Tag Archives: science

The Death of Science Part 2: The Biblical Foundations of Science by Michael J. Findley

isaac-newton_11606_600x450
“There are those who reason well, but they are greatly outnumbered by those who reason badly.”
“Mathematics is the alphabet with which God has written the Universe.”
“Mathematics is the language with which God has written the universe.” All attributed to Galileo Galilei
Popular fiction to the contrary, both the ancient Greeks and Romans were excellent engineers and experimental researchers. What they lacked was a system to tie everything together. Until Isaac Newton, every branch of learning had not only their own method of learning, but their own set of standards.
This changed with Isaac Newton. He took the learning, the methods, the mathematics of those who went before him and developed what we know today as the scientific method.
“Newton singlehandedly contributed more to the development of science than any other individual in history. He surpassed all the gains brought about by the great scientific minds of antiquity, producing a scheme of the universe which was more consistent, elegant, and intuitive than any proposed before. Newton stated explicit principles of scientific methods which applied universally to all branches of science. This was in sharp contradistinction to the earlier methodologies of Aristotle and Aquinas, which had outlined separate methods for different disciplines. “© 1996-2007 Eric W. Weisstein

http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/biography/Newton.html

Newton built on the foundations laid by Galileo, Copernicus, Kepler, Hus, and Savonarola, as well as the ancients. But Newton had a far more important foundation. “This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.”
“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 (Greek), 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 and 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.”
(Scholium [postscript] at the end of Sir Isaac Newton’s Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy, Translated by Andrew Motte, Revised by Florian Cajore)
These statements clearly show that Isaac Newton certainly believed that the evidence demonstrated more than just Intelligent Design, but the need of a personal God to not only create but also superintend, watch over, direct His creation.
But Newton does not stop with a loving, caring God watching over His creation. He states that the material universe could not exist apart from Him. In the same work Newton continued with the following.
“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.”
The order of a scientific method of observation, categorization and understanding the material universe requires, to use Newton’s words, “the God of Israel, the God of Gods, and Lord of Lords.” Newton very clearly understood what he said and he understood that the opposite was not possible. “Blind metaphysical necessity, which is certainly the same always and everywhere, could produce no variety of things.” More than 150 years before The Origin of Species, Newton showed that the very foundations of evolution were not scientific, because science is based on God. “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.”

Leave a comment

Filed under Bible Teaching, History, Scientific

The Truth With Proof by Mary C. Findley

scientistlineart

“Trust me. I’m a Scientist.”

Hubby is working on the Conflict of the Ages Part 3: “They Deliberately Forgot” –The Flood and the Ice Age. Yes, this series has pretty cumbersome titles, doesn’t it? The first part is based on 2 Peter 3:5, where Peter nails the whole secularist amnesia and its resulting erroneous dogma.

In this work-in-progress, he quotes from a site called Talk Origins, where Secularists prepare their minions to go forth and do battle with nasty Creationists. That’s not the way they put it, of course. They claim to be objective educators simply trying to teach truth and prevent lies from invading impressionable minds. Uniformitarians are the truth-tellers, of course, and Creationists are the liars.

In our book, we are talking about science and history related to the flood and the ice age. You don’t really need to understand radiohalos to get the point of this blog post, but here’s a brief explanation. They are tiny colored spherical shells in rocks caused by alpha particle decay of radioactive isotopes, usually uranium, found primarily in biotite crystals within pieces of granite. These can be evidence of the age of the sample.

What you do need to understand is that the article on the Talk Origins site about radiohalos: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/gentry.html:
is classic secularist strategy. Here are the steps in their process of discrediting Creation Science.

#1 Assert millions of years
“Plutonic rocks on the other hand cool very slowly, on the order of a million years or more for some deeply buried and insulated magmas.”
Very near the beginning is the usual dogmatic assertion quoted above. Plutonic Volcanic rocks are millions of years old, because they form deep in the earth and that’s how long it must take them to harden. No evidence. No proof. Just the minions gathering around with open mouths and adoring eyes at this “truth” that needs no proof.

#2
Circular reasoning is essential for obfuscation

“Age dating” [is]“never fully successful as…observed damage halo was also a function of…the crystalline structure of the host mineral.”
Obfuscation means making clear stuff murky. The article claims that you can’t use radiohalos to date rock samples because the results also depend on the age of the “host mineral”, which uniformitarians “know” is millions of years. In other words, see point one above. And all the minions said, “ooohh.”

#3
Invent an adversary
The Talk Origins Radiohalos article mentions “Gentry’s Thesis” as if this scientist were the only originator and exclusive propagator of the theory they want to discredit. The work they seek to refute has been a scientific position since at least 1918 and represents the work of many scientists past and present. There is no “Gentry Thesis”, but this artificial man and this misrepresented theory are easy to attack and discredit. They also mention the “Polonium Halo Hypothesis”, which is also a fake construct, because Polonium radiohalo information is not a theory. It is a tested and long-proven fact. This all reminds me of the “Two Legs Bad, Four Legs Good” mantra of the sheep in George Orwell’s Animal Farm.

#4
Tell people you’ve put a lot of work into this … whatever it is
“… Decades of intensive field and laboratory investigations by thousands of geologists.”
Talk Origins asserts that because lots of people who worked a long time on lots of rocks disagree with that imaginary single man mentioned above, he can’t possibly be right.

#5
Trust me, I’m a scientist, and I’m ‘way smarter than you or that guy you’ve been listening to

The Talk Origins article contains the assertion that Gentry was never properly qualified to speak on radiohalos in rock samples because he wasn’t a geologist, he was a physicist. How a physicist is not qualified to talk about radiohalos is anybody’s guess. But this secularist “teaching moment” is essential to convince the uninitiated that the high priest is the only one qualified to dispel the ignorance of the masses on their religious beliefs. Any creationist can be immediately dismissed as a reliable source if the secularist asserts he doesn’t have the proper qualifications to speak on the subject they want to discredit him about..

Hubby got into a fb message conversation with a person who adopted the position that he had never worked in the sciences and was therefore not qualified to speak in the discussion groups where he participates. The truth is that he has postgraduate coursework, has taught science, and is perfectly qualified. But his comments are dismissed because he isn’t a member of the secularist high priesthood. “Go away, little man. I’ve tried to be nice, but you won’t listen. Your words are of no importance.” Well, no, he’s not going away. The minions need to hear the truth with proof.

Leave a comment

Filed under Bible Teaching, Current Issues, Politics, Excerpts from our Nonfiction Books, History, Scientific, Writing, Reviewing, Publishing, and about Blogging

AntiScience

mad scientist

“So what evidence would you accept to prove that the Earth is millions of years old?” an atheist asked me on Christmas day. It is not possible to have a reasoned, intelligent discussion with someone whose opinions (beliefs) are not based on evidence and facts. The question changes facts and evidence into a matter of opinion. That is the very foundation of AntiScience. That question ended my participation in that discussion.

The simple statement, “That is a green fence,” is a statement of fact. It may or may not be true. It can be tested and either proven or disproven. Between friends, the statement “That is a green fence” should be enough.

But scientifically, the statement has three parts which need to be defined. 1) What is “that?” Down the street? Are you sitting on it? 2) What is green? Saturation value of 255 while red and blue each have a saturation value of 0? 3) What is a fence? Are you referring to a wall, a pile of stone, a traditional wooden fence?

Seldom, if ever, do we need to be so precise in everyday discussions. Even highly technical scientific discussions are filled with assumptions, such as that the person reading this knows that H is hydrogen and He is helium.

