted from our stupid, cruel sentimentalism. [10]
And believed that those who supported and cared for those whom she deemed as inferior and unfit to exist and produce progeny were an obstacle in the progress of and aiding and abetting the extinction of what she believed to be a superior race:
Organized charity itself is the symptom of a malignant social disease.
Those vast, complex, interrelated organizations aiming to control and to diminish the
spread of misery and destitution and all the menacing evils that spring out of this sinisterly
fertile soil, are the surest sign that our civilization has bred, is breeding and is perpetuating constantly increasing numbers of defectives, delinquents and dependents. [11]
Going on to state in the eighth volume of her Birth Control Review:
Just think for a moment of the meaning of the word kindergarten--a garden of children! To me, that is just what the world ought to be--a garden of children. In this matter we should not do less than follow the example of the professional gardener. Every expert gardener knows that the individual plant must be properly spaced, rooted in a rich nourishing soil, and provided with sufficient air and sunlight. He knows that no plant would have a fair chance of life if it were overcrowded or choked by weeds. To grow into maturity, to bud, to blossom, to produce beautiful sturdy flowers in its own season, each plant must have constant attention, incessant care and tender devotion.
If plants, and livestock as well, require space and air, sunlight and love, children need them even more. The only real wealth of our country lies in the men and women of the next generation. A farmer would rather produce a thousand thoroughbreds than a million runts. How are we to breed a race of human thoroughbreds unless we follow the same plan? We must make this country into a garden for children instead of a disorderly back lot overrun with human weeds [12]
Her desire to create and preserve a superior race of people was the reason why she was an avid supporter of eugenics:
Eugenics seems to me to be valuable in its critical and diagnostic aspects,
in emphasizing the danger of irresponsible and uncontrolled fertility of the "unfit" and
the feeble-minded establishing a progressive unbalance in human society and lowering the
birth-rate among the "fit." [13]
And the very reason why she founded The American Birth Control League, (TABCL) now called Planned Parenthood [Murderhood] in the first place:
Everywhere we see poverty and large families going hand in hand. Those least fit to carry on the race are increasing most rapidly. People who cannot support their own offspring are encouraged by Church and State to produce large families. Many of the children thus begotten are diseased or feeble-minded; many become criminals. The burden of supporting these unwanted types has to be borne by the healthy elements of the nation. Funds that should be used to raise the standard of our civilization are diverted to the maintenance of those who should never have
been born. [14]
One of the objectives of the organization including:
STERILIZATION of the insane and feeble minded and the encouragement of this operation upon those afflicted with inherited or transmissible diseases, with the understanding that sterilization does not deprive the individual of his or her sex expression, but merely renders him incapable of producing children. [15]
But not only did she believe that there could be people who were mentally and physically inferior to others and not only did she see one’s economic status as evidence of either being of a superior or inferior race of men, but a letter to a Dr. Clarence Gamble reveals that she also believed that there were also even “racially inferior” people that also needed to be exterminated:
We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population…[16]
But Sanger was not the only one who had set her sites on the creation and preservation of a superior or master race. In his notorious Mein Kampf, Adolf Hitler wrote:
Any crossing of two beings not at exactly the same level produces a medium between the level of the two parents. This means: the offspring will probably stand higher than the racially lower parent, but not as high as the higher one. Consequently, it will later succumb in the struggle against the higher level. Such mating is contrary to the will of Nature for a higher breeding of all life. The presumption for this does not lie in blending the superior with inferior, but in the complete victory of the former. The stronger has to rule and he is not to amalgamate with the weaker one that he may not sacrifice his own greatness.
Only the born weakling can consider this as cruel, but at that he is only a weak and limited human being; for, if this law were not dominating, all conceivable development towards a higher level, on the part of all organically living beings, would be unthinkable for man…
Therefore also, here the fight amongst one another originates less from reasons of inner aversion than from
hunger and love. In both cases, Nature looks calm and even satisfied. The fight for daily bread makes all those succumb who are weak, sickly, and less determined, while the males' fight for the female gives the right of propagation, or the possibility of it, only to the most healthy. But the fight is always a means for the promotion of the species health and force of resistance, and thus a cause for its development towards a higher level.
If it were different, every further development towards higher levels would stop, and rather the contrary would
happen. For, since according to numbers, the inferior element always outweighs the superior element, under the
same preservation of life and under the same propagating possibilities, the inferior element would increase so much
more rapidly that finally the best element would be forced to step into the background, if no correction of this condition were carried out. [17]
An undertaking in which both Sanger and Hitler felt the need to aid. Hitler further continued:
But just this is done by Nature, by subjecting the weaker part to such difficult living conditions.
that even by this the number is restricted, and finally by preventing the remainder, without choice, from increasing,
but by making here a new and ruthless choice, according to strength and health. Just as little as Nature desires a mating between weaker individuals and stronger ones, far less she desires the mixing of a higher race with a lower one, as in this case her entire work of higher breeding, which has perhaps taken hundreds of thousands of years, would tumble at one blow. [18]
Hitler would go on to make difficult living conditions for those he deemed inferior in ways Sanger might have only dreamed, to extremes Thomas Malthus might never have imagined, and to lengths that Darwin concluded to be an inevitability as Hitler believed that the key to maintaining civil and moral stability was the preservation of a pure and healthy bloodline:
Historical experience offers countless proofs of this. It shows with terrible clarity that with any mixing of the
blood of the Aryan with lower races the result was the end of the culture-bearer. North America, the population of
which consists for the greatest part of Germanic elements which mix only very little with the lower, colored races
displays a humanity and a culture different from those of Central and South America, where chiefly the Romanic
immigrants have sometimes mixed with the aborigines on a large scale. By this example alone one may clearly and distinctly recognize the influence of the race mixture. The Germanic of the North American continent, who has remained pure and less intermixed, has become the master of that continent, he will remain so until he, too, falls victim to the shame of blood-mixing. [19]
Like Sanger, Hitler blamed interracial marriages for the increase in intellectual regression and for physical degeneration:
The result of any crossing, in brief, is always the following:
(a) Lowering of the standard of the higher race,
(b) Physical and mental regression, and, with it, the beginning of a slowly but steadily progressive lingering illness. [20]
His belief in a master race being strongly influenced by Darwinian thought as revealed in the following:
Man, by trying to resist this iron logic of Nature, becomes entangled in a fight against the principles to which alone he, too, owes his existence as a human being. Thus his attack is bound to lead to his own doom…
…but this planet has driven on its course through the ether for millions of years without men, and the day may come when it will do so again, if people forget that they owe their higher existence, not to the ideas of some crazy ideologists, but to the knowledge and the ruthless application of Nature's
brazen laws…
He who wants to live should fight, therefore, and he who does not want to battle in this world of eternal struggle does not deserve to be alive. [21]
He also believed that the maintaining of this master race was needed to preserve civilization:
Everything that today we admire on this earth science
and art, technique and inventions is only the creative product of a few peoples and perhaps originally of one race.
On them now depends also the existence of this entire culture. If they perish, then the beauty of this earth sinks
into the grave with them. [22]
Blaming the decline and perishing of previous culture not on a moral or spiritual decline, but on failure to preserve racial purity:
All great cultures of the past perished only because the originally creative race died off from through poisoning…
The man who misjudges and disdains the laws of race actually forfeits the happiness that seems destined to be his.
He prevents the victorious march of the best race and with it also the presumption for all human progress, and in consequence he will remain in the domain of the animal's helpless misery… [23]
Hitler then went on to make this prediction of what would happen to what he deemed to be the inferior races if the influence of his master race, whom he called Aryans, were to cease. Even the Japanese, with whom Hitler would be allies in WWII, were deemed inferior to his Aryan master race:
If one were to divide mankind into three groups: culture founders, culture-bearers, and culture-destroyers, then, as
representative of the first kind, only the Aryan would come in question. It is from him that the foundation and the
walls of all human creations originate, and only the external form and color depend on the characteristics of the various peoples involved. He furnishes the gigantic building-stones and also the plans for all human progress, and only the execution corresponds to the character of the people and races in the various instances. In a few decades, for instance, the entire east of Asia will call a culture its own, the ultimate bases of which will be Hellenic spirit and Germanic technique, just as is the case with us. Only the external form will (at least partly) bear the features of Asiatic character.
It is not the case, as some people claim, that Japan adds European techniques to her culture, but European science and techniques are trimmed with Japanese characteristics. But the basis of actual life is no longer the special Japanese culture, although it determines the color of life (because outwardly, in consequence of its inner difference, it is more visible to European eyes), but it is the enormous scientific and technical work of Europe and America, that is, of Aryan peoples. Based on these achievements alone the East is also able to follow general human progress. This
creates the basis for the fight for daily bread, it furnishes weapons and tools for it, and only the external makeup is
gradually adapted to Japanese life. But if, starting today, all further Aryan influence upon Japan should stop, and supposing that Europe and America were to perish, then a further development of Japan's present rise in science and technology could take place for a little while longer; but in the time of a few years the source would dry out, Japanese life would gain, but its culture would stiffen and fall back into the sleep out of which it was
startled seven decades ago by the Aryan wave of culture. [24]
In other words, Hitler didn’t think the Japanese would ever be capable of either retaining or building upon those western advancements by which their society has benefited; never mind the fact that his so-called Aryans had been among the least advanced and most primitive of all peoples before the Roman empire and the spread of Christianity. North African, Mid-East, Mediterranean, central Asian, most Oriental, and even some Native American societies and cultures would have been considered advanced and civilized in comparison to pre-Roman and pre-Christian Europe which included the so-called Aryans.
And the vast majority of those who had laid the foundations for what we would call western civilization and set the stage for the development and advancement of European society were not white nor were they Aryan.
But the people at which Hitler directed his greatest contempt towards were the Jews. He not only regarded them as intellectually, morally, and racially inferior [25] but went so far as to claim that “the Jewish people, with all its apparent intellectual qualities, is nevertheless without any true culture, and especially without a culture of its own” [26] and that they had “never possessed a state with definite territorial boundary…” [27] but according to the Bible and history itself, Hitler’s erroneous claims could not be any further from the truth.
One need not look far into history or into scripture itself to see that the Jewish people did indeed possess their own land before they had been driven out by invading armies and that they do once again with the re-establishment of Israel as a nation within the land that they had possessed before and that they indeed do have a culture and religion uniquely their own for without Mosaic Judaism of which the Old Testament scriptures consists, there would be no Christianity which is credited for bringing Europe out of pagan darkness into an age of enlightenment that could only be possible with God by way of a spiritual transformation for Christianity is that fulfillment of the religion that was divinely given to the Jews. Jesus appealed to the Old Testament scriptures in defense of His Messiahship and the Apostles also in defense of the Christian faith that was established in their day.
