The Myth Called Science

John Lithgow plays Dr Emilio Lizardo in The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai
Dr Lizardo is a human scientist possessed by an alien exiled from the 8th dimension

The ignorance often displayed by people claiming to be educated, logical and reasonable is often astounding.  Even more astounding is claiming to be reasonable while displaying their prejudices.  Biases often come out in all sorts of ways, and it is scary to think just how easy it is for us to fall into the trap of not recognizing them.

Personally, I do not like arguing with people who insist that the sky is not blue.  I will, however, give my friends in Cleveland a pass if they insist that the sky is not blue but rather gray. 🙂  I remember when the news broke that that Cleveland was the most depressed city in some survey, and the theory was the lack of sunshine, being near the lake and all.  So, I hate to break it to you guys in Cleveland, but the rest of the United States believes the sky is blue. 🙂

I also do not like arguing with people who argue from extreme arrogance and ignorance (usually caused by the arrogance, no less, for if they were humble, they would proceed with caution rather than put their ignorance on public display).  Skeptics have a bad habit of hunting high and low for “contradictions” in the Bible that simply do not exist.  Take Ex 20:5 which states that the children and grandchildren of sinners are affected by those who hate God, whereas Eze 18:20 states that God punishes the sinner alone for his iniquity.  I mean, why make it so easy?  At least don’t pick a memory verse if you’re going to argue from ignorance!  I would hope that even the average Protestant could answer such an easy question.

In the end, we all stand alone before God with our sins before us or not.  I will not account for yours, and you will not account for mine.  The death Ezekiel is referring to is eternal death, or, as the Book of Revelation refers to it, the second death.

That is quite different than the physical covenant given to ancient Israel!  This life is a training ground for the life to come.  We need to learn to care about and support one another in this life.  The life of sin is inherently selfish, and each of our sins, even the so-called “victimless” sins, affects another.  Things like AIDS, alcoholism, diabetes and other plagues that are often the result of either ourselves or someone else in our past destroying their minds and bodies in sinful acts can be passed on to succeeding generations.  These are the natural consequences of sin, and many are affected by the sins of this world and this life, even the innocent (who are often the very targets of those sins, I should add).

Surely, even the flawed Protestant theologian could answer this one!  True, they might ramble on about Heaven and Hell, or some such similar thing, but the basic tenant of these two verses talking about two different things at different times remains the same.  Even the concept of a Great White Throne judgment runs throughout mainstream Christian theology, which makes it clear that everyone accounts for their individual sins before their Creator.

When someone claims to be logical, they are claiming to be dealing with facts, not ignorance of the subject matter at hand.  When someone claims to be reasonable, they are claiming to be looking at those facts rather than inventing objections to things that do not exist.

When someone claims to be “scientific” in mind set, they are claiming to be gathering all of the facts rather than subjectively picking out a fact here, a fact there and trying to fit square pegs into round holes.  Yet, isn’t that really what happens every day?

I have come to the conclusion that there is such a thing as a myth called science.  Simply put, it is a myth because it does not exist.  It is, just as I quoted author Sherry Fiester in my article “Distortions Are the Enemies of Truth“, a myth because it is very often “deliberate, contrived and dishonest … persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.”  It would be a mistake, though, to assume that this dichotomy is anything new.

20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

21 Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.

1Ti 6:20-21

Simply put, there are a number of reasons that “science” can not only lead us astray but take on mythological characteristics, even to the point of being an “almost religion”.  First of all, it needs to be stated that true, objective science does not really exist.  Second, it is provable that science is often biased because its history is filled with hoaxes and fraudulent acts that rival some religious hoaxes and fraud.  Third, science cannot answer all of the questions of life, and looking for scientific evidence at inappropriate times is a misuse of science and an underhanded way to prejudice a given debate.  Lastly, the underpinnings of science as it has come to be will not only lead to literal Armageddon but are the root causes of all of our problems today.

True Science Does Not Exist

Dilbert comic

According to, science is “a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.”  The second definition stresses “systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.”  It sounds so neat and tidy.  The objective “systematic” makes it sound clinical, rigorous and unattached.