But to replace evidence with opinion is AntiScience. In everyday life we express opinions and that is part of life. “I like that green fence.” “I believe that green is an ugly color.” Both of these are opinions which might start lengthy discussions, but they are not science. Neither are they my opinions. I just used them as examples of opinions.

In the discussion group, I brought up the fact of lunar recession, which is detailed in another blog post as proof for a young Earth. The moon is receding from the earth at a rate of 1.5-2 inches per year (the measurements have been taken repeatedly and there is a very slight disagreement as to the exact amount of recession).

Instead of dealing with evidence, I was attacked and mocked for not believing as they do. Links to articles “debunking” what I “believe” were quickly posted that had nothing to do with my article or my position.

The self-righteous hypocrites who instantly jump to condemn as “ignorant” and “uninformed” anyone who dares to publish evidence and facts which disprove their establishment of religion are AntiScience. Over twenty years ago I saw a St. Louis, MO news piece, carried on both the electronic and print medias. A man was arrested in a park in St. Louis in a drug case. The picture and videos showed a slovenly, haggard man with long, unkempt hair and needle marks. He was a graduate student at Arizona State University. He agreed with the established religion so he could be repeatedly referred to as a “scientist.”

At the same time, well dressed, articulate men with earned PhDs and no criminal records who present evidence against the established religion in this country are vilified by the same media.

Believers in the establishment of religion in this country, Secular Humanism, are intolerant of anyone who presents evidence which contradicts their deeply-held, emotional beliefs.

Illustration From A TOM CORBETT Space Cadet Adventure THE SPACE PIONEERS By CAREY ROCKWELL, 1953, illustrations by LOUIS GLANZMAN. Project Gutenberg Transcriber”s note: Extensive research did not uncover any evidence that the copyright on this publication was renewed.

3 Comments

Filed under Bible Teaching, Current Issues, Politics, Excerpts from our Nonfiction Books, Scientific

Pride and Prejudice and Scientific Honesty

A number of more modern scientists strive to maintain the integrity of their profession in the face of much dishonesty on the part of committed Secular Humanists. University of California Professor of Psychology Stanley Sue believed that it was essential to avoid the common secularist redefining of the word “theory” into “fact,” as Richard Dawkins frequently does when speaking of Evolution. Sue instead demanded that the bias so evident in secularist dogma be avoided.
“Scientific skepticism is considered good. … Under this principle, one must question, doubt, or suspend judgment until sufficient information is available. Skeptics demand that evidence and proof be offered before conclusions can be drawn. […] One must thoughtfully gather evidence and be persuaded by the evidence rather than by prejudice, bias, or uncritical thinking.”
Richard Feynman, 20th century physicist, apparently had no use for skewed data and the common practice of simply burying contradictions to theories being researched. He cautioned scientists to be thoroughly honest in their work by including supporting and contrary evidence and anything discovered along the way that might advance knowledge.
“If you’re doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid — not only what you think is right about it; … You must do the best you can — if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong — to explain it. … Those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea for the theory; …The idea is to try to give all of the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or another.”
When scientists ignore this commitment to honesty, they fall into the same trap that Isaac Asimov did. Claiming to speak as a scientist, he rightly invoked the word “inspired” to express his baseless but religiously held beliefs. “We can make inspired guesses, but we don’t know for certain what physical and chemical properties of the planet’s crust, its ocean, and its atmosphere made it so conducive to such a sudden appearance of life…” Although he appears to be humbly admitting science’s limitations, Asimov is in fact dishonestly claiming that when a scientist guesses, it is like ordinary people stating facts. Notice that instead of allowing for the possibility of a creative act by God, he assures us that all that happened was a “sudden appearance” of life made possible by natural conditions.
In the novel Pride and Prejudice, an unscrupulous man plays on social prejudices to advance his own position just as many secularists advance their “scientific” theories. He pretends humility while providing supposed evidence for theories people already hold. Jane Austin said, “Nothing is more deceitful … than the appearance of humility. It is often only carelessness of opinion, and sometimes an indirect boast.” Those who misuse science frequently advance the “scientist’s” own reputation without presenting sound science or true knowledge. “Carelessness of opinion” is almost a watchword for those who feel free to advance any belief and call it science, and frequently they receive applause when they should be greeted with healthy skepticism.
Today the observations and measurements of the physical world must support the established religion of Secular Humanism. “Carelessness of opinion” expressed by their celebrity pseudo-scientists along with their “inspired guesses” must be given as much weight as facts. Its adherents of course, deny this. They loudly denounce the corruption of the Church-State union and insist they are pure of such entanglements.
John W. Draper, 19th century American physician and photochemist, claimed that “Science has never sought to ally herself with civil power. She has never subjected anyone to mental torment, physical torment, least of all death, for the purpose of promoting her ideas.” While asserting that theists are invariably corrupt and violent, he deflects attention from the hand-in-glove relationship of secularists with the courts resulting in the bombarding of schools and government institutions with lawsuits demanding removal of any hint of religious mention in the name of “separation of church and state.”

1 Comment

Filed under Excerpts from our Nonfiction Books, Scientific, Uncategorized

What Is “Progressive Creation” ?

Refuse foolish and ignorant speculations, knowing that they produce quarrels. The Lord’s bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged, with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will. 2 Timothy 2:20-26 NASB.

I freely admit that I am not as gentle as I should be. I have no desire to be quarrelsome, but it is important to preach the gospel. It is frequently said that talking about origins does not preach the gospel.

Jesus said, “Do not think that I will accuse you before the Father; the one who accuses you is Moses, in whom you have set your hope. For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me for he wrote about Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?”

When Moses writes clearly and plainly and we reject the words of Moses, we are rejecting Jesus. Jesus does not present a gospel where we can pick and chose which parts we like and we which parts we can ignore or reject. I believe with all my understanding that is exactly what Progressive Creation does.

I have never met any of the men who claim to be progressive creationists. They might be kind, gentle and much less quarrelsome than I am. They might be more eloquent, more handsome, smell better and exude charisma. But, as I read their writings and listen to their audio, I see and hear what Paul warned the Galatians about: “another gospel.”

We need to carefully examine what they claim and compare it to both science and the Word of God. With great sorrow I admit that there is no possible way of being both honest and brief. To be as brief as possible, I will link to other sites and articles.

First, truth does not depend on the number of people who accept it. Factual, actual, accurate truth might be rejected by the entire human race, but it is still true.

Second, we must define our terms so we are not talking apples and oranges. In our Preface to Antidisestablishmentarianism, http://elkjerkyforthesoul.wordpress.com/2011/09/05/introduction-to-antidisestablishmentarianism/, we give some simple, basic definitions.

“Science is the study of the world around us, the use of the experimental method and the improvement of our lives through the application of technology.”

“A true open mind is founded in belief, faith and trust. The historic meaning of believe is to perceive or understand with the mind and then make an informed decision. The most basic use of the word believe which the average American would understand is that of a juror in court. Which witness do you believe? Which piece of evidence is believable? A synonym would be the word credible. When we believe something or someone and then act on that belief, that is faith. The active part of belief is faith. The passive part of belief is trust. Suppose your brother says that he will drive you to the doctor. If you believe him, then you understand what he says and you make a decision to get ready. If you get in the vehicle with him, that is faith. You act on your belief. When you sit in the vehicle as he drives, that is trust, a passive reliance on what you have proven true. You trust in his driving skills. You trust in the vehicle. You trust the roads, etc. Everything we do is a combination of belief, faith or trust. By restoring their historic definitions, belief, faith and trust re-emerge as the clear language of true experimental science. These terms were deliberately segregated from science to deceive people into believing Secular Humanism.”