Were it not for Jews faithfully dedicating themselves to spreading the Gospel of salvation in Christ Jesus throughout the world, we would remain in a spiritual darkness beyond imagining and might never have seen the spread of the knowledge throughout the world that is responsible for the scientific, industrial, and technological advancements that we see and benefit from today, nor would we enjoy the social and moral stability for which Judeo-Christian principles have provided, nor would the liberties and freedoms enjoyed today in many nations have been possible without the inspiration of a Judeo-Christian philosophy but nevertheless, Hitler would apply his Darwinian-inspired philosophy in a most terrifying fashion which would result in the deaths of at least 12 million people, including six million Jews, but this would not be the only holocaust to take place with the philosophy of evolution being used to rationalize and justify it. Darwinian philosophy would also be a primary means to convince multitudes of women to kill countless unborn babies. In his Origin Of The Species, Charles Darwin acknowledged a theory known to him in his day being propagated by some of his contemporaries which taught that the embryos of presently existing animals resembled evolutionary ancestors in the early stages of development but refused to accept it as truth due to a lack of scientific evidence:
Agassiz insists that ancient animals resemble to a certain extent the embryos of recent animals of the same classes ; or that the geological succession of extinct forms is in some degree parallel to the embryological development of recent forms. I must follow Pictet and Huxley in thinking that the truth of this doctrine is very far from proved…[28]
If it should…be proved that ancient animals resemble to a certain extent the embryos of more recent animals of the same class, the fact will be intelligible. [29]
But Ernst Haeckel, a zealous defender of Darwinism, was determined to prove this theory true which became known as ontogeny (embryonic development) recapitulating (repeating) phylogeny (evolution) or the theory of recapitulation:
By a tenacious heredity these gill-clefts, which have no meaning except for our fish-like aquatic ancestors, are still preserved in the embryo of man and all the other vertebrates. They disappear after a time. Even after the five vesicles of the embryonic brain appear in the head, and the rudiments of the eyes and ears at the sides, and after the legs sprout out at the base of the fish-like embryo, in the form of two roundish, flat buds, the fetus is still so like that of other vertebrates that it is indistinguishable from them
The substantial similarity in outer form and inner structure which characterizes the embryo of man and other vertebrates in this early stage of development is an embryological fact of the first importance ; from it, by the fundamental law of biogeny, we may draw the most momentous conclusions. There is but one explanation of it-heredity from a common parent form. When we see that, at a certain stage, the embryos of man and the ape, the dog and the rabbit, the pig and the sheep, although recognizable as higher vertebrates, cannot be distinguished from each other, the fact can only be elucidated by assuming a common parentage. [30]
To simply put, the theory of recapitulation, which Haeckel made popular and widely accepted by the public, scientific, and academic communities, claimed that the alleged similarities shared by very different creatures at the earliest stages of embryonic development was evidence suggesting that all living things, including man, evolved from a common ancestor and even went on to publish a lithograph which he had created depicting a comparison of human embryo development with that of the embryos of a number of different animals thinking it would vindicate the theory:
But there was just one problem.
The drawings were not based on any actual observation of embryonic development of any sort. He had fabricated them and they were proven to be fraudulent soon after he had produced them. Actual photographic images of different embryonic development comparisons clearly show that the difference between a human embryo, even in its early stages of development and that of any animal to be as night and day:
Image Credit: Dr. Michael Richardson for the actual embryos;
Comparison display by Acts 17 Apologetics
But despite his theory of recapitulation being thoroughly discredited, his infamous drawings have still been widely circulated throughout the vast majority of scientific textbooks and the theory of recapitulation continues to be taught in the halls of academia at large including the claims of human embryos possessing gill slits and tails in their earliest stages of development. This theory has also been known to be routinely propagated by abortionists to countless women being faced with an unwanted or unplanned pregnancy in an effort to convince them that they are not killing a human being but are only killing a fish or a rabbit. After all, if the baby inside the womb is just a parasitic animal, why not just terminate it if you don’t want to put up with the inconvenience of carrying to term, right?
But, as the following from Answers In Genesis points out, unborn babies are not animals going through an evolutionary stage:
The so-called gill slits of a human embryo have nothing to do with gills, and the human embryo does not pass through a fish stage or any other evolutionary stage. The development of the human embryo reveals steady progress toward a fully functional human body. Never in the course of development does a human embryo absorb oxygen from water as fish do with gills. (The human embryo is fully supplied with oxygen through the umbilical cord.) In fact, these “gill slits” are not even slits…
they are nothing more than folds in the region of the tiny embryo’s throat. By the 28th day of life, the embryo’s brain and spinal cord seem to be racing ahead of the rest of the body in growth. Therefore, for a time, the spinal cord is actually longer than the body, forcing the body to curl and flexing the neck area forward. (This curled embryo with the long spinal cord is mistakenly accused by some people of having a tail.) Just as many people develop a double chin when bending the neck forward, so the embryo has folds in its neck area due to this flexing. [31]
Makes sense. And how vitally important it is for anyone pro-life and actively engaged in the pro-life movement to educate themselves on how a human embryo develops and especially in comparison with the embryos of any animals.
We have seen how science so-called has been used to justify the dehumanization and even the elimination of the poor, mentally and physically impaired, those of a certain skin color, lineage, ethnicity, and in the mass murder of millions upon millions of unborn babies, and we are witnessing now as to how it is being used to justify demanding those, who might otherwise not, to affirm, under threat of punishment and ostracization, behavior that they, by reason of their own conscience and religious convictions, deem to be immoral and perverse.
And we have also seen how so-called science was used to effectively scare people into unnecessary and harmful lockdowns and into taking potentially hazardous vaccines on account of a virus that has been shown to have a mortality rate that is less than that of the flu.
But before science-so called was psychologically weaponized against the masses, before it was weaponized against the unborn, to cause a gender identity crisis within the minds of many of our youth and children and to condition them into participating and engaging in perverse behavior and activity, before it was weaponized to normalize otherwise socially unacceptable behavior, before it was weaponized against the unborn, and against people of certain skin-color, lineage, ethnicity, and against the poor, and against the physically and mentally handicapped, it was first weaponized against one thing that calls upon mankind to comfort the feeble minded and strengthen the weak, (1 Thess. 5:14) that repeatedly calls upon us to give what assistance we can to the poor and anyone in need, (2 Cor. 9:7) and that all men are created equal in the sight of God (Acts 10:34) and subject to the same standard (Num. 15:16) and that is the Bible and the weaponization of science not being directed at the laws of Moses, the miraculous accounts and acts of divine intervention, nor was it aimed at the words of the prophets, the Gospels, the Apostolic epistles, or even the book of Revelation. It was directed at the account of the origin of life as recorded in the book of Genesis.
It had once been widely accepted, even within the scientific community in every existing field, that the earth had been only a few thousand years old but a geologist by the name of James Hutton challenged the Genesis account by claiming the earth might be much older than just a few thousand years in a work called Theory of The Earth:
if we are to take the written history of man for the rule by which we should judge of the time when the species first
began, that period would be but little removed from the present state of things. The Mosaic history places this beginning of man at no great distance; and there has not been found, in natural history, any document by which a high antiquity might be attributed to the human race.
But this is not the case with regard to the inferior species of animals, particularly
those which inhabit the ocean and its shores. We find in natural history monuments which prove that those animals had long existed [32]
Even before man, or so was Hutton’s intention for us to believe. And the following is where we are introduced to the concept of uniformitarianism which Charles Lyell would succeed in popularizing:
In examining things present, we have data from which to reason with regard to what has been; and, from what has actually been, we have data for concluding with regard to that which is to happen hereafter. Therefore, upon the supposition that the operations of nature are equable and steady, we find, in natural appearances, means for concluding a certain portion of time to have necessarily elapsed, in the production of those
events of which we see the effects.
we are to examine the construction of the present earth, in order to understand the natural
operations of time past; to acquire principles, by which we may conclude with regard to the future course of things, or judge of those operations, by which a world, so wisely ordered,
goes into decay ; and to learn, by what means such a decayed world may be renovated, or the waste of habitable land upon the globe repaired. [33]
Hutton goes on to explain his theory and assumption of how the land masses formed.
The general amount of our reasoning is this, that nine tenths, perhaps, or ninety-nine hundredths of this earth, so far as we see, have been formed by natural operations of the globe, in collecting loose materials, and depositing them at the bottom of the sea ; consolidating those collections in various degrees, and either elevating those consolidated masses above the level on which they were formed, or lowering the level of that sea.
There is a part of the solid earth which we may at present neglect, not, as being persuaded that this part may not also be found to come under the general rule of formation with the rest, but as considering this part to be of no consequence in forming a general rule, which shall comprehend almost the whole, without doing it absolutely. This excluded part consists of certain mountains and masses of granite. These are thought to be still older in their formation, and are very rarely, at least, found superincumbent on strata which must be acknowledged
as the productions of the sea. [34]
But Hutton’s uniformitarian theory runs into a problem, as he admits that strata layers are not all in one uniform formation, but he gives another explanation for how this could be other than a global deluge:
The strata formed at the bottom of the ocean are necessarily horizontal in their position, or nearly so, and continuous in their horizontal direction or extent. [35]
Or so he assumes, but not much is known about the geologic formations underneath the ocean since most geologic and paleontological knowledge is acquired from studies and discoveries on land. He further goes on to say:
They may change, and gradually assume the nature of each other, so far as concerns the materials of which they are formed; but there cannot be any sudden change, fracture or displacement naturally in the body of a stratum. But, if these strata are cemented by the heat of fusion, and erected with an expansive power acting below, we may expect to find every species of fracture, dislocation and contortion, in those bodies, and every degree of departure from a horizontal towards a vertical position.
The strata of the globe are actually found in every possible position: For from horizontal, they are frequently found vertical ; from continuous, they are broken and separated in every possible direction ; and, from a plane, they are bent and doubled. It is impossible that they could have originally been formed, by the known laws of nature, in their present state and position [36]
Hutton frequently states that all strata and sedimentary formations, of which he claims the land masses are a product further stating that heat-fusion was responsible for cementing the strata together, and that an “expansive power”, which he does not name, has been responsible for causing these strata layers, upon which our present continents rest, to be uplifted out of their aquatic origins and claims these unidentified undersea geologic forces for being responsible for the formations that challenge his uniformitarian theory but would be consistent with what we might expect of a massive deluge. But rather than concede that his theories uniformitarian theories might be wrong, he stubbornly held to his belief that the past workings of nature but unlike the scientists of his day and afterward (both Young Earth Creationists and otherwise) Hutton had no explanation for how the earth came into existence in the first place and just simply believed that it had always been and that it had gone through and endless cycle of life, death, and rebirth:
…we have the satisfaction to find, that in nature there is wisdom, system, and consistency.
For having, in the natural history of this earth, seen a succession of worlds, we may from this conclude that there is a system in nature; in like manner as, from feeing revolutions of the planets, it is concluded, that there is a system by which they are intended to continue those revolutions. But if the succession of worlds is established in the system of nature, it is in vain to look for anything higher in the origin of the earth. The result, therefore, of our present enquiry is, that we find no vestige of a beginning, no prospect of an end. [37]
But where Hutton had failed in getting the theory of uniformitarianism to be widely accepted, Charles Lyell would succeed which is why he is credited for the concept and is best known for coining the phrase, “The present is the key to the past”
Those who refused to accept the uniformitarian concept of long ages, he called delusional.
As a belief in the want of conformity in the physical constitution of the earth, in ancient and modern periods, was for a long time universally prevalent, and that too amongst men who were convinced that the order of nature is now uniform, and that it has continued so for several thousand years, every circumstance which could have influenced their minds and given an undue bias to their opinions deserves particular attention. Now the reader may easily satisfy himself, that, however undeviating the course of nature may have been from the earliest epochs, it was impossible for the first cultivators of geology to come to such a conclusion, so long as they were under a delusion as to the age of the world, and the date of the first creation of animate beings. [38]
Despite admitting to the ability of catastrophic events to change the face of entire landscapes, he considered these to be rare with almost no involvement in the formation of geologic structures.
Now it would be difficult to exaggerate the number of physical events, many of them most rare and unconnected in their nature…The sources of prejudice hitherto considered may be deemed
as in a great degree peculiar to the infancy of the science, but others are common to the first cultivators of geology and to ourselves, and are all singularly calculated to produce the same
deception, and to strengthen our belief that the course of nature in the earlier ages differed widely from that now established. [39]
And when encountering things that could not be explained by present natural processes, he simply said that it was only due to the ignorance of those natural processes that had yet to be identified. He, like Hutton, refused to consider any other possibility, including the possibility that the uniformitarian concept might be wrong and would need to be discarded and that the geologic formations that both he and Hutton before him had studied might have been formed much more rapidly than they had proposed:
When we are unable to explain the monuments of past changes, it is always more probable that the difficulty arises from our ignorance of all the existing agents, or all their possible effects in
an indefinite lapse of time, than that some cause was formerly in operation which has ceased to act. [40]
And yet ironically, Lyell was willing to concede that it was possible for geologic formations thousands of feet thick to be relatively young and recent but instead would give credit to violent earthquakes and frequent volcanic activity. Anything but the global flood as written in Genesis:
Those geologists who are not averse to presume that the course of Nature has been uniform from the earliest ages, and that causes now in action have produced the former changes of the earth's surface, will consult the ancient strata for instruction in regard to the reproductive effects of tides and currents.