We in the western world live in an illusion of neatness and regularity about so many things.  We like things tidy.  We like things orderly.  The truth is, life is rarely that way, and so when the pains of life come upon us, we are usually shocked and dismayed by it all.  We expect storms to be predicted 100% of the time, we expect the government to have a plan and solution for even the most likely of events, and then there is the sheer unpredictability of other human beings.

At its core, however, the main problem is us.  We are the unpredictable and emotional ones.  We human beings, especially in the west, like to portray an image of objectivity and predictability when the stubborn fact remains that we are emotional creatures.

We think it logical that when a monkey is hungry, it will go looking for a banana.  Why a banana?  In fact, why is any of that logical?  Hunger brings desire, and desire is not an objective cause.  In fact, it turns out that many monkeys do not even live in regions that have bananas.  So, the choice that seems at first logical and obvious might not be logical at all.

We kid ourselves that we make decisions in a logical and consistent manner.  However, we make decisions that support goals we have, many of which are based upon emotion rather than objectivity.  Like the monkey seeking the banana, the decision to go after something is often based upon preference rather than whether or not it is good for us (turns out that too many bananas are bad for monkeys).  Even our goals are based upon desire and logic is employed after the emotional aspect has gone its course.

Frankly, scientists aren’t any different.  Why can two people look at geological layers in rock and come away with different interpretations?  Ken Ham will give one interpretation, but Bill Nye will give a different one.  Why?  The simple answer is that they are both ideologues who see what they want to see.

We need to understand there is a difference between data and information.  Data simply is.  The layers in the rock formation are simply there.  The different minerals are identifiable.  They are data points.  Information, however, is the packaging of data into useful form.  Information might be the age and cause of the rock formations.  However, if the one doing the packaging is biased or ill-informed, then the information will be faulty.  The problem in packaging data into information is the human subjective element.

If human beings were not so stuck in their stubborn pride, they would acknowledge this and react accordingly.  However, they reject the supreme source of knowledge, and therefore they do not understand:

9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?

Jer 17:9

In fact, in spite of claims to objectivity, postmodern science is anything but.  Let someone express a view that God created the universe, and the backlash from the so-called scientific community is anything but objective!  It is reminiscent of religious fanaticism.

Objectivity might be a lofty goal, but it is not the reality.

Hoaxes and Fraud

The world of religious history is filled with various hoaxes, usually in the form of trying to extort money from people.  Ironically, “objective science” which supposedly divests itself of religion is filled with the same.  It goes beyond the snake oil that many have peddled over time.

The entire theory of evolution is built upon fraud and speculation.  There are the famous cases like Piltdown man, a fabrication of a human skull and the jaw bone of an orangutan.  There are wild speculations like Nebraska man, which was a theoretical model all built around the find of a single tooth, which turned out to actually be the tooth of a wild boar.

Conservapedia documents these in more detail, and gives a good portion to the fraudulent works of Ernst Haeckel, who copied illustrations verbatim supposedly to represent different species.  Charles Darwin was influenced by Haeckel.

More hoaxes and even some of Haeckel’s drawings are listed on the Evolution is not science blog under “Evolution frauds“.  There are some I’ve never even heard of before, such as “Orce Man”, in which a skull found in Spain and promoted as the oldest example of man in Eurasia was later identified as a young donkey.  I hope I’m not the only one scratching my head on that one…

Evolution is not the only branch of scientific research that has been tainted, however.  Listverse has what it considers the “Top 10 Scientific Frauds and Hoaxes“.  Some of them are somewhat funny, such as the hoax by Alan Sokal who published a paper on postmodern cultural studies filled with nonsense and jargon to see if the journal would publish it (it did).  Perhaps one of the strangest was the Great Moon Hoax, in which Sir John Herschel supposedly observed life on the moon.  It turns “out that Herschel was not even aware of many of the discoveries attributed to him.”  The most telling statement may be in the introduction: “Perhaps this can serve as a reminder that some scientific “discoveries” need be taken with a grain of globally warmed salt.”