Next is “Progressive Creationism.” Two speakers who publicly espouse this position are Bernard Ramm and Hugh Ross. Bernard Ramm defined progressive creationism as “creation was revealed [pictorially] in six days, not performed in six days,” with God intervening periodically to create new “root-species” which then “radiated” out. This allowed geological formations such as coal to form naturally, so that they “might appear a natural product and not an artificial insertion in Nature,” prior to the creation of mankind. (The Creationists: The Evolution of Scientific Creationism by Ronald L. Numbers 1993 p. 186). This is also called the day-age theory. They accept the geologic column and death before Adam.

This is a statement from the Reasons to Believe website founded by Hugh Ross, under their “About” section:

“We believe the Bible (the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments) is the Word of God, written. As a ‘God-breathed’ revelation, it is thus verbally inspired and completely without error (historically, scientifically, morally, and spiritually) in its original writings.”

http://www.reasons.org/about/our-mission

Ross accepts the billions of years age of the Earth, the Geologic strata as representing eras, and everything evolution proposes except for the changes from one species to another.

“The Day-Age construct preserves the general sequence of events as portrayed in the text and is not merely a response to Charles Darwin and evolutionary science. From ancient times there was recognition among Bible scholars that the word “day” could mean an extended period of time.”

http://www.reasons.org/articles/four-views-of-the-biblical-creation-account

Ross’s argument for the “Day-Age” theory of creation assumes that Moses did not mean “day” when he wrote day, or “evening and morning” when he wrote that phrase. He says he believes in the inerrancy of Scripture but redefines clear, straightforward words and phrases in the text, thereby proving that he cannot, in fact, accept the plain words of Scripture and rejects Moses as authoritative.

The Reasons to Believe website includes a chart laying out the billions of years before the creation of man. It explains the need for this vast stretch of time not because evolution needed time to occur, but because God created the Earth in a toxic and uninhabitable form and had to allow natural processes to arrive at a breathable atmosphere and geologic balance before man could live there.

http://www.reasons.org/files/articles/creation_timeline_chart_color_201107.pdf

“For nearly two billion years, Earth’s atmosphere contained no oxygen. The reasons for Earth’s lack of atmospheric oxygen are (1) oxygen reacts very rapidly with gases thought to comprise Earth’s early atmosphere; and (2) nothing operating on the early Earth produced oxygen in significant quantities. Around 2.7 billion years ago, photosynthetic organisms (those that use sunlight to produce energy and release oxygen in the process) appeared in abundance. Yet even with this potent source of oxygen, the geologic record shows no evidence for oxygen in the atmosphere for the next few hundred million years. As it turns out, geological activity below Earth’s surface likely served as a big hole, draining the oxygen from the atmosphere.

http://www.reasons.org/articles/an-atmosphere-without-oxygen

“Our testable creation model says God created dinosaurs to roam the Earth roughly 230 million years ago, and many different types of these creatures dominated the landscape. Their time on Earth ended when a 6 mile-wide asteroid impacted Earth 65 million years ago.”

http://www.reasons.org/rtb-101/dino

Hugh Ross also said, elsewhere on the same site, “Starting about 2 to 4 million years ago, God began creating man-like mammals or “hominids.” These creatures stood on two feet, had large brains, and used tools, Some even buried their dead and painted on cave walls. “However, they were different from us. They did not worship god or establish religious practices. In time, all these man-like creatures went extinct. Then, about 10 to 25 thousand years ago, God replaced them with Adam and Eve.”

http://www.reasons.org/rtb-101/hominids

Here are the differences between “Progressive Creation and Theistic Evolution from the website TheisticEvolution.org. Theistic Evolution believes that there is “a deeper meaning within the Genesis text.” “Progressive Creation” claims to believe the Genesis text. Theistic Evolution “dissect[s] the Bible in an effort to uncover the original text.”

“Progressive Creationists ‘do not literally interpret Genesis’ six days of creation as lasting for 144 hours; rather, they view the six days as metaphorically standing in for the ages required for life to develop.’”

Theistic Evolutionists “believe in God but do not think Scripture can shed light on geology or cosmology. In their view, God created the universe, but natural processes created the stars, planets and life on earth.” http://www.ehow.com/facts_5862882_progressive-creationism-vs_-theistic-evolution.html

There are many, many websites contrasting Progressive Creationists and Theistic Evolutionists in more detail, but these are the basic points.

While there are many scientific problems with these positions, both positions are impossible with a young earth. The following link is a brief overview of the scientific evidence for a young earth. http://elkjerkyforthesoul.wordpress.com/2011/09/30/chapter-fourteen-from-antidisestablishmentarianism-what-does-the-scientific-evidence-prove/

These are not evolutionary issues, but hard science, astronomy, chemistry and physics.

The major issue with the Biblical text is simply one of belief. The information in the Bible is straightforward. It teaches 24-hour days. The genealogies are presented as history. Moses wrote these as legal documents. There is no reason to reject these as literal history.

The first three chapters of Genesis are also alluded to in creation stories throughout the world. The Conflict of the Ages Part One uses the Bible as a framework for ancient documents throughout the world. This is a combination of science and ancient literature to support a normal reading the Biblical text.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Conflict-Ages-Part-ebook/dp/B007ETAAV4

The most serious flaw with both “Progressive Creationism” and Theistic Evolution is that once you reject the plain reading of the Biblical text, what is your authority? Every few years evolutionists make major revisions to their time scheme. Theistic Evolution seems to make more sense to me than “Progressive Creationism.” Theistic Evolution claims up front that the Bible is mythical.

One final warning. Even though Hugh Ross does not attach any philosophical meaning to the term “progressive,” it is important to note the danger of using this term. The concept of “Progressivism” originated around the time of the French Revolution. It has come to be associated with many kinds of revolution and the overthrow of conservative, freedom-based society in favor of socialism or communism.

http://elkjerkyforthesoul.wordpress.com/2011/09/22/right-and-left/

5 Comments

Filed under Bible Teaching, History, Scientific, Uncategorized

Foundational Facts

Our book Antidisestablishmentarianism expands the following points in detail. Antidisestablishmentarianism has thousands of footnotes and over thirty pages of Bibliography references. These brief explanations will help those indoctrinated in the religion of Secular Humanism to begin to understand what America’s founding fathers knew when they wrote the Constitution.

The words belief, trust and faith are legal terms which form the foundation of true science. Belief means examination of the evidence and deciding by an act of the will to choose what is true. Belief is similar to the word credible. Belief can be misplaced. Faith is the active part of belief. Trust is the passive part of belief. Belief is the foundation of true science. The Wright brothers believed men could fly. With that faith they built an airplane in Ohio and shipped it by rail to North Carolina. They trusted in their beliefs by riding in the airborne airplane. This is the foundation of true science and the historic use of the words belief, trust and faith found in the Bible and used by America’s founding fathers. No basic law of physics contradicts anything in the Bible.

Secular Humanism is a leap of faith devoid of scientific facts. Like all religions, no two believers believe exactly the same way. In Chapter Six of Antidisestablishmentarianism we list 18 dogmas of Secular Humanism. Some of the most important points held by the vast majority of Secular Humanists are: Secular Humanism is a religion based on feeling and emotion, not reason. Secular Humanists do not believe in anything non-material. Secular Humanists deny God, angels, sin, Satan and demons. They believe that the goal of mankind is personal fulfillment, (as they define it) and collective evolution. Like everything else, children are the property of the state. Unity means the eradication of opposition. In 1957 Secular Humanists sued and won tax exemption as a religion. Secular Humanism is recognized by the United States Supreme Court as religion, with evolution as a central tenant of that religion. The core of evolution is the concept of “deep time” on earth.