It will be enough for them to perceive clearly that great effects now annually result from the operations of these agents, in the inaccessible depths of lakes, seas, and the ocean; and they will then search the ancient lacustrine and marine strata for manifestations of analogous effects in times past. Nor will it be necessary for them to resort to very ancient monuments; for in certain regions where there are active volcanos, and where violent earthquakes prevail, we may examine submarine formations many thousand feet in thickness, belonging to our own
era, or, at least, to the era of contemporary races of organic beings. [41]
Lyell, and Darwin had done more to undermine the historical account and authority of scripture more than anyone before or even after them; Lyell with his popularization of uniformitarianism and Darwin with his theory of evolution aided largely by Lyellian influence. In was in Darwin that the greatest known and most effective attack on the authority and integrity of scripture and upon the Christian faith ever known had been conceived. Most within the Church did not know how to best respond to this attack and therefore struggled with how they might best reconcile the Christian faith with what they had been deceived into thinking was science which is why there is such division within the Church to this day as to how to best interpret the Genesis account of origins and even history with Young Earth Creationists being in the minority.
When faced with hard questions, especially from the youth and those whose faith is being faced with intellectual and philosophical challenges, those within the Church who are relied upon to give as sound and reasoned of a defense of the faith as possible but yet are attempting to reconcile two opposing doctrines will often fail to provide a satisfying answer and address the disconnect within the minds of those who might otherwise come to faith in Christ Jesus or remain in the faith.
And this is exactly what the enemies of the faith hope for as it pertains to the origins of life. Cast doubt on the first book of the Bible upon which all other scripture rests and doubt is eventually cast upon the Gospel message itself as is the strategy described by atheist G. Richard Bozarth:
Without Adam, without the original sin, Jesus Christ is reduced to a man with a mission on the wrong planet. Death becomes not a divine punishment we require salvation from, but only a natural occurrence as much a part of the normalcy of life as birth. Sin becomes not an ugly fate due to one man's disobedience that we need to be bloodily redeemed of, but only the struggle of instincts learned during millions of years of savagery, trying to adapt to this 10,000 year old infant we call civilization.
Christianity has fought, still fights, and will fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus’ earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the son of god. Take away the meaning of his death. If Jesus was not the redeemer that died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing.
Christianity, if it is to survive, must have Adam and the original sin and the fall from grace, or it cannot have Jesus the redeemer who restores to those who believe what Adam's disobedience took away.
What this all means is that Christianity cannot lose the
Genesis account of creation. [42]
If there is to be any hope of anyone placing an unwavering faith in Jesus Christ, they must also have an unwavering faith in the scriptures that speak of Him and that lead us to Him, from the first verse in the book of Genesis to the last verse in the book of Revelation and what needs to be done to combat this weaponization of science so-called is to undo the lie that science is able to tell us about the past. It cannot tell us about what happened in the past. Only history, which requires a documented firsthand witness of events, can do that. Nor can science tell us about the future. Only divine revelation can do that. It can only tell us about what is happening in the present.
Many great scientists throughout history understood what science was intended for and that was to study the present workings of nature and it was never their intent to discredit the Genesis account of creation or any of the scriptures. They did not attempt to decipher the past with it, nor did they attempt to see into the future with it.
In his second volume of his Mathematical Principles Of Natural Philosophy, Sir Isaac Newton, best known for discovering the laws of gravity and who was also an astronomer, saw the hand of the Creator sustaining the natural laws set in place:
Bodies, projected in our air, suffer no resistance but from the air. Withdraw the air, as is done in Mr. Boyle's vacuum, and the resistance ceases. For in this void a bit of fine down and a piece of solid gold descend with equal velocity. And the parity of reason must take place in the celestial spaces above the Earth's atmosphere; in which spaces, where there is no air to resist their motions, all bodies will move with the greatest freedom; and the Planets and Comets will constantly pursue their revolutions in orbits given in kind and position, according to the laws above explained. But though these bodies may indeed persevere in their orbits by the mere laws of gravity, yet they could by no means have at first derived the regular position of the orbits themselves from those laws
The six primary Planets are revolved about the Sun, in circles concentric with the Sun, and with motions directed towards the same parts and almost in the same plane. Ten Moons are revolved about the Earth, Jupiter and Saturn, in circles concentric with them, with the same direction of motion, and nearly in the planes of the orbits of those Planets. But it is not to be conceived that mere mechanical causes could give birth to so many regular motions: since the Comets range over all parts of the heavens, in very eccentric orbits. For by that kind of motion they pass easily through the orbs of the Planets, and with great rapidity; and in their aphelions, where they move the slowest, and are detained the longest, they recede to the greatest distances from each other, and thence suffer the least disturbance from their mutual attractions. This most beautiful System of the Sun, Planets and Comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being. And if the fixed Stars are the centers of other like systems, these being formed by the like wise counsel, must be all subject to the dominion of One; especially, since the light of the fixed Stars is of the same nature with the light of the Sun, and from every system light passes into all the other systems. And lest the systems of the fixed Stars should, by their gravity, fall on each other mutually, he hath placed those Systems at immense distances one from another.
This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all: And on account of his dominion he is wont to be called Lord God or Universal Ruler. For God is a relative word, and has a respect to servants; and Deity is the dominion of God, not over his own body, as those imagine who fancy God to be the soul of the world, but over servants. The supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, absolutely perfect; but a being, however perfect, without dominion, cannot be said to be Lord God; for we say, my God, your God, the God of Israel, the God of Gods, and Lord of Lords; but we do not say, my Eternal, your Eternal, the Eternal of Israel, the Eternal of Gods; we do not say, my Infinite, or my Perfect: These are titles which have no respect to servants.
The word God usually signifies Lord; but every lord is not a God. It is the dominion of a spiritual being which constitutes a God; a true, supreme or imaginary dominion makes a true, supreme or imaginary God. And from his true dominion it follows, that the true God is a Living, Intelligent and Powerful Being; and from his other perfections, that he is Supreme or most Perfect. He is Eternal and Infinite, Omnipotent and Omniscient; that is, his duration reaches from Eternity to Eternity; his presence from Infinity to Infinity; he governs all things, and knows all things that are or can be done. He is not Eternity or Infinity, but Eternal and Infinite; he is not Duration or Space, but he endures and is present. He endures forever, and is everywhere present; and by existing always and everywhere, he constitutes Duration and Space. Since every particle of Space is always, and every indivisible moment of Duration is everywhere, certainly the Maker and Lord of all things cannot be never and nowhere. Every soul that has perception is, though in different times and in different organs of sense and motion, still the same indivisible person. There are given successive parts in duration, co-existant parts in space, but neither the one nor the other in the person of a man, or his thinking principle; and much less can they be found in the thinking substance of God. Every man, so far as he is a thing that has perception, is one and the same man during his whole life, in all and each of his organs of sense. God is the same God, always and everywhere. He is omnipresent, not virtually only, but also substantially; for virtue cannot subsist without substance. In him are all things contained and moved; yet neither affects the other: God suffers nothing from the motion of bodies; bodies find no resistance from the omnipresence of God. 'Tis allowed by all that the supreme God exists necessarily; and by the same necessity he exists always and everywhere. Whence also he is all similar, all eye, all ear, all brain, all arm, all power to perceive, to understand, and to act; but in a manner not at all human, in a manner not at all corporeal, in a manner utterly unknown to us. As a blind man has no idea of colours, so have we no idea of the manner by which the all-wise God perceives and understands all things. He is utterly void of all body and bodily figure, and can therefore neither be seen, nor heard, nor touched; nor ought to be worshipped under the representation of any corporeal thing. We have ideas of his attributes, but what the real substance of any thing is, we know not. In bodies we see only their figures and colours, we hear only the sounds, we touch only their outward surfaces, we smell only the smells, and taste the favours; but their inward substances are not to be known, either by our senses, or by any reflex act of our minds; much less then have we any idea of the substance of God. We know him only by his most wise and excellent contrivances of things, and final causes; we admire him for his perfections; but we reverence and adore him on account of his dominion.
For we adore him as his servants; and a God without dominion, providence, and final causes, is nothing else but Fate and Nature. Blind metaphysical necessity, which is certainly the same always and everywhere, could produce no variety of things. All that diversity of natural things which we find, suited to different times and places, could arise from nothing but the ideas and will of a Being necessarily existing. But by way of allegory, God is said to see, to speak, to laugh, to love, to hate, to desire, to give, to receive, to rejoice, to be angry, to fight, to frame, to work, to build. For all our notions of God are taken from the ways of mankind, by a certain similitude which, though not perfect, has some likeness however. And thus much concerning God; to discourse of whom from the appearances of things, does certainly belong to Natural Philosophy. [43]
Newton may have had a lot to say about science, but unbeknownst to most, he also had a fair amount to say about theology. In his A Short Scheme On The True Religion, he stated:
Atheism is so senseless & odious to mankind that it never had many professors. [44]
Unfortunately today, there are more who profess to be atheists than in Newton’s day which should tell us as to the state of the spiritual condition of his generation in comparison to now. Entire sermons could be written as to why atheism should be so odious to mankind and I believe I have already given reasons myself as to why it ought to be a thing too repugnant to embrace, but I am willing to expound upon that more in another blogpost. Further on, Newton states why atheism is so senseless:
Can it be by accident that all birds beasts & men have their right side & left side alike shaped (except in their bowels) & just two eyes & no more on either side the face & just two ears on either side the head & a nose with two holes & no more between the eyes & one mouth under the nose & either two fore legs or two wings or two arms on the shoulders & two legs on the hips one on either side & no more? Whence arises this uniformity in all their outward shapes but from the counsel & contrivance of an Author? Whence is it that the eyes of all sorts of living creatures are transparent to the very bottom & the only transparent members in the body, having on the outside an hard transparent skin, & within transparent juyces with a crystalline Lens in the middle & a pupil before the Lens all of them so truly shaped & fitted for vision, that no Artist can mend them? Did blind chance know that there was light & what was its refraction & fit the eyes of all creatures after the most curious manner to make use of it? These & such like considerations always have & ever will prevail with mankind to beleive that there is a being who made all things & has all things in his power & who is therefore to be feared. [45]
And to this day, no atheist has been able to give a satisfying answer as to how time and blind random chance could ever possibly create anything and yet they insist that belief in the existence of God conflicts with science despite the fact that Sir Isaac Newton never saw any conflict between the two. By simply observing nature itself, he found it perfectly reasonable and logical to believe in the existence of a Creator and to trust the biblical record of history itself and he is not the only scientist to feel quite comfortable in owing the existence of all life to a Creator.
There be many who might think that the founder of paleontology was the man who coined the term “Dinosaur” or “Terrible Lizard” but that was not who history credits the founding of paleontology to. The founder of paleontology is a name most have never heard of today: John Woodward. He did not believe that geologic formations and fossils were formed slowly over time, but like the catastrophists and Young Earth Creationists today, he believed that they were formed very rapidly because he himself believed strongly in the biblical account of history and believed the creation account of Genesis and the global flood of Noah to have actually happened.