It has been said that nature abhors a vacuum.  When science, or any other institution for that matter, kicks God out of sight, human carnality naturally swoops in to fill the void.  Objective science might sound like a nice ideal, but in reality human beings are neither objective nor unemotional in character.

It should be noted that Christianity (and other religions, but particularly Christianity) is sometimes painted with a broad brush because of its followers.  It could be tempting to do the same with science.  That does no one any service, but it also must be admitted that scientists are human and are given to human proclivities, including fraud, lying and coveting of power, fame and/or money.

The difference, of course, is that Christianity teaches a punishment for sins well beyond the “if” of being found out in this age.  In fact, hoaxes perpetrated on behalf of religion is perhaps the most ironic of all, for the risk of punishment certainly isn’t for just this life alone.

The other significant difference is that Christianity teaches a better way than the way of carnality.  Christianity offers a way out of a sinful life, whereas secular humanism, which many scientists ascribe to, offers no redemption or power to change.  In actuality, it merely tries to normalize bad behavior, thus allowing the evil to not only continue but spread.

Looking for Scientific Proof

Can you prove that Jesus walked the earth?  Can you prove Moses actually existed?  Can you prove the Exodus from Egypt?

I am often amazed at people looking for “scientific evidence” of what are essentially historical events.  The biggest irony, of course, is that they do not require such proof of people and events outside of the Bible.  It truly reveals an anti-God, anti-Bible bias and prejudices everything they do.

Not only that, but even the question is designed to poison debate.  To the non-critical thinker, if it cannot be proven “scientifically”, it must not be true.  However, pondering that even for a couple of minutes should make the superficiality of that sort of thinking to be self-evident.

People of science like to poo-poo faith.  However, the faith that many exhibit towards science, or at least their idea of science, is as much, if not more, than the faith they exhibit in the processes and, more importantly, the integrity of those engaged in scientific research.

Scientists have become the modern equivalent of the religious castes of times past.  Unfortunately, they are just a carnal and fallible as the caste they replaced.

The problem, of course, is that not everything is scientifically provable.  If it were, then there would not be the need for various types of disciplines, and especially history, law and the liberal arts.

I challenged someone recently to scientifically prove that Julius Caesar existed.  Of course, no one knows where his bones are, and therefore there is no scientific proof that Julius Caesar existed.  There are coins, there are things written about him, and such and so forth, but that is not scientific evidence.  It is historical evidence, but it is not scientific evidence.

Think about it further, though.  Someone in an online forum once challenged that you could not scientifically prove that Thomas Edison existed.  I thought that rather intriguing, so I read on.  The retort was that you could go dig up his bones.

I have a question: So what?  How do you know it was his bones?  Maybe it was all an elaborate hoax, after all!  Maybe people simply wrote down stories about him and attributed various inventions to him that others actually came up with.  (On a side note, there is a controversy that he allegedly stole someone else’s work, but that’s not what I’m referring to here.)

Consider Zeus, aka Jupiter.  People built monuments (temples) to him, after all.  They wrote entire stories about him, sung ballads about his exploits.  There are even statues that purportedly show what he looked like.  How do we know he wasn’t real and Julius Caesar a fake?

We can go on with this, but it should be obvious that none of this is scientific evidence!  What we do have is a collection of historical artifacts and historical evidence for various things, and therefore a historical analysis is required to process these things.

We are left with a historical record, though.  That is how God, at this time, has chosen to deal with humanity.  Why?  Because most will not believe, even if He were to stand before them!  Simply put, they have not yet suffered enough.  Because, as Jesus said:

13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.

14 And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:

15 For this people’s heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.

16 But blessed are your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear.

Mt 13:13-16

Jesus went around healing all sorts of people, so what is this about not healing them?  Jesus was stating it was not the time for the masses yet to be healed spiritually, but it was time for His closest disciples to see, hear and understand.

The Bible proves itself, and we can look around and see the prophecies that have been fulfilled.  The Bible is not just history, but it is history spoken in advance.