Chapter 14 of Antidisestablishmentarianism is a twenty-seven-point list of scientific facts which scientifically prove that the belief in deep time on earth is a myth. A modified version of Chapter 14 is on the website. These four points sum up the major arguments. First, the moon is receding from the earth at a rate of approximately 1.5 inches per year. The moon’s orbit is unstable. Since an orbiting satellite must increase speed the closer the satellite is to the object it is orbiting, at some point closer to the earth the moon’s orbit would have been stable. A catastrophic event more powerful than all the nuclear weapons on earth was needed to change the moon’s orbit.

Second, near the top of the Himalayan mountain is a “yellow band,” a layer of intact fossilized ammonites, ancient marine creatures similar to a modern nautilus. Because they are mostly intact, they had to be put in place while their surroundings were in a plastic state (mud). Either there was tens of thousands of times more water on earth than there is now, or far more likely, the entire Himalayan mountain chain, including Mount Everest, was catastrophically upthrust. That is, with approximately the same amount of water that the earth has now, the Himalayan mountain chain went from layers under the ocean to its present location in a matter of minutes.

Third, Lake Titicaca is 12,500 feet high on the border of Bolivia and Peru. It is classified as brackish, which means that it has a salt content, though it is not salty enough to be classified as seawater. Only fresh water feeds the lake now. It has living sea horses, which indicate that Lake Titicaca was once connected to the ocean. There is an ancient shoreline which is much higher at one end of the lake than the other. At some point in the past Lake Titicaca was severely slanted compared to the modern lake. There is a large (660 feet long) building underwater with a road leading to it and steps leading down to unexplored depths.

Tiahuanaco is a city twelve miles south and 800 feet higher than the current lake. Tiahuanaco was a port city with a harbor for ships much larger than the current lake ships. They were probably ocean-going vessels. Though corn will not germinate above 11,500 feet, there are terraced cornfields on the shores of Lake Titicaca going up to 17,500 feet. The reasonable, scientific conclusion is that the moon’s orbit, the Himalayan yellow band and Lake Titicaca were all a result of a massive catastrophe which happened since civilized men were building cities.

Fourth, the according to Secular Humanists the only really reliable dating method is radiometric dating. For radiometric dating to be accurate, the earth could never have passed through a thermonuclear event. It is also impossible to know the original condition of the radiometric samples being tested. All the radiometric sample tells us is the ratio of radioactive isotope to stable isotope. The usual published date is nothing more than the oldest possible date of a range of dates. Zircons are the standard Secular Humanists use for establishing a 4 billion plus age for the earth, using the uranium to lead dating method. The exact same zircon sample, however, using the helium diffusion rate gives a date of only 6,000 years ± 2,000 years.

Only Secular Humanists can even conceive of the idea that the phrase “establishment of religion” in the first amendment of the US Constitution is vague and without meaning. The opening to the Magna Carta clearly states “that the English Church is to be free and to have all its rights fully and its liberties entirely.” The Magna Carta opens with this clear statement that the English Church was to be completely free of the English Crown. For hundreds of years the Magna Carta was signed over and over again by various monarchs, always with same words in the first point. The English Church was the center of worship, the dispenser of alms to the poor with preaching friars and monasteries and the overseer of education with the great Universities of Oxford and Cambridge.

Henry VIII decided to change the meaning of the Magna Carta to mean free of foreign control, meaning the Church of Rome. This seizure of doctrinal teaching from the pulpit, almsgiving (remember John Bunyan’s imprisonment) and education by the crown was the sharpest goad to force Englishmen to leave England for the New World. At the same time on the European Continent, the Peace of Augsburg (1555) and the Peace of Westphalia (1648) clearly spelled out what an Establishment of Religion was and what was and what was not allowed. As in England, taxes supported the established churches which were responsible for providing for the poor, education and public preaching. Since the heresy trials of Charles Augustus Briggs in the 1890s, American schools, poorhouses and other types of welfare have only had to claim that they were not religious (secular) to receive tax money and favorable laws. These welfare and educational payments have been given with strict secular humanist strings attached. Through these judicial rulings, federal laws and federal funds, Secular Humanism is now an establishment of religion in every sense America’s founding fathers meant by the phrase “establishment of religion.”

While the first Humanist Manifesto openly used the term “religion” to describe their beliefs, modern Secular Humanists have discovered that lying about their religious beliefs gives them enormous political power. By falsely claiming that they are not a religion, they can appoint bureaucrats, collect taxes, and pass laws against, fine and even imprison those who oppose them. Any other form of religion is their enemy and must be quashed. The second and especially the third installments of the Humanist Manifestos are filled with newspeak straight out of Brave New World.

To a Secular Humanist, Science is “deep time.” The exact amount of time is unimportant. Secular Humanists are dogmatic that “science” allows for evolution. Their religion requires vast amounts of time uninterrupted by global catastrophes to account for evolutionary development. Overwhelming evidence forces them to admit to some catastrophes. These must be shoved far enough back in time to not interfere with evolution. Secular Humanists do not mean the scientific method, unbiased experimentation and observation when they use the word “science.” These are acceptable parts of science only when they are connected with “deep time.”

When Secular Humanists are not in power, they demand unity, “sharing” and that everyone “come together” to achieve goals. When they are in power, they ignore, attack, or overwhelm any opposition and go ahead with their own plans. Anyone who refuses to put their faith and trust in “science, falsely so called” is blocked from employment, fired if they do get a job and blacklisted once they are fired. Common forms of blacklisting include failure to cooperate with others (they cannot be pushed into believing in “science”) and refusal to abide by customary standards (refusal to put their faith and trust in “science”).

Since Secular Humanists believe that children are the property of the state under the brotherhood of man, they actively support the kidnapping of children for indoctrination. Secular Humanists believe in property confiscation to force people to believe. In Communist countries, Secular Humanists put unbelievers in re-education camps and work them to death.

“Free” sex, immorality, self-indulgence, profanity (free expression) and violence against all who disagree with Secular Humanism are not only tolerated, but encouraged. Disagreement is not tolerated.

Tools used to coerce unbelievers are social (isolation, crimes committed against them are ignored), political (laws are passed and regulations written to enforce secular humanism) and economic (loss of job and confiscation of property). Widespread abuse of prescription drugs allows behavior control and masks consequences and responsibility for sin.