In his work An Essay toward a Natural History Of The Earth, Woodward devotes an entire section of that work towards describing what he theorized about the geologic processes that took place during the flood and what the role of the flood might have been in shaping the geologic landscape that we see today. When one reads that entire section, it does not sound much different than what Young Earth Creationists believe and theorize about the role the flood had in fossil formation, the laying down of strata and sedimentary layers, and the shaping of other geologic formations. In his introduction to the second part of his work concerning the flood, he reveals that a primary reason for writing it was to defend the biblical account of the flood as written in the book of Genesis:
The Confectaries of the former part of this Discourse are all negative ; that being only introductory, and serving but to clear the way to this second part:
to free the Enquiry from the Perplexities that some Undertakers have encumbered it withall:
and to set aside the false Lights they used in quest of the Agent which transposed
these Sea-shells to Land…[46]
Which Difficulties I propose at large, and particularly those which have of late been urged,
by some Learned Men, as proofs that these Bodies were not left behind by the Deluge; shewing of how little Validity they are…[47]
Having therefore discharged my hands of that Task, and, from Observation of the present state of the Earth, and of the site and condition of the Marine Bodies which are lodged within and upon it, shewn that they could not possibly be reposed in that manner by particular Inundations: by the Seas receding and shifting from place to place: nor by any of the other means there proposed:
I pass next on to search out the true means: and to discover the Agent that did actually bring
them forth, and disposed them into the Method and Order wherein we
now find them. [48]
In reaffirming that the flood described in Genesis was responsible for fossil deposition and formation, he states:
That these Marine Bodies were born forth of the Sea by the Universal Deluge: and that, upon the return of the Water back again from off the Earth, they were left behind at Land. [49]
Here is just some of what Woodward describes what he supposes may have taken place during the flood:
That during the time of the Deluge, whilst the Water was out upon, and covered the Terrestrial Globe, All the Stone and Marble of the Antediluvian Earth: all the Metals of it: all Mineral Concretions: and, in a word, all Fossils whatever that had before obtained any Solidity, were totally dissolved, and their constituent Corpuscles all disjoined, their Cohesion perfectly ceasing. That the said Corpuscles of these solid Fossils, together with the Corpuscles of those which were not before solid, such as Sand, Earth, and the like: as also all Animal Bodies, and parts of Animals, Bones, Teeth, Shells:
Vegetables, and parts of Vegetables , Trees, Shrubs, Herbs: and, to be short, all Bodies whatsoever that were either upon the Earth, or that constituted the Mass of it, if not quite down to the Abyss yet at least to the greatest depth we ever dig: I say all these were assumed up promiscuously into the Water, and sustained in it, in such manner that the Water, and Bodies in it, together made up one common confused Mass. [50]
[Note: Gap theorists believe that the fossil record that we see today was the result and product of a judgment upon a pre-Adamic race of men rather than the flood of Noah. Although Woodward believed that pre-Noachin flood fossils did exist, there is no evidence in his writings that he adhered to a gap theory as the theory was never proposed until well after his death. He probably believed that any pre-flood fossils might have been formed by lesser catastrophes that took place before the universal deluge described in the book of Genesis but, as he himself points out, any fossils existing before the flood of Noah would have been obliterated. He makes very clear that all presently existing fossils that we see today are post-flood and post-Noah, not pre-flood or before Noah. Woodward continues to explain:]
That at length all the Mass that was thus borne up in the Water, was again precipitated and subsided towards the bottom. That this Subsidence happened generally, and as near as possibly could be expected in so great a Confusion, according to the Laws of Gravity: that Matter, or Bodies, which had the greatest quantity or degree of Gravity, subsiding first in order, and falling lowest: that which had the next, or a still lesser degree of Gravity, subsiding next after, and fettling upon the precedent: and so on in their several Courses; that which had the least Gravity sinking not down till last of all, settling at the Surface of the Sediment, and covering all the rest.
That the Matter, subsiding thus, formed the Strata of Stone, of Marble, of Cole, of Earth, and the rest; of which Strata, lying one upon another, the Terrestrial Globe, or at least as much of it as is ever displayed to view, doth mainly consist. That the Strata being arranged in this order merely by the disparity of the Matter, of which each consisted, as to Gravity, that Matter which was heaviest descending first, and all that had the same degree of
Gravity subsiding at the same time: and here being Bodies of quite different Kinds, Natures, and Constitutions, that are nearly of the fame specific Gravity, it thence happened that Bodies of quite different kinds subsided at the same instant, fell together into, and composed the fame Stratum. [51]
(pp. 76-77)
Woodward then tells us why fossils would have to be formed rapidly and why the massive amount of fossils we see and discover today could not have been produced by any other means but by a worldwide catastrophe as intense as that of the global flood described in the book of Genesis:
…the Bodies of the Animals would suddenly corrupt and rot: the Bones, Teeth, and Shells, would likewise all rot in time, except those which were secured by the extraordinary Strength and Firmness of their Parts, or which happened to be lodged in such places where there was great plenty of bituminous or other like Matter to preserve, and, as it were, embalm them: that the Trees would in time also decay and rot, unless such as chanced to be reposed in, and secured by the fame kind of Matter. [52]
And there have been countless fossil discoveries that have vindicated Woodward and others accepting the Genesis account of creation and history as fact that suggest nothing more than being formed by a rapid burial and deposition which would be consistent with a flood model.
But as even secular sources such as Berkley University will admit, the existence of fossils was well known even before Woodward’s generation and there have been various theories and opinions as to how they were produced and that the formation of fossils was due largely to the Genesis Deluge was one of the main views and teachings for several centuries:
Two great, opposing concepts of the history of the Earth and life dominated thought throughout the Middle Ages. The first was the Biblical account of creation: the world and its life were formed by God a few thousand years before the present. The second was the philosophy of Aristotle and his commentators: the world, and the animals and plants living on it, were eternal, uncreated, and unchanging. Much of the intellectual history of the later Middle Ages revolved around the attempt to integrate and synthesize these two worldviews…
The diluvial hypothesis became popular in the 17th and 18th centuries, as pious scientists struggled to relate their observations to the Biblical account of creation. The English scientist John Woodward (1665-1728) was perhaps the greatest exponent of the Flood as the creator of fossils. In the words of an admirer, Woodward's book, An Essay toward a Natural History of the Earth, "Vindicates, supports and maintains the Mosaick Account of things, as exactly agreeable to the Phaenomena of Nature."…
Others, working in the tradition of Aristotle, held that fossils grew inside the Earth, due to some fertile power or "hidden virtue" within the Earth; or that they formed when particles that carried the "form" of an animal or plant landed in rocky matter. In either case, the result was a piece of earthly matter that had the form of an animal or plant. An influential proponent of this view was the Moslem physician Abu 'Ali al-Husayn ibn Abdallah ibn Sina, known in the West as Avicenna (980-1037). Avicenna's writings represented a great advance on previous medical theory. However, his skepticism about alchemy -- the attempts to transmute lesser metals into gold -- led him to believe that bones could not turn to stone. Instead, he thought, a "shaping force" or vis plastica within the Earth had formed stone into the shapes of bones. [53]
Naturalist Carolus Linnaeus, the man credited for inventing our modern animal classification system, also, to a certain extent, believed the Genesis account of creation to be actual history as acknowledged by a number of different sources. The Swedish University Uppsala, which Linnaeus himself had founded during his lifetime, stated concerning his theological beliefs:
For a person of his time it was still natural to believe in the story of the Creation in the Bible. That tells how the earth was created and took its shape. Linnaeus saw no reason to doubt this story, but he was eager to complement it.
If God had created all plants and animals at once, different climate types must have existed at the same time in paradise, both tropical and arctic. He therefore assumed that paradise lay on an island south of the equator and on this island there was a high mountain, thereby offering different climate types at the same time. Eventually the island grew and formed continents, thus making it possible for animals and plants to spread across the earth. When the Flood occurred, this order was interrupted; rock and earth layers changed positions; stones and animals were washed far from their place of origin. [54]
An article on Linnaeus from Berkley University also commented:
Linnaeus loved nature deeply, and always retained a sense of wonder at the world of living things. His religious beliefs led him to natural theology, a school of thought dating back to Biblical times but especially flourishing around 1700: since God has created the world, it is possible to understand God's wisdom by studying His creation. As he wrote in the preface to a late edition of Systema Naturae: Creationis telluris est gloria Dei ex opere Naturae per Hominem solum -- The Earth's creation is the glory of God, as seen from the works of Nature by Man alone. The study of nature would reveal the Divine Order of God's creation, and it was the naturalist's task to construct a "natural classification" that would reveal this Order in the universe. [55]
While evolutionists claim that the taxonomy of Linnaeus contributed greatly to the development of Darwinian theory, Linnaeus never adhered to nor taught any such thing. As the Berkley University website explains:
Was Linnaeus an evolutionist? It is true that he abandoned his earlier belief in the fixity of species, and it is true that hybridization has produced new species of plants, and in some cases of animals. Yet to Linnaeus, the process of generating new species was not open-ended and unlimited. Whatever new species might have arisen from the primae speciei, the original species in the Garden of Eden, were still part of God's plan for creation, for they had always potentially been present. Linnaeus noticed the struggle for survival. [56]
If anything at all, evolutionists have perverted the works of Linnaeus to their own ends, rendering them in a manner that he himself never intended to. What Linnaeus intended for the understanding to be was not that all life descended from simple bacteria but that all living things were descendants of ancestors separately created (i.e. all feline species descended a common ancestral feline species; the same being applied to all canine species and so forth)
I had hoped that during the writing of this post that I could acquire more firsthand statements from the writings of Linnaeus himself from his best-known works but sadly was disappointed to find that they were not made available in English but are available only in Latin and Swedish and so had to rely on second-hand information sources (Creationist [57-58] and non-Creationist) showing themselves to have access to those first-hand sources that I could not access, both sources all of which concur that Linnaeus, known as the father of modern taxonomy, did indeed believe, to certain degree, the biblical account of history including the creation account of Genesis and the flood that came upon the entire world due to man’s exceeding wickedness.
The only firsthand statement I have been able to access so far comes from Linnaeus’s A Tour In Lapland, in which he states:
The observer of nature sees, with admiration, that "the whole
world is full of the glory of God." [59]
Newton, Woodward, and Linnaeus are but three of many great scientists who saw no conflict between their study of the natural world and their faith in the biblical account of creation and history and if there be scientists who have no reason to see a conflict between their studies of nature and in their trust in the authority of the divinely inspired scriptures from the first verse of Genesis to the last verse in the book of Revelation, then what reason have we to see a conflict as well. It is but a matter of what we understand science to be and for what it was intended.
The Young Earth Creation community has no quarrel with the observable, testable, and repeatable sciences that are conducted nor with what is revealed from the present studies of nature which is the science that has led to the invention of modern modes of transportation, communications, medical, industrial, and technological advancements by which mankind has benefited. Where the conflict between evolutionists and creationists arises is where it pertains to the origins of life, the earth, and the universe.
There are many scientists today, as there have been in generations past, in virtually every field of science who testify as to how their own independent scientific studies have either led them to faith in Christ or strengthened their faith in Christ.
One scientist who once worked for NASA as an astronomer and astronaut was quoted by the Christian Post as saying:
Science does not contradict Christianity. There is no contradiction. The contradiction comes into your philosophy going into your science…And your philosophy acknowledges a God that has either revealed Himself specifically in the scriptures of the Bible or your philosophy discounts or doesn't allow a God. Then, you have to explain the existence of everything by chance over time. [60]
And so far, no one has been able to come up with a satisfying or reasonable explanation as to how everything came about by unthinking and unplanning time and random chance processes.
Multitudes have been led to believe that science should be able to explain virtually everything and virtually bring a solution to every problem that there is. They have been led to believe that science is able to tell us about the past and predict the future and if something cannot be scientifically explained, that it must not be so or that it must be a lie.
But what needs to be understood about science is that it was never intended to tell us about the past. Only history, which requires firsthand documented accounts of past events, can do that. It cannot tell us what is going to happen in the future. Only prophecy given by divine revelation can do that. Neither was science intended to explain to us the supernatural. Only theology can do that.
But the question is, is what theology and system of thought is the observable, testable, studied, and repeatable science the most consistent with?
The evolutionist assumes that everything came about by the unthinking processes of time and chance, that the earth and the universe are billions of years old based upon the assumption that the presently natural working processes of geologic formation have always been the same with sedimentary and strata layers, glaciers, caves, and other formations being slowly formed over a gradual period of time by the forces of wind, water, and in some cases, even volcanic and tectonic activity while excluding any catastrophic events that might accelerate the working processes at any given time that might cause geologic formations to be produced much more rapidly than they otherwise might be, for strata and sedimentary layers to be laid down very quickly, and for fossils to be formed and to a certain extent, preserved by a process of rapid burial.