Many archaeologists have tried to discredit the Bible on various claims.  They questioned if the Hittites every existed.  They questioned if King David existed, likening him to legends such as King Arthur.  Many of them still question the Exodus, yet time after time the shifting sands (sometimes literally) strike down a lot of their pet theories and provide evidence that the Bible bears an accurate historical record of events.

The evidence is there, even if it is not scientific evidence.  Yet, even the Bible records that actual observational evidence would not convince people!

The Rejection of Knowledge

It is an interesting thing that science is supposed to be about the acquisition of knowledge, yet they actively reject The source of knowledge!  This is not surprising to those of us who used to hear Herbert W Armstrong give out strong warnings to people and rulers of the earth, however.

Adam and Eve walked and talked with God.  Genesis records a creation account that took place by speaking.  Words were spoken.  God, however, actively formed man from the dust of the earth.  He likewise formed woman by actively taking a rib from Adam and fashioning Eve.  Rather than speaking the first man and woman into existence, He chose to fashion them hands on, apparently.

Jesus, the One Who spoke those words became The Word!  John 1 goes into detail about this, and makes the appropriate parallels to Genesis 1, showing that there was a “beginning” before “the beginning” of Genesis 1!  Jesus came as God in the flesh.

You know what?  Adam and Eve rejected God in the Garden of Eden.  Ancient Israel rejected God in spite of making His presence known on Mt Sinai and by leading by the cloud of fire and smoke.  Ancient Judea rejected Jesus, God in the flesh.  All of these had observational, aka “scientific”, evidence that He existed and was present before them.

They still rejected Him.

In short, those who claim they would believe if they saw him are liars.  They are not just lying to others, they are lying to themselves!

In the Parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man, what did Father Abraham say to the rich man who insisted that Abraham send Lazarus back from the dead to preach the Gospel to his five brothers?

27 Then he [the rich man] said, I pray thee therefore, father [Abraham], that thou wouldest send him [Lazarus] to my father’s house:

28 For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.

29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.

30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.

31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

Lk 16:27-31

Of course, Jesus did rise from the dead, and it was the religious leaders He specifically was addressing here (v 14)!  The religious leaders He addressed “hear[d] not Moses and the prophets”!

Neither will the pseudo-religious priests of human secularism today!  In fact, when Christ actually returns, what happens?

15 And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every free man, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains;

16 And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb:

17 For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?

Rev 6:15-17

They will know it is Christ!  They will still reject Him!  They will see Him, observational, scientific, right before them, and they will still reject Him!  It seems incredible, but they would prefer death to repentance!  They are calling to the mountains to hide “us”, and they are saying it is “the Lamb”!

From beginning, to the middle, to the end — mankind’s natural inclination is to reject God!

You want scientific proof?  It does not get any more observational than right before you!  Yet, it shows that that is not enough!

No, the only way to break the cycle is to fix the heart problem, for that is the problem with the scientific method as well as all other manmade philosophies and lifestyles.  As long as mankind’s heart is evil, so are the results.  Without God, we are nothing, literally.  He created even the dust we are composed of!

You want rational?  Look around you!  Look at the suffering, the death, the illnesses, the catastrophes, the wars, the poverty and the cruelty of human beings.  Where is the rationality in it all?  It is not from mankind!

You want logical?  Where is the logic in nuclear weapons?  During the Cold War, it was even referred to as “MAD” (mutually assured destruction).  How many times do we need to blow up the planet, anyhow?

It is not in mankind to be objective or rational as a whole.  Science, the modern almost religion, is an utter failure to solve even our most fundamental problems.  We once boasted of curing world hunger.  How’s that working out for you?  We once boasted of curing most diseases.  Now we cannot even afford healthcare!

The most critical problems are not scientific, and the answers won’t be found in science.  The problem is the unrepentant human heart without God.



  1. “O that there was such a heart in them, that they would fear me, and keep all my commandments always, that it might be well with them, and with their children forever!” Deut. 5: 29

    Great post John!