(from our website, http://findleyfamilyvideopublications.com)

1 Comment

Filed under Excerpts from our Nonfiction Books, History, Scientific

February Book Releases: The Conflict of the Ages, Part One, Carrie’s Hired Hand and Diary of a Christian Dog

The Conflict of the Ages Part One: The Scientific History of Origins 

The Conflict of the Ages is a Multi-Part exploration of History, Science and Ancient Literature. This first installment covers the concepts of God, time, Creation, physics, cosmology, ans specifics about each day of Creation. We make comparisons with ancient sources to see where they agree with the Scriptural account. We reference classic and modern scientific views, exposing errors, preconceptions, presuppositions and falsehoods taught as fact by the mainstream scientific community. God is the first witness and the Bible the first eyewitness account of beginnings and origins. Other ancient documents contain at least some truths and parallel accounts.

http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/137138

http://www.amazon.com/Conflict-Ages-Part-One-ebook/dp/B007ETAAV4/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1330455372&sr=1-1

http://www.scribd.com/doc/83069908/New-COA1-With-Ref-Scribd

Youtube video Trailer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFGwV6eDvQE

A Northerner married to a Southerner gets enough stares and scorn. Carrie doesn’t need more from Robert Salliger, handsome friend of her dying husband. He says Ben’s death is his fault. He swears to take care of Carrie and the children. But she goes home alone, and can’t read the letters that come. When a deaf and dumb boy arrives she is glad for the help but has no idea how much help he will be.

http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/133779

http://www.amazon.com/Carries-Hired-Hand-ebook/dp/B007AGDA6I

http://www.scribd.com/doc/81996812/Carries-Hired-Hand-Scribd (free here)

YouTube Trailer link

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tSwrLggGTik

An English Knight begins a diary of his “adventure” joining Louis IX’s First Crusade. The armada to Alexandria encounters a violent storm and the knight and his companions shipwreck. He must make an impossible choice: Cut himself off from his people or face execution. His life of turmoil and terror leads him to peace, but slavery and torture block his quest to find his friend and get home to his father.

http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/128706

http://www.amazon.com/Diary-Christian-Dog-ebook/dp/B0074D5D26

http://www.scribd.com/doc/80188123/Diary-Scribd (free here)

You Tube Trailer Link

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsBveZ56eAU

1 Comment

Filed under Excerpts from our Fiction Books, Excerpts from our Nonfiction Books, Writing, Reviewing, Publishing, and about Blogging

Belief Excerpts from Antidisestablishmentarianism I from Chapter 11. What Is Science to a Secular Humanist?

Like any religion which enthrones man in God’s place, there is a desperate and irrational need to attack true religion. “Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence,”3 says Richard Dawkins. In the Bible, in the founding documents of US history and in the US court system prior to the liberal takeover, belief was (and still is in reality) a legal term. Belief is the decision of a juror based on evidence. Faith is the action one takes based on belief based on tested evidence. The modern Secular Humanist twists the word “faith ” to mean the opposite of its historical definition. “Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence.”4 This is the “blind leap of faith ” of Karl Barth and neo-orthodoxy, not the historic meaning of faith found in the Bible and US history.

The faith of the secularist, which is truly “in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence,” has a religious belief that the material universe is all that is, was or ever will be. The material universe is the ultimate reality. “Who is more humble?” asked Carl Sagan, “The scientist who looks at the universe with an open mind and accepts whatever the universe has to teach us, or somebody who says everything in this book [the Bible] must be considered the literal truth and never mind the fallibility of all the human beings involved?”5 Sagan is pretending humility while arrogantly dismissing the possibility that God might have actually written down His words out of love for his creation.

_________________________________________

1 Pierre Charron, De la sagesse (Of Wisdom, In Three Parts), French version, 1601, Translated by Samson Lennard, Eliot’s Court Press for Edward Blount and Will, Aspley, London, c.1615.

2 Charles Watts, “The Secularist’s Catechism,” complied in an undated book published by Watts & Co. entitled: Pamphlets by Charles Watts, Vol. I, originally written in 1896.

3 Richard Dawkins, from a speech at the Edinburgh International Science Festival, April 15, 1992.

4 Dawkins, The Richard Dimbleby Lecture: “Science, Delusion and the Appetite for Wonder,” BBC1 Television November 12, 1996.

5 Carl Sagan, in an interview with Charlie Rose, late-night PBS talk show host, 1996.

1 Comment

Filed under Bible Teaching, Excerpts from our Nonfiction Books, Writing, Reviewing, Publishing, and about Blogging

Principles of Science Teaching


There are only two ways to teach Science: to teach it as a unified subject or divide it into categories. Unified sounds good but can be overwhelming to students. Subatomic particles like electrons don’t divide themselves into disciplines according to how they behave. In Physics we study electrons in different ways from observing how they behave in Organic Chemistry as electrons generating electrical impulses. By the time they have traveled down nerves and crossed synapses and caused our muscles to move they have gone over into the study of Biology. In fact, a degree in electrical engineering is known as an EEE (electrical and electronics engineer) because electricity and electronics operate so differently on a large and a small scale.

To keep from overwhelming students on high school level and below the sciences are generally divided into different subject areas. In Jr High or Middle School they are simply taught as Physical Sciences and Life Sciences. In High School the subjects are usually broken down into Earth Science, Biology, Chemistry, and Physics. Interrelationships are rarely explored in detail because there is no time.

The question often asked about science is, how do you make these subjects Christian? In Life Science, you can emphasize the fact that God created all life, and it did not develop by evolution. We can also study God’s requirements for treating all life, animal, plant, and human. In the hard sciences (those that are testable in a laboratory setting), the Bible speaks just as clearly.  “By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the Word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible” (Heb 11:3 NASB).

The spiritual created the material. The supernatural can intervene in and change the material world. Job got boils from head to foot from no physical cause. Jesus walked on water and healed people born blind and lame. Elijah was taken up to heaven in a fiery chariot.

The material universe is finite, not infinite. Though God is in control, we are responsible as mangers. God will hold us accountable for the way we manage the material world. “Then God said, ‘Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth” (Genesis 1:26)

The world is relatively young, less than 10,000 years old. It is going to be destroyed by act of God’s judgment because of man’s rebellion. Man cannot destroy the earth.The Bible demands that we have wisdom and skill in handling material possessions but we should not spend all our time efforts and energy developing these things. They are secondary to worshiping God. The material world is not to become our god. We should not become obsessed with seeking material possessions or how to manipulate the material world. How we handle science will determine the quality of our life here on earth. We are limited in what it can do to the material world and it is finite and temporary.

Science is constantly changing, more than any other field. Whatever curriculum a homeschooling family chooses it must be a modern, comprehensive textbook acknowledging the principles God has set forth.

1 Comment

Filed under Education, Scientific

The Religion of Physics IV: What is “Scientific Evidence?”


All quotes, unless otherwise noted, are by Stephen Hawking from his book A Brief History of Time.

“A theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements: It must accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model that contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations.”

“Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis; you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory.”

“There is a fundamental difference between religion, which is based on authority, and science, which is based on observation and reason. Science will win, because it works.”

“If they will not believe you (Moses) or heed the witness of the first sign, they may believe the witness of the last sign. But if they will not believe even these two signs or heed what you say, then you shall take some water from the Nile and pour it on the dry ground; and the water which you take from the Nile will become blood on the dry ground.” Exodus 3: 8,9 NASB

In the Bible the word belief means intellectually examining the evidence, and accepting the evidence. The Bible uses the word belief the same way we think of a juror examining the evidence. The juror votes according to what he believes about the evidence. Actively following up on that evidence is faith and passively following up on the evidence is trust.

Anyone can examine evidence, come to certain conclusions about that evidence and believe that their conclusions are correct. Orville and Wilber Wright believed that a heavier than air machine could fly. Their faith in that belief built an airplane. After building the airplane, they trusted in what they built and flew it. Our beliefs can be incorrect. We can place our faith in things which are not true. We can trust in things which are not true and people who will let us down.

The difference between the religion of Stephen Hawking and the Bible is absolute truth. The Bible claims to be absolute truth. Though few people today believe that it is absolute truth, all honest people know that it claims to be absolute truth. The religion of Secular Humanism demands that there is no absolute truth.

A very tiny number of people ever gain access to the multimillion-dollar equipment necessary for modern physics experiments. Only a tiny number of that tiny number are privileged enough to set up and run their own experiments. Of these who run their own experiments, very few ever see the experiments of others. These physicists are trusting in the records of others. They believe that the total sum of the experiments performed worldwide will reduce or eliminate error. They have faith in the peer review process.