The evolutionist also assumes that small changes within the various kinds of plants and animals can give way to much larger changes that they claim caused men to descend from simple-celled bacteria and not just man himself, but also every form of life that has ever existed and exists today.
The Creationist on the other hand takes the Genesis account of creation as written and the biblical account of all history as actual history and believes the science that he studies and tests to be consistent with that account of history.
The Genesis account of creation declares that God declared all living things, including mankind to reproduce after their own kind (Gen. 1:12, 21-22, 24-25) and what the Creationist sees is every living thing reproducing after its own kind (i.e. dogs producing dogs, cats from cats, and so forth) and though he may not dispute the different variations within each kind of plant, tree, and animal, nor even variation amongst men, he will, based upon his adherence to scripture, still see dogs as dogs, cats as cats and people as people. He will not think them to be anything else for he believes that the potential for variation already existed in the originally created respective ancestors of every plant, herb, shrub, vegetable, bush, tree, animal and man.
The Creationist also takes into account that even as he observes the present workings of nature, that things have not always been the same and that the world as it presently is has not always been as it presently is. Even if he were to witness strata and sedimentary layers being slowly formed at present (i.e. one strata or sedimentary layer being formed annually in any given location), he still takes into account that events can occur that can immensely accelerate this process which is why Young Earth Creation scientists, be they the Isaac Newtons and John Woodwards of centuries past, or the Ken Hams and John Morris’s of today, will continue to give the Genesis account of the flood credit for the vast majority of the production of geologic and fossil formations and phenomena that we see and discover today.
The mission of the evolutionist, as noted earlier, has always been to discredit the Genesis account of creation because he knows that if the Genesis account of creation can be discredited, then the rest of the scripture written after it may also be questioned and eventually discredited and that includes the Christian faith which teaches the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ for the sins of the world so that anyone placing their trust in Christ alone for their salvation may be redeemed out of all of their sins and iniquities and rescued from a coming judgment that is to eventually come upon on all of the sins and evil of this present world and which also teaches that a new and better creation to come in place of the one presently existing.
The Bible teaches that God created the world to be good and when He had created it, there was nothing in it that was contrary to that which He deemed to be good but then goes on to tell us how the world that once was became the world as we know it today which God did not intend nor desire for us; a world of death, decay, hardship, struggle, misery, evil, and darkness and in which a battle between good and evil is constantly waged and on every front that there could be.
The objective of the evolutionist is have us believe that everything which God has declared evil have always been a part of the natural cycle of life, including those behaviors and deeds most would declare to be abhorrent and perverse and in doing so, he will have succeeded in convincing us that there is no divine judgment to be feared for those things done that have been declared to be sinful, immoral, and evil because it is at that point that he has led us to believe that there really is no such thing as evil and if there is no such thing as evil, then there is no such thing as good or any such thing as right or wrong making the concepts of morality, law, order, and justice meaningless and the establishment of governing authorities to keep lawless and wicked behavior in check useless and not only that, takes away the need for a Savior to redeem us or the earth from anything because there would be nothing to redeem us from because the world as we know it to be has always been as it is today and mankind have always been by nature the way they are today which would mean that the death of Christ on the cross and His resurrection would have been for nothing.
But if the Christian is to have any hope in making an effective case for his or her faith, an experiential testimony will not often be enough to persuade those they seek to win over to Christ of the truth of the Gospel message of salvation. That is not to say that the sharing of a personal testimony of how one came to Christ is not important, but it is not always enough for such will never be able to address the intellectual, theological, and philosophical barriers that keep those who might otherwise come to repentance blind and unreceptive to the Gospel message of salvation.
The Christian must be able, and as often as required, to present as reasoned and logically sound defense of their faith as they possibly can and be as prepared as possibly as they can be in both heart, mind, and soul, to, as it written, pull down those “strong holds” and cast down those “wicked imaginations and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ” (2 Cor. 10:4-5) because there are in many souls strongholds that harden the heart, wicked imaginations that have taken their minds, hearts, and souls captive, poisoning them with lies and falsehoods that exalt themselves against the truth of God, and filling them with thoughts that are rebellious against the God who calls them to repentance and there are many of these strongholds, wicked imaginations and high things that stand in opposition to the Gospel message and the sound doctrinal purity of the faith that could be named but as for the subject matter of this post is concerned, I must keep focused on the pseudo-science that has been one of those strongholds, and among those high things, and a product of wicked imaginations that have blinded those lost souls who might otherwise embrace Christ to His truth and to their need of Him and which has overthrown the faith of those who might have otherwise remained in the faith.
For those of us who would be faithful followers of Christ, we, and to whatever extent each respective calling requires it, are called to be prepared to give an answer to any inquiring as to the reason for our faith in Christ and why we follow Him (1 Pet. 3:15) and to “earnestly contend for the faith” (Jude 3) and if any among us be preachers, evangelists, missionaries, teachers, seminarians, or if there be any among us seeking to raise up children in the fear and admonition of the Lord, then such are especially tasked with the duty of shielding our congregants, audiences, children, and even grandchildren from anything that might lead them astray and cause them to question their faith and possibly abandon it altogether and if we are not prepared to make a defense of our faith when call upon to do so and if we should neglect to prepare ourselves to give to our congregants, fellow saints, and children those much needed answers to strengthen their faith against the lies, deceits, and falsehoods that seek to discredit in their minds and hearts the divine authority of scripture and with that the faith they profess to hold to and which we should desire for them to embrace and walk therein, are we not then guilty in the eyes of God of a dereliction of duty?
The credibility of our faith not only requires us to persuade the world of the truth and fact of the Gospel message itself, but we are also required to be prepared to give a defense of the authority of the scriptures and their claim to divine inspiration from the first verse in Genesis to the last verse in the book of Revelation for if there be any reason to doubt one portion of scripture, there will come reasons to doubt others and rather than waste our time, as far too many within the Church have done, attempting to reconcile the teachings and accounts of scripture with worldly thinking which stands in opposition to the scriptures by which we have received our faith and the teachings thereof, we must rather measure and discredit with the scriptures those worldly ways of thinking that challenge it and if we find ourselves lacking the wisdom and knowledge to do so, we are admonished then to fall upon our faces and ask God for that much needed wisdom and knowledge (Jas. 1:5) needed to make the case for the faith that is needed to persuade every lost soul of the truth of the Gospel message, of the sins they need to repent of, and of their need for the Savior who is able to take away their sins and thus save them from what would otherwise be an unimaginably terrifying judgment full of ongoing torment to which they would be subject if they should remain in their unrepentant state.
And if we can persuade men to trust and embrace any given portion of the Bible, then we can also give them reason to embrace all of it and unto a saving and redeeming faith in Christ Jesus our Lord.
But before men can be persuaded of the divine authority of scripture, to turn away from their sins, and to call upon the name of Jesus Christ for the salvation of their souls, the lies that blind them to the truth of the Gospel must be undone and their hardened hearts must be softened and prepared for the way to be open for Christ to enter into them and to transform them into faithful and devoted followers who are steadfast in their faith.
The Gospel message has been challenged and attacked in every way that it can be; in some ways very direct but in other ways not so direct but very subtle and it is those very subtle underminings that have in the long run done more damage and harm to the body of Christ and have proved to be more of an obstacle to both the spreading and the reception of the Gospel than any other form and what the enemies of the cross cannot destroy from without, they will attempt to infiltrate and over time, destroy from within and when the forces of darkness cannot prevail against the faith with civic punishment, social ostracization, discrimination, prisons, violence torture, and even bloodshed, they will attempt to try their hand with philosophical and intellectual challenges for the purpose of causing the followers of Christ to question their faith and eventually even abandon it and to turn away those who might otherwise come to repentance away from the call of the Holy Spirit having their hearts, minds, and consciences blinded and darkened by the lies of Satan who is the adversary of our souls holding captive as many souls as he can and by way of various devices and great of an advantage it is to the forces of darkness when Christians attempt to harmonize two opposing doctrines and then fail miserably to provide a satisfying answer to any number of given intellectual, philosophical, and theological challenges that may be brought before them by those whom they seek to win over to the Christian faith or fail to retain in the faith those professing followers of Christ who may be experiencing a crisis of faith due to such challenges they have been confronted with or who watch their children turn away from the faith they had hoped to raise them up in due to the lies that have poisoned their minds against the faith because their children, the doubters who otherwise might not doubt, and those who are struggling in their faith due to those intellectual, theological, and philosophical challenges know that there is a disconnect in the attempted harmonization between opposing belief systems and a disconnect that an attempted answer based on a harmonization of two different forms of thought will never be able to effectively address in a convincing manner and that is why we must either commit ourselves to having full faith in the divine inspiration of scripture and treat it as equally inspired and authoritative from the first verse of Genesis to the last verse of Revelation or we do not.
And if we cannot accept as authoritative and as absolute truth and fact the first book of scripture upon which rest all the others and to which the rest in some form or another refer back to and also treat as absolute truth and history, then how can we possibly trust the rest of the scriptures or the Gospel message that they preach and how can we expect anyone else to as well?
But if we are able to unquestioningly accept as absolute truth the words of Jesus Christ and His Apostles and if we can without a doubt believe that He died upon the cross for our sins and that He rose from the dead and if we are able to place full and unwavering trust in Him alone for our salvation, and confidently believe in the promise of His return, and if we can accept without question the miraculous works wrought by God through Christ, His Apostles and other saints, and even some of the Old Testament prophets before them all including Moses, Elijah, Elisha, and Daniel, then there should be no reason why we cannot accept the Genesis account of creation as an actual even that took place either. They are all acts of the supernatural after all and if we feel no need for a scientific explanation for the healing of lepers, the raising of the dead, nor the multiplying of bread loaves and fish, then we don’t need a scientific explanation to have faith in the Genesis account of origins either and yet because of the pseudo-scientific assault on the Genesis account of creation and origins we need to be able to show that an acceptance of the Genesis account of creation, the fall of man, the flood of Noah, the Babel dispersion, and so forth as actual history is not incompatible with science but is actually consistent with a proper understanding of what science is and what it was intended for.
I mentioned earlier in this post, if you happen to remember is that the reason why John Woodward who is historically the founder of Paleontology, wrote his work An Essay Of The Natural History Of The Earth, was not merely to teach us about fossils or to express his theories about how they might have formed, but it was to defend the authority of scripture which had been coming under attack by so-called scientists and intellectuals in his day.
But it was not until after the publishing of Darwin’s On The Origin Of The Species that the attack of a very sophisticated pseudo-science upon the Genesis account of creation had reached its zenith and gained full strength and it was only because of the Young Earth Creation Movement that began in the 1960s that this pseudo-scientific attack was prevented from fully consuming the body of Christ and it is out of this movement that came ministries like The Institute For Creation Research (ICR), Answers In Genesis, and Creation Ministries International as well as many lesser known ministries have arisen and which has also inspired the Intelligent Design movement and if it were not for the Young Earth Creation Movement, the pro-life movement might not have succeeded in gaining the strength and influence necessary for the overturning of Roe .v. Wade, our religious liberties along with a few others might have ceased to exist decades ago, and we might not have thought to question scientific authority and expertise so-called and thus would have without question accepted and embraced very damaging policies and may have already found ourselves under a tyrannical form of rule and a most cruel, vicious, and brutal one at that.
There is reason to believe that the Y.E.C. movement has had an impact on our lives in more ways than we even realize and to far greater extent than what it may be given credit for and their objective has been nothing more than a message of lasting hope and comfort in Jesus Christ but at the same time they also know that in order for that message to be more easily received, intellectual, philosophical, and theological barriers must, as often as necessary, be addressed and aggressively so and part of that includes demonstrating that the Genesis account of creation and origins is not at odds with either science or history and if we can bring an understanding as to what science was actually intended for and what it was not intended for and that science can only tell us about the present and not about the past then it will be then that we will have succeeded in persuading the public to either at least consider the possibility of the Genesis account of origins as fact or even embrace it as history altogether and once that happens, they will then begin to understand that the world in which we live in has not always been as it once was or even how God initially created it to be.