They also believe, with a dogmatic faith, that the records of the Bible are untrue, or at least unscientific. Yet the historic record of Moses meets every test for science. It has multiple, credible witnesses. It was repeated. It can be falsified. It accurately predicted the future. It is based on observation and reason, Men reject Moses, not because of science, but because their religion is opposed to Moses.

“What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands concerning the Word of Life.” 1 John 1:1. NASB This is both scientific and legal testimony. John is either telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth or he is lying.

The scientific information of the Bible records that the processes which govern the universe today are different from the processes which brought the universe and life on this planet into existence. These records are as scientific as the photographic plate which record the collision of antimatter with matter. As anyone can mistrust or disbelieve the photographic plate, or the interpretation of the information on that plate, so we can mistrust or disbelieve the scientific information recorded in the Bible.

Secular Humanists believe that the miracles of Moses were not scientific because they cannot duplicate them today. Yet these same men believe in peer-reviewed studies which they cannot duplicate, such as a supernova. The only difference is that they believe in the results of these studies, while they reject the historic accounts of Moses.

The scientific records of Moses have no less authority than the peer-reviewed studies produced today. The basic difference is the information. Modern peer-reviewed studied usually have false conclusions for the primary content. The actual scientific data is usually contained in footnotes, appendices and attachments. In the published articles the conclusions usually lead. I believe the reason for this common layout is the difficulty very educated men have understanding how the available data supports their conclusions.

By contrast, the scientific data in the Bible is clearly laid out. From the beginning of the Bible we must simply choose to believe or reject the clearly laid out evidence of the witnesses. The data in the Bible is scientific.

1 Comment

Filed under Bible Teaching, Current Issues, Politics, Excerpts from our Nonfiction Books, History, Scientific

The Religion of Physics III: Hawking Rewrites History

There are two ways to rewrite history. The common lie is ineffective. The amazingly effective method is far more difficult. Simply eliminate any information which contradicts what you are attempting to promote. Never tell any outright lie, simply be very selective in what you allow your audience to hear.

Secular Humanists always start from the simple and “progress” to the complex. Cave paintings are presented as the simplest, therefore earliest, of man’s art expressions. Then man’s art “evolved” to flat painting, to one-dimensional perspective, to two-dimensional perspective, and finally to realistic painting. This is a means of expressing man’s supposed “evolution” in culture and of course took thousands of years. The Parthenon, the Acropolis, Luxor, Angor Wat, the Great Wall of China and thousands of other ancient works of art, created during the same time periods as cave paintings and flat paintings are either ignored or added at the end as an appendix. In music the same “evolution” is foundational. Simple percussion, simple harps, animal horns, these ancient instruments develop over millennia. The complex orchestras of Babylon, ancient India and China are once again either ignored or added as an appendix.

“Our present ideas about the motion of bodies date back to Galileo and Newton. Before them people believed Aristotle, who said that the natural state of a body was to be at rest and that it moved only if driven by a force or impulse.” These are the opening words of Stephen Hawking’s A Brief History of Time, Chapter 2, Space and Time. The writings of Galileo and Newton, their ideas of gravity, inertia and motion laid the foundation for modern Physics. It is not true that nobody before them “bothered to see” if Aristotle was correct by experiment. Herodotus opens his Histories with “Those of the Persians who have knowledge of history declare…” He views the Persians as more knowledgeable than the Greeks but less knowledgeable than the Babylonians or the Egyptians.1 Francis Bacon declared in 1620 that “printing, gunpowder and the compass” were the greatest inventions of all time. Each of these inventions go back to the early Chinese.2

Printing, cannons, navigation, massive stone structures, 2,000-year-old roads and bridges which are still in use all require advanced use of physics. Where are their records? Alexander the Great burned the massive Persian archives. Julius Caesar, later Eusebius and later still Islamic Arabs burned the majority of the library of Alexandria. Throughout history wars have destroyed much of the information of earlier cultures.

In A Brief History of Time, Stephen Hawking uses the same tactics: destroy or ignore all facts of history which disagree with uniformitarianism/evolution. Even Albert Einstein’s much smaller work, The Evolution of Physics goes back to the mathematics of the Greeks. Many Greeks contributed to the system of geometry known today as Euclidian or two-dimensional geometry, which includes trigonometry. It is foundational to both Newton and Galileo. It is also contrary to Aristotle and Stephen Hawking’s ideas, therefore ignored.

After the book’s conclusion, Stephen Hawking takes the three men he credits with the founding of modern physics, Albert Einstein, Galileo Galilei and Isaac Newton, and devotes 2 pages to each one. Perhaps these pages were intended to be tributes. The fact that each of these men believed that the universe was designed and created with a moral purpose is ignored. When it is mentioned, it is ridiculed.

Albert Einstein said hundreds, perhaps thousands of times, “God does not play dice with the Universe.” Stephen Hawking said, “All the evidence show that God was actually quite a gambler, and the universe is a great casino, where dice are thrown, and roulette wheels spin on every occasion.” He also said, “Not only does God play dice, but … he sometimes throws them where they cannot be seen.”

Steven Hawking points out that Albert Einstein publicly protested against Germany’s involvement in WWI, became a pacifist, supported Zionism, was offered the Presidency of Israel, which he declined, supported the US in WWII helping to build the first atomic bomb.

“Galileo, perhaps more than any other single person, was responsible for the birth of modern science. His renowned conflict with the Catholic Church was central to his philosophy…” Stephen Hawking’s high praise shows the crux, the lynchpin of modern science: principled resistance of the established religion when it stands for error and unwavering devotion to truth. Stephen Hawking then twists this praise to advance his own religion at Galileo’s expense. He falsely claims that “Galileo was one of the first to argue that man could hope to understand how the world works, and moreover, that we could do this by observing the real world.” What about Job? What about the 10,000 Arabic documents on astronomy, their widespread use of the Greek astrolabes? Scholarly Arabs rejected the Ptolemaic system in 1070 AD. What about the Mayans, Egyptians, Babylonians, the Indus Valley, the Chinese, the Japanese, the Incas??

Galileo took the same position as John Calvin, Martin Luther, William Tyndale, the Anabaptists, Augustine of Hippo and all other Reformers. The Holy Spirit guides the conscience of the individual believer to correctly understand both special revelation (the Bible) and general revelation (the material world). “It seems to me that it was well said by Madama Serenissima and insisted on by your reverence, that the Holy Scripture cannot err, and that the decrees therein contained are absolutely true and inviolable. But I should have in your place added that, though Scripture cannot err, its expounders and interpreters are liable to err in many ways, and one error in particular would be most grave and most frequent, if we always stopped short at the literal signification of the words.”3

Galileo did not believe, as Stephen Hawking so boldly lies, “that the Bible was not intended to tell us anything about scientific theories, and that it was usual to assume that, where the Bible conflicted with common sense, it was being allegorical.” Instead, Galileo, like Martin Luther, took the position of Augustine; “I have insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation.”4

Galileo believed that the Established Religion of the day, the Roman Catholic Church was suppressing the truth of the Bible. Savanarola was burned at the stake in 1498 AD for the very same belief. Galileo explained this in detail in his 1610 publication Discoveries and Opinions of Galileo. Stephen Hawking even admits this. Galileo “wrote about Copernicus’s theory in Italian (not the usual academic Latin) and soon his views became widely supported outside the universities.” At that time, the universities represented the thinking of Aristotle. Stephen Hawking fails to understand that the modern University system took the place of the Roman Catholic Church in suppressing scientific truth.

Stephen Hawking is retired from the position Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge University, a position once held by Sir Isaac Newton. Yet Stephen Hawking opens his comments on Isaac Newton with: “Isaac Newton was not a pleasant man. His relations with other academics were notorious, with most of his later life spent embroiled in heated disputes.” Another view might say that Sir Isaac Newton was a very principled man who spent the later part of his life defending himself against baseless personal attacks. Neither statement is entirely true, but when Hawking spends less than two pages on Newton, such a charge is entirely unwarranted. Rather he should have expanded on Sir Isaac Newton’s considerable contributions to physics, such as his works in the field of optics, the prism and the invention of the reflecting telescope, none of which are mentioned with more than an offhand comment in A Brief History of Time. Instead of attacking Isaac Newton’s character, Stephen Hawking should either be complimentary or stick to Newton’s scientific accomplishments. This comes across as an attack because Newton was a Christian who based his science on the Bible.

Except for the personal attacks on Einstein, Galileo and Newton, A Brief History of Time is an extremely seductive and interesting collection of important facts. It is completely religious, carefully selecting the facts which support Stephen Hawking’s conclusions.

“We find ourselves in a bewildering world.” This is the simple position of those who believe in the “new” or “progressive” physics, represented by Stephen Hawking. Though this thinking is now so dominant they simply refer to their beliefs as physics, this is the opposite of classical or traditional physics represented by Albert Einstein. Einstein believed “One may say the eternal mystery of the world is its comprehensibility.”6

Stephen Hawking uses the label scientific determinist for his belief in this “bewildering world.” “The usual approach of science of constructing a mathematical model cannot answer the question of why there should be a universe for the model to describe. Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?” “…Why is it that we and the universe exist? If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason-for then we would know the mind of God.”

Compare this with the attitude of Galileo. “Some years ago, as Your Serene Highness well knows, I discovered in the heavens many things that had not been seen before our own age. The novelty of these things, as well as some consequences which followed from them in contradiction to the physical notions commonly held among academic philosophers, stirred up against me no small number of professors-as if I had placed these things in the sky with my own hands in order to upset nature and overturn the sciences. They seemed to forget that the increase of unknown truths stimulates the investigation, establishment, and growth of the arts, not their diminution or destruction.”5

All quotes of Stephen Hawking are from the book A Brief History of Time.

1 The History of Herodotus by Herodotus of Halicarnassus, 440 BC, Translated by George Rawlinson 1858 AD.
2 Novum Organum, Liber I, CXXIX 1863 translation
3 Letter to Benedetto Castelli (1613) fro Galileo
4 Augustine of Hippo The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 408 AD.
5 Essay published in 1615, in response to enquireies of Christina of Tuscany, as quoted in Aspects of Western Civilization: Problems an dSources in History (1988) by Perry McAdow Rogers, p. 53.
6 Albert Einstein, article “Physics and Reality” in Journal of the Franklin Institute (March 1936).

3 Comments

Filed under Current Issues, Politics, Excerpts from our Nonfiction Books, History, Scientific

The Religion of Physics II: The High Priest Pontificates

“We are just an advanced breed of monkeys on a minor planet of a very average star. But we can understand the Universe. That makes us something very special.”1 Stephen Hawking

“There is a fundamental difference between religion, which is based on authority and science, which is based on observation and reason. Science will win, because it works.”2

“The United States Supreme Court has held that secular humanism is a religion. Belief in evolution is a central tenet of that religion.”3 Justice Antonin Scalia Supreme Court, Edwards v. Aguillera, 1987

“A well-known scientist (some say it was Bertrand Russell) once gave a public lecture on astronomy … At the end of the lecture, a little old lady at the back of the room got up and said: ‘What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise.” The scientist gave a superior smile before replying, “What is the tortoise standing on?” “You’re very clever, young man, very clever,” said the old lady. “But it’s turtles all the way down!”4

This funny opening to Stephen Hawking’s A Brief History of Time makes us smile and trust the author. It is also a not so subtle way of saying that anyone who disagrees with their belief in modern physics is crazy. Since this book is the best selling nonfiction book besides Shakespeare and the Bible, this is a very serious charge. This attitude sadly is repeated throughout the book.

“(Ptolemy’s model of a stationary earth) was adopted by the Christian church as the picture of the universe that was in accordance with Scripture, for it had the great advantage that it left lots of room outside the sphere of fixed stars for heaven and hell.”5 Though the Roman Catholic Church pronounced the Ptolemaic system the only system in accordance with Scripture, neither the Ptolemaic system nor any other system is found in the Scripture. I am not aware of any group which refused to acknowledge the authority of Rome to endorse the Ptolemaic system. The issue with Rome was authority. Rome wanted everyone to obey Rome. Though Stephen Hawking has room to include this great error of Rome, he complete ignores Sir Isaac Newton’s unorthodox Christianity.

“…On the general climate of thought before the twentieth century . . . It was generally accepted that either the universe had existed forever in an unchanging state, or that it had been created at a finite time in the past more or less as we observe it today. In part this may have been due to people’s tendency to believe in eternal truths, as well as the comfort they found in the thought that even though they may grow old and die, the universe is eternal and unchanging.”6 So according to Stephen Hawking, people who believe in eternal truths are ignorant and have such a belief because they need to draw comfort. It is important to mention here that the eternal truths found in the Bible do not say that the “universe is eternal and unchanging.” The eternal truth found in the Bible says that universe was created in a point of time, that God is now stretching it out, and that it ends by melting in extreme heat.

“St Augustine accepted a date of about 5000 B.C. for the Creation of the universe according to the book of Genesis. (It is interesting that this is not so far from the end of the last Ice Age, about 10,000 B. C., which is when archaeologists tell us that civilization really began.)”7 Stephen Hawking makes archaeologists, or at least the dates which they give us, more authoritative than Scriptures. While this is the date any author who expects to be published must use, this is not even a commonly accepted date among archaeologists. Also, after calling St. Augustine a liar, or at least mistaken, a page is devoted to Aristotle and Immanuel Kant’s use of reason.

“An expanding universe does not preclude a creator, but it does place limits on when he might have carried out his job!”8 Why? Why does Stephen Hawkins believe, without any scientific evidence, that an expanding universe places limits on God?

“The eventual goal of science is to provide a single theory that describes the whole universe.” Stephen Hawking believes that in order to do that, we must correctly understand the universe from it’s beginning. “…it appears that he (God) chose to make it (the universe) evolve in a very regular way according to certain laws. It therefore seems equally reasonable to suppose that there are also laws governing the initial state.”9 The Bible says very clearly that God “worked” on the first six days of creation. That is, the existing laws of physics did not apply to those first six days because God was making changes and inputting energy and order (design) into the universe. Stephen Hawking is promoting the religious leap of faith called uniformitarianism (the present is the key to the past).

When Stephen Hawking faces the insurmountable problems of devising a unified field theory, this “single theory that describes the universe,” he turns to the religion of evolution. “The only answer that I can give to this problem is based on Darwin’s principle of natural selection. That idea is that in any population of self-reproducing organisms, there will be variations in the genetic material and upbringing that different individuals have. These differences will mean that some individuals are better able than others to draw the right conclusions about the world around them and to act accordingly. These individuals will be more likely to survive and reproduce and so their pattern of behavior and thought will come to dominate. It has certainly been true in the past . . .”10

I have no desire to get anyone angry with me, but this was the well-stated goal of Adolph Hitler in Mein Kampf (My Struggle). I am not accusing Stephen Hawking of any desire to murder anyone. But this philosophy he pens here is the foundation of the Star Trek movie about Eugenics, Khan in Star Trek The Original Series and the movie Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, the rationale for selective breeding and abortions, the impetus for the books 1984, Brave New World and Animal Farm. To be fair to Stephen Hawking, I believe that all he intends is for a better person to find the answer in the future. But the reality of this race of supermen, designed by controlled natural selection, is a race of powerful evil which must be destroyed before they enslave and destroy us all.