It is only then that they will come to understand how our world turned from being the perfect world that God had created it to be into the corrupted shell of its former self, how evil entered into it, and how it entered into man.
It is only then that they will be able to understand that sin is not just merely an act, behavior, or even an ill spoken-word but that it is much more than that but that it is a corruption that we had inherited from our respective ancestors being the first man, Adam and the first woman, Eve whom God gave to Adam to be his wife and from whom all of humanity descend and it was because of one act of disobedience to their Creator by the partaking of a fruit forbidden to them that sin, being that corrupted condition of human nature, had entered into them first and then was inherited from them by all of humanity and it is then that they will begin to understand the consequences of sin both in this life and in eternity to come and that consequences of sin are not confined to just humanity, but have extended to all of creation and it will only be then that they will understand the need for a Savior and a Redeemer to take away their sins and what it is that this world needs to be set free from.
It is when they come to believe the Genesis account of creation to be actual history or at least consider the possibility that its account might be true that they will be more open to embracing the rest of scripture as absolute truth and with that the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
But the case for Genesis is heavily resisted in and suppressed in our halls of academia. Teachers who attempt to even from an objective standpoint present the facts of both the Y.E.C and evolutionist philosophies risk losing their jobs, those institutions who allow them to risk being sued in the courts, students who resist and challenge the anti-Christ indoctrination to which they are being exposed risk punishment, the media refuses to fairly give audience to the Y.E.C movement, libraries will routinely reject their material, and where it is ever received, anti-Christ activists will call for its removal, and if it is ever represented within our entertainment industry, it is misrepresented, ridiculed, and vilified because the spirit behind the doctrine of the pseudo-science of evolution knows that if the biological evolution of Darwinism is destroyed, if the uniformitarian philosophy of Hutton and Lyell are overthrown, if the conventional dating methods used to show our universe to be much older than a few thousand years are discredited, and if it is shown that there is no logical or rational basis for anything coming into existence without a Creator, and if eyes are opened to the hand of God in creation, then underneath the rubble of Darwin, you will find the sorry remains of the abortion lobby, the LGBT movement, Marxism, Fascism, the sexual revolution, racism in its every form, the Euthanasia lobby, climate change alarmism, the cabal, Deep State, globalism, and any and every kind of ideology, religion, and philosophy that is built upon the pseudo-science of Darwin.
Those who have fought and still fight against and seek to suppress, stamp out, and destroy the Y.E.C movement know that they cannot lose Darwin or any of the tenets associated with him because if they do, then they will have no other choice but to acknowledge that there is an absolute truth and an absolute moral law that comes from a power, source, and authority that does not come from any man, nor any established form of government, but from a power and authority that is much greater and much higher and who alone has determined what is right and what is wrong, what is good and what is evil, and what is light and what is darkness and what gives Him this authority and this right is that He and He alone is the sole Creator of all things and all of life and it is He and He alone who has established and set in motion those natural laws by which all things are sustained and held together.
They will be forced to admit that this Creator, source of truth, and moral lawgiver is also a Revelator of our past, the giver and shaper of history, who is actively involved in our present and when necessary, is able to interject Himself into the affairs of humanity for His own purposes, and in whose hand is our future and our destiny. They will also be made to face the fact that they will have to give an account before their Creator for all that they have said and done in their lives and that the very thoughts, motives, and attitudes that they have harbored will also be taken into account and that they will also receive a final sentence all the while rejecting the offer of redemption and forgiveness in Jesus Christ by whose blood their redemption was purchased and by whose resurrection from the dead, they would be made justified in Him, if they would but only be willing to turn away from their sins and evil ways but because they take pleasure in their sin, in evil, and in the darkness of this present world, they refuse to submit to the authority of the God who made them and who only wants to love them and lavish His goodness upon them and worse yet, they will do everything they can to shut the Kingdom of Heaven off from those who might otherwise enter in because they are not content with not submitting themselves to the authority of Christ. They do not want anyone else to do so either and that is why they will do everything they can to hinder, sabotage, discredit, and stop the spread of the Gospel message of Jesus Christ which preaches salvation: Salvation from sin, judgment, death, Hell, and darkness.
The same people who would suppress any evidence favoring the Gospel message of Jesus Christ are also the same people who have demanded for the ten commandments to be taken out of our schools and removed from our courthouses and halls of government.
They are the same people will not even allow so much as voluntary Bible classes in our schools nor for classes to begin with a voluntary prayer.
They are the same people who oppose city council meetings and county council meetings beginning with a prayer to Almighty God.
They are the same people who want to tear down crosses that are in plain sight of the public including those that are historic memorials honoring those men and women who have courageously laid down their lives for our nation.
They are the same people who advocate for the killing of babies.
They are the same people seeking to euthanize the elderly, the physically disabled, and the mentally and psychologically impaired.
They are the same people who demand the affirmation of LGBT behavior.
They are the same people seeking to pervert the minds of our children and condition them into participating in perverted activities and destroy their innocence.
They are the same people who wish to cause racial division with evil doctrines such as Critical Race Theory and who label parents who come out opposed to the lies being taught to their children as “terrorists.”
They are the same people who oppose the freedom of speech and the free exercise of religion.
They are the same people who wish to leave you and those you hold dear disarmed and defenseless against those who would do you and the people you love and hold dear harm.
They are the same people who deny that that the integrity of our electoral process could ever be compromised unless of course they are the ones losing.
They are the same people who push climate-change fearmongering.
They are the same people who oppose the eating of meat and would have us either eat bugs or go completely vegan.
They are the same people who forbid us to access our own domestic resources and make us heavily dependent upon foreign resources.
They are the same people who instilled fear into the masses of a virus shown to be no more or less dangerous than the flu and scared and coerced multitudes into taking hazardous and deadly vaccines while denying treatments that are much more safer and far more effective against that virus.
They are also the same people who have kept from us even effective treatments and even cures for diseases such as cancer while forcing those stricken to undergo procedures unnecessary and causing to die those who otherwise did not have to die.
They are the same people who have made a mockery out of the sacred institution of marriage by instituting same-sex marriage.
They are the same people who justify the criminals while condemning innocent law-abiding people.
And they are the same people who seek to place men in women’s restrooms, locker rooms, prison sections, shower rooms, dormitories, and on female sports athletic teams not at all caring about the safety concerns of women and children.
It is no coincidence that the same people who are suppressing anything in favor of the Genesis account of creation are also the people who seek to make as unavailable as possible a treatment for various kinds of diseases including COVID called “ivermectin” because “ivermectin” has been proven to be an effective solution to a variety of different ailments that nothing else can seem to provide and in the same way, accepting the Genesis account of creation has also been proven to be very effective in leading people to an eventual trust and acceptance of the Gospel of Jesus Christ who, if you will, is the “ivermectin” to the spiritual darkness of this world which is why the enemies of the cross will do anything to suppress anything that might lead anyone to that spiritual solution which is found in the cross upon which the blood of Christ was shed to take away the sins of the world so that anyone placing their trust in Him may be saved out of their sins and spared from facing what would otherwise be an unimaginable eternity of torment and punishment to which all sin and to which all who persist in remaining in their sin will be subject.
Those who fight against God and suppress His truth in their wickedness are not interested in providing real solutions to real problems. They may at best provide a masking over the symptoms of the cause or worse offer and impose a remedy worse than the disease itself but they will never attack the evils of this present world at their source especially if they happen to be the perpetuators of those evils.
But even if Darwin is overthrown and science is rescued and redeemed out of that ideology that has ruined and destroyed so many lives and has led multitudes of souls into a Christless eternity of torment, the age-long war between the forces of good and evil will not be over because the same spirit who deceived the mother of all mankind into eating a fruit forbidden to her and Adam, her husband and father of all mankind will continue to craft other lies, deceits, and falsehoods in place of the pseudo-science of Darwinism and ones that may be more cleverly devised and crafted than even that.
Because that same spirit behind the weaponization of science by the crafting of a counterfeit science is also that same spirit who exalted himself against his maker in his pride and as a result, lost the position that he had once had at the throne of God. (Is. 14:11-21, Ezek. 28:12-19)
Afterwards, he entered into a creation that knew no evil, no darkness, no grief, no oppression, no pain, or hardship of any sort and there, in his subtlety, crept into the dwelling place that God had made to be a home for the first man Adam and the first woman Eve, Adam’s wife. This spirit at war with God crept into the garden in the form of a serpent and there in the form of that serpent he deceived Eve into partaking of a certain fruit that God had warned both her and Adam to not eat from lest they should surely die. (Gen. 2:16-17, 3:3)
That tree forbidden was known as the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. (Gen. 2:9, 16-17, 3:3) Nothing else was forbidden to Adam and Eve except that one tree. But the serpent whom we know today as Lucifer or Satan also called the Devil told the first lie ever recorded in scripture which was “Ye shall not die. For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.” (Gen. 3:4)
Thus that one lie told made Satan the father of lies (John 8:44) and it was when Eve and then her husband Adam, had eaten of that fruit that Satan had become a murderer as well because when they had eaten of that forbidden fruit, sin entered into them and with sin came the sentence of death of which they were warned. (Gen. 3:19)
That which they had believed to be greater freedom only led them into bondage and oppression and that is the oppression of sin and of death. Life would not be the same for them as it had once been. From that day forth, life would be much more difficult but the consequences of their disobedience would not end with just them, because the sin that entered into them was then passed down to all of mankind since we all descend from them (Rom. 5:12) and because of the inherited corruption of our nature, we all sin and as a consequence, we all die (Rom. 6:23) and because of sin, we are born estranged from and separated from our Maker for that which is sinful cannot dwell in the direct presence of that which is sinless and holy and not only did sin bring death to mankind, but it also brought decay corruption, grief, misery, pain, and hardship to all of creation which is why it is written that the entire creation travails in pain to this day (Rom. 8:19-22) and even worse, the disobedience of Adam gave Satan justification to claim and declare lordship over the kingdoms, empires, and nations of the world (Mt. 4:8-9, Lk. 4:6-7) which is why the enemy of God and the adversary of our souls is called the prince of this world (Jn. 12:31, 16:11)
Sin does not merely affect just our actions or even the words that come out of our mouths, but it affects our very thoughts, the attitude of our heart, and our motives which is why it is written that man is not defiled by that which is from without but from that which is within (Mt. 15:11, 17-20) and it is because of this inward defilement that even our own goodness is tainted, making it impossible for us to attain a state of moral perfection as demanded of us by God Almighty who is morally perfect and when we take time to examine ourselves before our Creator and not just our outward performance, but our inward condition, it is only then that we come to understand how it is that we all sin and fall short of the glory of God (Rom. 3:23) and albeit some fall further short of His glory than others, we all nevertheless fall short and such an honest examination of ourselves may be ever the most humbling experience that we ever have because it is then our moral imperfections and flaws are revealed to us, but it can also be the most terrifying experience that we may be faced with knowing full well that all sin will eventually be judged and punished because a perfectly good and holy God cannot allow evil to persist forever. A day comes when it must be dealt with in righteous judgment and that includes they who remain in their sin and persist in their evil ways and in light of our inherent corruption, our situation may appear to be a hopeless one, but we have not been left without hope, for God who made us is also a God of love and mercy who, because of His great love for us is not willing that any should perish but that all would come to repentance. (2 Pet. 3:9)
And in His love for us, He has shown us mercy in Christ Jesus, His only begotten Son, whom He sent into the world to take away our sins and by the shedding of His blood was redemption bought thereby satisfying both the demand for the penalty, which He, being without any sin (2 Cor. 5:21, Heb. 4:15) took upon Himself, to be paid for all sin and granting mercy in His death upon the cross and by His resurrection are we made justified in Him (Rom. 4:25) so that anyone placing full trust in Him alone for the forgiveness of sin and salvation will not have to face eternal damnation, but be made a citizen of the Kingdom of Heaven and granted eternal life and it is in calling upon Him for the forgiveness of sins and believing that God raised Him from the dead that we are saved from an otherwise terrible everlasting judgment (Rom. 10:9, 13) and it is by Him are we inwardly transformed and made anew (2 Cor. 5:17) no longer seeking to please ourselves nor taking pleasure in the things of darkness, nor seeking after the temporal pleasures of this life, but desiring only to obey Christ in all things, honor Him in all things, to give glory to Him in all things, to shun all things that are displeasing to Him, to love what He loves, to abide only in His truth and to be in full agreement with our Maker in all things out of our love for Christ and out of an appreciation and gratitude for the forgiveness that we have received in Him and it is in Christ Jesus that we are reconciled to God (2 Cor. 5:18) from whom our sins had once estranged us.
And just as we are made spiritually alive in Christ, so also we will one day be delivered from bodily death itself when our present bodies are changed from that which was born into corruption into that which is without corruption (1 Cor. 15:51-55, 1 Thess. 4:13-18) and finally, creation itself will also be delivered from the curse of sin when it is made anew and when it is made anew, there will be no sin, no evil, no darkness, nor any curse. There will be no death, no decay, nor any pain, nor any hardship, no oppression, no misery, no cruelty, no despair, or any grief for all of these things will have passed away with the old corrupted creation and the one who defiled it with his evil will face his final defeat when he and all they who have followed him receive their final sentence and are cast away into everlasting torment. (Rev. 20:10-15)
Instead, in this new and undefiled creation, there will only be life, light, goodness, happiness, joy, peace, and contentment before the Lord God Almighty. (Rev. 21-22)
If you, reader have not done so already and would like be sure that you have place in the Kingdom of God and in the new and better world to come, then I would urge you to call upon the name of Jesus Christ today to take away your sins so that you can be sure of your salvation. It is but a simple prayer away:
"Lord Jesus I need you.
I realize that I am a sinner
who has fallen short of the glory of God
and that my goodness falls short
of your standard of Moral perfection.
Please forgive me of all of my sins.
Come into my heart and into my life
to be the Savior and Lord of my life.
Make me into the servant and follower
that you want me to be.
In your name Lord Jesus, I pray.
Amen."
Know that God is not concerned with the words that you use to call upon Him forgiveness, but with the attitude of your heart and if you have, with all sincerity, have asked Christ to forgive you of your sins, placing your trust in Him only for your salvation and in nothing else, then your sins are forgiven and your place in Heaven is certain.
End notes:
1. Blaze TV Staff, “Mark Levin unpacks the origins of weaponized science,” The Blaze, February 11, 2022
https://www.theblaze.com/shows/levintv/ready-mark-levin-unpacks-the-origins-of-weaponized-science?utm_medium=push&utm_source=pushnami
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid.
5. Mark Levin, “The Death Of Science Part 2,” 6 min. 56 sec., LevinTV; Youtube
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuR5934Mejs
6. Charles Darwin, “The Descent Of Man And Selection In Relation To Sex; 2nd edition revised and augmented,” pp. 133-134,
London: John Murray, Albemarle Street, 1874
7. Ibid.
8. Thomas Malthus, “An Essay On The Principle of Population,” pg. 53,
7. Ibid.
8. Thomas Malthus, “An Essay On The Principle of Population,” pg. 53,
London: Printed for J. Johnson, in St. Paul’s
Church-Yard, 1798
https://ia600403.us.archive.org/17/items/essayonprinciple00malt_703/essayonprinciple00malt_703.pdf
9. Thomas Malthus, “An Essay On the Principle of Population Vol. 2: Sixth edition,” pg. 300,
https://ia600403.us.archive.org/17/items/essayonprinciple00malt_703/essayonprinciple00malt_703.pdf
9. Thomas Malthus, “An Essay On the Principle of Population Vol. 2: Sixth edition,” pg. 300,
London: John Murray, Albemarle Street, 1890; Originally
written in 1826.
https://ia802809.us.archive.org/18/items/anessayonprinci12maltgoog/anessayonprinci12maltgoog.pdf
10. Margaret Sanger, “The Pivot Of Civilization,” pg. 25, New York Brentano’s Publishers, 1922
https://ia800607.us.archive.org/7/items/pivotofcivilizat00sang/pivotofcivilizat00sang.pdf
11. Ibid, pg. 108
12. Margaret Sanger, “Birth Control Review,” Vol. 8, pg. 111, April 1924,
13. Sanger, “The Pivot of Civilization,” pg. 104
14. Margaret Sanger, “Birth Control Review; American Birth Control League Statement,”
Vol. 5, pg. 18, December 1921
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=coo.31924007352325&view=1up&seq=246
15. Ibid.
16. Margaret Sanger, “Letter from Margaret Sanger to Dr. C.J. Gamble,” December 10, 1939
[The source from which this letter was accessed, just as many others in support of Sanger have done, attempts to argue that Sanger had no desire to exterminate the black community, but the context of the letter should be plain as to her intent behind the formation of the American Birth Control League which was to exterminate anyone she saw as an inferior which also included those she viewed to be racially inferior.
If Sanger did not intend to see the African American population die off, then she should have said to Dr. Gamble, “We do not want anyone to think that we want to exterminate the Negro population” instead of “We do not want the word to get out that we want to exterminate the Negro population.” Sanger’s tactics in eliminating those she deemed inferior were far more subtle than those of Adolf Hitler which were not so subtle.]
https://genius.com/Margaret-sanger-letter-from-margaret-sanger-to-dr-cj-gamble-annotated
17. Adolf Hitler, “Mein Kampf,” pp. 390-391, Reynal & Hitchcock, New York; arranged with the Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston Massachusetts, 1941; originally published in 1925, by Verlag Frz. Eher NACHF. G.m.D.H
[Was written by Adolf Hitler while he was in prison in 1924. The earliest translated versions from German to English were abridged. The 1941 version is fully annotated, complete, unabridged, and with commentary and it is because it is an unedited and unabridged version that I chose this source deeming it to be the most reliable and trustworthy version in revealing to us what was in the mind of Hitler and the foundational ideology and philosophy that drove his policies and actions.]
18. Ibid., pp. 391-392
19. Ibid., pg. 392
20. Ibid.
21. Ibid., pp. 392-393
22. Ibid., pp. 395
23. Ibid., pg. 396-397
24. Ibid., pp. 398-399
25. Ibid., pp. 412-451
26. Ibid., pg. 416
27. Ibid., pg. 418
28. Charles Darwin, “On The Origin Of The Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life,” pp. 338, London: John Murray, Albemarle Street, 1859
https://books.google.nl/books?id=cAtfAAAAcAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=editions:cTzITBGxXssC&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
29. Ibid., pg. 345
30. Ernst Haeckel, “The Riddle of the Universe At The Close Of The Nineteenth Century,” pp. 65-66,
https://ia802809.us.archive.org/18/items/anessayonprinci12maltgoog/anessayonprinci12maltgoog.pdf
10. Margaret Sanger, “The Pivot Of Civilization,” pg. 25, New York Brentano’s Publishers, 1922
https://ia800607.us.archive.org/7/items/pivotofcivilizat00sang/pivotofcivilizat00sang.pdf
11. Ibid, pg. 108
12. Margaret Sanger, “Birth Control Review,” Vol. 8, pg. 111, April 1924,
13. Sanger, “The Pivot of Civilization,” pg. 104
14. Margaret Sanger, “Birth Control Review; American Birth Control League Statement,”
Vol. 5, pg. 18, December 1921
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=coo.31924007352325&view=1up&seq=246
15. Ibid.
16. Margaret Sanger, “Letter from Margaret Sanger to Dr. C.J. Gamble,” December 10, 1939
[The source from which this letter was accessed, just as many others in support of Sanger have done, attempts to argue that Sanger had no desire to exterminate the black community, but the context of the letter should be plain as to her intent behind the formation of the American Birth Control League which was to exterminate anyone she saw as an inferior which also included those she viewed to be racially inferior.
If Sanger did not intend to see the African American population die off, then she should have said to Dr. Gamble, “We do not want anyone to think that we want to exterminate the Negro population” instead of “We do not want the word to get out that we want to exterminate the Negro population.” Sanger’s tactics in eliminating those she deemed inferior were far more subtle than those of Adolf Hitler which were not so subtle.]
https://genius.com/Margaret-sanger-letter-from-margaret-sanger-to-dr-cj-gamble-annotated
17. Adolf Hitler, “Mein Kampf,” pp. 390-391, Reynal & Hitchcock, New York; arranged with the Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston Massachusetts, 1941; originally published in 1925, by Verlag Frz. Eher NACHF. G.m.D.H
[Was written by Adolf Hitler while he was in prison in 1924. The earliest translated versions from German to English were abridged. The 1941 version is fully annotated, complete, unabridged, and with commentary and it is because it is an unedited and unabridged version that I chose this source deeming it to be the most reliable and trustworthy version in revealing to us what was in the mind of Hitler and the foundational ideology and philosophy that drove his policies and actions.]
18. Ibid., pp. 391-392
19. Ibid., pg. 392
20. Ibid.
21. Ibid., pp. 392-393
22. Ibid., pp. 395
23. Ibid., pg. 396-397
24. Ibid., pp. 398-399
25. Ibid., pp. 412-451
26. Ibid., pg. 416
27. Ibid., pg. 418
28. Charles Darwin, “On The Origin Of The Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life,” pp. 338, London: John Murray, Albemarle Street, 1859
https://books.google.nl/books?id=cAtfAAAAcAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=editions:cTzITBGxXssC&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
29. Ibid., pg. 345
30. Ernst Haeckel, “The Riddle of the Universe At The Close Of The Nineteenth Century,” pp. 65-66,
Harper & Brothers Publishers, New York and London, 1905;
translated by Joseph McCabe
https://ia803104.us.archive.org/1/items/theriddleoftheun42968gut/42968-h/42968-h.htm
31. Drs. Tommy and Elizabeth Mitchell, “Something Fishy About Gill Slits!” Answers In Genesis, March 14, 2007
https://answersingenesis.org/evidence-against-evolution/something-fishy-about-gill-slits/
32. James Hutton, “Theory of the Earth: From The Transactions Of The Royal Society In Edinburgh,” pg. 9. Original publisher unknown but may possibly be the Royal Society In Edinburgh during Hutton’s lifetime as the full title of his work may suggest.
https://ia803104.us.archive.org/1/items/theriddleoftheun42968gut/42968-h/42968-h.htm
31. Drs. Tommy and Elizabeth Mitchell, “Something Fishy About Gill Slits!” Answers In Genesis, March 14, 2007
https://answersingenesis.org/evidence-against-evolution/something-fishy-about-gill-slits/
32. James Hutton, “Theory of the Earth: From The Transactions Of The Royal Society In Edinburgh,” pg. 9. Original publisher unknown but may possibly be the Royal Society In Edinburgh during Hutton’s lifetime as the full title of his work may suggest.
Written and
published as early as 1785.
https://books.google.nl/books?id=4rwB5Fam1RQC&printsec=frontcover&dq=The+theory+of+the+earth&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=The%20theory%20of%20the%20earth&f=false
33. Ibid. pg. 10
34. Ibid. pg. 14
35. Ibid. pg. 57
36. Ibid.
37. Ibid. pg. 96
38. Charles Lyell, “Principles of Geology: Being An Attempt To Explain The Former Changes Of The Earth’s Surface By References To Causes Now In Operation Volume 1,” pp. 76, 80, 311,
https://ia800204.us.archive.org/16/items/principlesgeolo05deshgoog/principlesgeolo05deshgoog.pdf
39. Ibid. pg. 80
40. Ibid. pg. 311
41. Charles Lyell, “Principles of Geology Vol. 1; 2nd edition,” Pg. 189,
London: John Murray, Albemarle Street, 1832
https://ia800203.us.archive.org/12/items/principlesgeolo01unkngoog/principlesgeolo01unkngoog.pdf
42. G. Richard Bozarth, “The Meaning of Evolution,” pg. 30, American Atheist Magazine, February, 1978
[Bozarth’s column begins on pg. 19 of the issue, stops, and then concludes on page 30]
https://www.scribd.com/document/252622816/American-Atheist-Magazine-Feb-1978#
43. Sir Isaac Newton, “The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy Vol 2,” pp. 388-392,
London: Printed for Benjamin Motte, at the Middle-Temple Gate, in Fleet-Freet, 1729
https://ia800903.us.archive.org/23/items/bub_gb_6EqxPav3vIsC/bub_gb_6EqxPav3vIsC.pdf
44. David Brewster, “Memoirs of the Life, Writings and Discoveries of Sir Isaac Newton
Volume 2,” pg. 347, Edinburgh: Thomas Constable & Co., Hamilton Adams & Co., 1855
https://ia600607.us.archive.org/21/items/BrewsterDMemoirsOfTheLifeWritingsAndDiscoveriesOfSirIsaacNewtonVol21855/Brewster%20D%20-%20Memoirs%20of%20the%20Life%2C%20Writings%2C%20and%20Discoveries%20of%20Sir%20Isaac%20Newton%20Vol%202%20-%201855.pdf
45. Ibid., pp. 347-348
46. John Woodward, “An Essay Towards A Natural History Of The Earth And Terrestrial Bodies, Especially Minerals: As also of the Sea, Rivers, and Springs, With an Account of the Universal Deluge And of the Effects that it had upon the Earth, ” pp. 71-72,
London: Printed for Ric. Wilkin at the Kings-Head in St. Paul’s Church-Yard, 1695
https://ia801608.us.archive.org/20/items/essaytowardnatur00wood/essaytowardnatur00wood.pdf
47. Ibid., pg. 73
48. Ibid., pg. 72
49. Ibid.
50. Ibid., pg. 75
51. Ibid., pg. 76
52. Ibid., pp. 77-78
53. “Medieval and Renaissance Concepts of Evolution and Paleontology,” Berkley University
https://ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/medieval.html
54. “Linnaeus Online: Faith In The Bible And Creation,” Uppsala University
https://www.botan.uu.se/learning/linnaeus-online/the-history-of-ideas/physicotheology/faith-in-the-bible-and-creation/
55. “Carolus Linnaeus,” Berkley University
https://ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/linnaeus.html
56. Ibid.
57. Carolus Linnaeus a.ka. Carl Von Linne, “Lachesis Lapponica, or A Tour In Lapland, Volume 1,” pg. 238, from the original manuscript of the celebrated Linnaeus; Likely translated by James Edward Smith, M.D.F.R.S. etc, President of the Linnean Society;
London: Printed for White and Cochrane, Horace’s Head, Fleet-Street, by Richard Taylor and Co., Inox Lane, 1811
https://ia802903.us.archive.org/6/items/lachesislapponi01linngoog/lachesislapponi01linngoog.pdf
58. Jerry Bergman Ph.D., “Carolus Linnaeus: Founder of Modern Taxonomy,” Institute For Creation Research, October 31, 2014
https://www.icr.org/article/carolus-linnaeus-founder-modern-taxonomy/
59. Harry F. Sanders III, “Carl Linnaeus: Botanist & Creationist,” Answers In Genesis, May 23, 2021
https://answersingenesis.org/creation-scientists/carl-linnaeus-botanist-and-creationist/
60. Nicole Alcindor, CP Reporter, “NASA astronaut says science 'doesn't contradict' Christianity; Bible museum opens new exhibit,”
https://books.google.nl/books?id=4rwB5Fam1RQC&printsec=frontcover&dq=The+theory+of+the+earth&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=The%20theory%20of%20the%20earth&f=false
33. Ibid. pg. 10
34. Ibid. pg. 14
35. Ibid. pg. 57
36. Ibid.
37. Ibid. pg. 96
38. Charles Lyell, “Principles of Geology: Being An Attempt To Explain The Former Changes Of The Earth’s Surface By References To Causes Now In Operation Volume 1,” pp. 76, 80, 311,
https://ia800204.us.archive.org/16/items/principlesgeolo05deshgoog/principlesgeolo05deshgoog.pdf
39. Ibid. pg. 80
40. Ibid. pg. 311
41. Charles Lyell, “Principles of Geology Vol. 1; 2nd edition,” Pg. 189,
London: John Murray, Albemarle Street, 1832
https://ia800203.us.archive.org/12/items/principlesgeolo01unkngoog/principlesgeolo01unkngoog.pdf
42. G. Richard Bozarth, “The Meaning of Evolution,” pg. 30, American Atheist Magazine, February, 1978
[Bozarth’s column begins on pg. 19 of the issue, stops, and then concludes on page 30]
https://www.scribd.com/document/252622816/American-Atheist-Magazine-Feb-1978#
43. Sir Isaac Newton, “The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy Vol 2,” pp. 388-392,
London: Printed for Benjamin Motte, at the Middle-Temple Gate, in Fleet-Freet, 1729
https://ia800903.us.archive.org/23/items/bub_gb_6EqxPav3vIsC/bub_gb_6EqxPav3vIsC.pdf
44. David Brewster, “Memoirs of the Life, Writings and Discoveries of Sir Isaac Newton
Volume 2,” pg. 347, Edinburgh: Thomas Constable & Co., Hamilton Adams & Co., 1855
https://ia600607.us.archive.org/21/items/BrewsterDMemoirsOfTheLifeWritingsAndDiscoveriesOfSirIsaacNewtonVol21855/Brewster%20D%20-%20Memoirs%20of%20the%20Life%2C%20Writings%2C%20and%20Discoveries%20of%20Sir%20Isaac%20Newton%20Vol%202%20-%201855.pdf
45. Ibid., pp. 347-348
46. John Woodward, “An Essay Towards A Natural History Of The Earth And Terrestrial Bodies, Especially Minerals: As also of the Sea, Rivers, and Springs, With an Account of the Universal Deluge And of the Effects that it had upon the Earth, ” pp. 71-72,
London: Printed for Ric. Wilkin at the Kings-Head in St. Paul’s Church-Yard, 1695
https://ia801608.us.archive.org/20/items/essaytowardnatur00wood/essaytowardnatur00wood.pdf
47. Ibid., pg. 73
48. Ibid., pg. 72
49. Ibid.
50. Ibid., pg. 75
51. Ibid., pg. 76
52. Ibid., pp. 77-78
53. “Medieval and Renaissance Concepts of Evolution and Paleontology,” Berkley University
https://ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/medieval.html
54. “Linnaeus Online: Faith In The Bible And Creation,” Uppsala University
https://www.botan.uu.se/learning/linnaeus-online/the-history-of-ideas/physicotheology/faith-in-the-bible-and-creation/
55. “Carolus Linnaeus,” Berkley University
https://ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/linnaeus.html
56. Ibid.
57. Carolus Linnaeus a.ka. Carl Von Linne, “Lachesis Lapponica, or A Tour In Lapland, Volume 1,” pg. 238, from the original manuscript of the celebrated Linnaeus; Likely translated by James Edward Smith, M.D.F.R.S. etc, President of the Linnean Society;
London: Printed for White and Cochrane, Horace’s Head, Fleet-Street, by Richard Taylor and Co., Inox Lane, 1811
https://ia802903.us.archive.org/6/items/lachesislapponi01linngoog/lachesislapponi01linngoog.pdf
58. Jerry Bergman Ph.D., “Carolus Linnaeus: Founder of Modern Taxonomy,” Institute For Creation Research, October 31, 2014
https://www.icr.org/article/carolus-linnaeus-founder-modern-taxonomy/
59. Harry F. Sanders III, “Carl Linnaeus: Botanist & Creationist,” Answers In Genesis, May 23, 2021
https://answersingenesis.org/creation-scientists/carl-linnaeus-botanist-and-creationist/
60. Nicole Alcindor, CP Reporter, “NASA astronaut says science 'doesn't contradict' Christianity; Bible museum opens new exhibit,”
Christian Post, January 25, 2023
https://www.christianpost.com/news/nasa-astronaut-says-science-doesnt-contradict-christianity.html?utm_source=webapp&utm_medium=notification&utm_content=headline&utm_source=onesignal&utm_campaign=2023-01-25
Further information:
For those interested in learning about Bible-believing scientists:
https://www.icr.org/article/bible-believing-scientists-past
For those interested in watching the full two part series of Mark Levin’s The Death Of Science:
The Death Of Science Pt. 1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dm-Hp4Xydks&t=8s
The Death Of Science Pt. 2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuR5934Mejs
Photo and image credits:
1. Ernst Haeckel, “Haeckel’s Drawings,"
2. Dr. Michael Richardson for the actual embryos, 1997;
https://www.christianpost.com/news/nasa-astronaut-says-science-doesnt-contradict-christianity.html?utm_source=webapp&utm_medium=notification&utm_content=headline&utm_source=onesignal&utm_campaign=2023-01-25
Further information:
For those interested in learning about Bible-believing scientists:
https://www.icr.org/article/bible-believing-scientists-past
For those interested in watching the full two part series of Mark Levin’s The Death Of Science:
The Death Of Science Pt. 1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dm-Hp4Xydks&t=8s
The Death Of Science Pt. 2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuR5934Mejs
Photo and image credits:
1. Ernst Haeckel, “Haeckel’s Drawings,"
2. Dr. Michael Richardson for the actual embryos, 1997;
Comparison display by Acts 17 Apologetics, March 17, 2013
Both can be found here.
http://www.acts17.net/2013/03/ernst-haeckels-phony-embryo-drawings.html
Scripture references:
1. 1 Thessalonians 5:14
2. 2 Corinthians 9:7
3. Acts 10:34
4. Numbers 15:16
5. Genesis 1:12, 21-22, 24-25
6. 2 Corinthians 10:4-5
7. 1 Peter 3:15
8. Jude 3
9. James 1:5
10. Isaiah 14:11-21
11. Ezekiel 28:12-19
12. Genesis 2:9, 16-17
13. Genesis 3:3
14. Genesis 3:4
15. John 8:44
16. Genesis 3:19
17. Romans 5:12
18. Romans 6:23
19. Romans 8:19-22
20. Matthew 4:8-9
21. Luke 4:6-7
22. Matthew 15:11, 17-20
23. Romans 3:23
24. 2 Peter 3:9
25. 2 Corinthians 5:21
26. Hebrews 4:15
27. Romans 4:25
28. Romans 10:9, 13
29. 2 Corinthians 5:17
30. 2 Corinthians 5:18
31. 1 Corinthians 15:51-55
32. 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18
33. Revelation 20:10-15
34. Revelation 21-22
Both can be found here.
http://www.acts17.net/2013/03/ernst-haeckels-phony-embryo-drawings.html
Scripture references:
1. 1 Thessalonians 5:14
2. 2 Corinthians 9:7
3. Acts 10:34
4. Numbers 15:16
5. Genesis 1:12, 21-22, 24-25
6. 2 Corinthians 10:4-5
7. 1 Peter 3:15
8. Jude 3
9. James 1:5
10. Isaiah 14:11-21
11. Ezekiel 28:12-19
12. Genesis 2:9, 16-17
13. Genesis 3:3
14. Genesis 3:4
15. John 8:44
16. Genesis 3:19
17. Romans 5:12
18. Romans 6:23
19. Romans 8:19-22
20. Matthew 4:8-9
21. Luke 4:6-7
22. Matthew 15:11, 17-20
23. Romans 3:23
24. 2 Peter 3:9
25. 2 Corinthians 5:21
26. Hebrews 4:15
27. Romans 4:25
28. Romans 10:9, 13
29. 2 Corinthians 5:17
30. 2 Corinthians 5:18
31. 1 Corinthians 15:51-55
32. 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18
33. Revelation 20:10-15
34. Revelation 21-22
No comments:
Post a Comment