“Today we still yearn to know why we are here and where we came from. Humanity’s deepest desire for knowledge is justification enough for our continuing quest. And our goal is nothing less than a complete description of the universe we live in.”10 This is an impossible goal when you begin, as Stephen Hawking does, by rejecting the scientific information about our origins which God revealed to us.

1 Der Spiegel (17 October 1988)

2 Interview with Diane Sawyer, as quoted in “Stephen Hawking on Religion: ‘Science Will Win’” on ABC World News (07 June 2010)

3 McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education, 1982. Justice Antonin Scalia’s dissenting opinion Chief Justice William Rehnquist concurring with Scalia.

4 A Brief History of Time, 2001 Chapter 1 Stephen Hawking

5 Chapter 1, Hawking

6 Chapter 1, Hawking

7 Chapter 1, Hawking

8 Chapter 1, Hawking

9 Chapter 1, Hawking

10 Chapter 1, Hawking

1 Comment

Filed under Bible Teaching, Current Issues, Politics, Excerpts from our Nonfiction Books, History, Scientific

Introduction to Antidisestablishmentarianism

Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.1
John Adams

Sometime in the early twentieth century, Secular Humanist indoctrination convinced almost everyone in the United States that “an establishment of religion” in the first phrase of the first amendment of the United States Constitution is vague and can mean just about anything. “The state of the facts and evidence,” as John Adams so eloquently put it, is the exact opposite.

Section One of this work documents what the founders meant by the phrase “an establishment of religion. ” The Founding Fathers made as clear a statement as the English language permitted. The Constitution of the United States is founded on English law and to a lesser extent, various European laws, especially German and Dutch. In each of these countries, an Establishment of Religion was the collection of taxes to support education, welfare and public worship. The various governments appointed the teachers, welfare workers and pastors and expected these people to support the government in turn.

The original state constitutions not only permitted, but openly encouraged establishments of religion, especially in the areas of welfare and education. The foundation of the US Constitution is the fact that federal government was to have no control whatsoever in these areas. Their concept of a separation of Church and State was the exact opposite of what the courts have rammed down our throats for the past hundred years. The church should have the right to pray and teach without any federal intervention whatsoever. Judges should have the right to post any Scriptures they want. The courts should have no authority whatsoever to comment. Removing a state judge from office for posting the Ten Commandments is not merely an Establishment of Religion. It is the Inquisition.

Section Two documents the foundations of Secular Humanism and how it grew to become America’s Establishment of Religion. The words “Secular Humanism ” come from various groups in the 1950′s. The phrase “Secular Humanist ” is found in court documents to describe this set of beliefs. Secular Humanism is as old as civilization, but the primary foundation of twenty first century Secular Humanism is Plato’s Republic. In America, Secular Humanism can be said to have originated with Thomas Paine. Secular Humanism has specific beliefs which are written down in various manifestos. Like Christianity, Islam and Judaism, Secular Humanism has many variations. Though Secular Humanists do not like the term, the most accurate words to describe these variants are “sects ” or “denominations. ” Like Christians, Muslims and Jews, many Secular Humanist denominations do not get along with one another. Therefore, we have attempted to point out the beliefs which have the greatest agreement.

Section Three defines science, since Secular Humanists claim that science separates them from all other religions. Since true science is founded in the belief, faith and trust of the Bible, all of these words are defined carefully and in detail. In the Bible, belief, faith and trust are legal terms. Believe means to examine the evidence and come to a reasoned conclusion. Action taken on that belief is faith. Trust is the passive version of faith.

The Scientific Method is the biblical version of belief, faith and trust applied to the material world which God created for us. In the Bible, the Scientific Method recognizes that God is the creator, that we are required to be responsible managers of the material world God has given us and that there is a final judgment after death which will include how well we managed the gifts God allowed us to use.

Our book concludes with Section Four, the results of having Secular Humanism as an Establishment of Religion. With the exception of America’s founding documents and the ancient documents such as Plato, Plutarch and Genesis, hundreds of other quotes could easily be substituted for the quotes that appear here. There is nothing new or unique in this book. It is a combination of what used to be common knowledge in America before Secular Humanism took over and destroyed the education system and current events. If we were to start over today, we would pull different stories from the daily news. Though the individual stories would be different, the points would be the same. “There is nothing new under the sun ” (Ecclesiastes 1:9). Or to state the same thing another way, the more things change, the more they stay the same.

America’s Established Religion is Secular Humanism. This work is dedicated to exposing, defining and disestablishing it.

____________________

1 John Adams, “Argument in defence of the [English] soldiers in the Boston Massacre trial,” December 1770.

2 “Alabama’s Judicial Ethics Panel removed Chief Justice Roy Moore from office Thursday for defying a Federal judge’s order to move a ten commandments monument from the State Supreme Court building. ” Friday, November 14, 2003. Posted 6:56 AM Eastern time. CNN.com

2 Comments

Filed under Current Issues, Politics, Excerpts from our Nonfiction Books, History

We Pay for Blogs

If you have a piece you think would fit our “tough, but you need it” guidelines, submit it to us at ffvp57@yahoo.com. Guidelines are as follows:

1. We will consider biblically accurate material which does not contain expressly Christian content. We may also accept material that is accurate historically and scientifically, but that is not expressly Bible teaching. We will not accept material that is in opposition to biblical truth and accuracy or that teaches false doctrine. This determination lies solely with us and is not negotiable.

2. Must be “meat,” not “milk.” We are not looking for “Bible stories,” a simple presentation of the Gospel or a “basics for believers” piece. These are excellent topics for a blog that deals with these subjects. Our focus is on edification leading to maturity.

3. Preference will be given to pieces that expose and oppose Secular Humanism in Science, History, Culture and churches, especially where people may not realize it exists.

4. We will consider movie and book reviews if the writer shows discernment in exposing the real philosophy of the work, not just a shallow list of objectionable elements or “positive themes.” The review must demonstrate biblical standards for marriage, personal relationships, true ethics and morality, good versus evil, and clearly show what is wrong and what is right in the work being reviewed.

5. Length is less important than excellent content, but shorter pieces will likely receive preference over longer ones. Blogs we have posted here vary considerably in length, but strive for the “two page gem,” edited down to the bare essentials of good writing and good content.

6. Accepted works may edited for length and then accepted if the author agrees to the edits. Promising works may be returned for one rewrite if spelling, grammar and/or punctuation do not meet the standards for basic educated English. We will not edit or point out errors for you, but we will look seriously at one good rewrite. If it fails the second time, it will be rejected.

Blog writers whose entries are accepted for publication here will receive a payment of $25 for a one-time, non-exclusive publication on Elk Jerky for the Soul. The author retains all rights to the work. Elk Jerky for the Soul asks only to be allowed to quote from the blog for informational or promotional purposes as long as the blog remains on this site.

<a href=”http://www.hypersmash.com/hostgator/&#8221; id=”TL576″>hostgator promotional code</a>

1 Comment

Filed under Writing, Reviewing, Publishing, and about Blogging

Who We Are and What We Believe

We are Michael and Mary Findley, Christian educators for over 30 years in many parts of the country. We have homeschooled, taught in Christian schools, directed Children’s Church ministries and taught Sunday School for adults and children. We have created videos for cable television, infomercials and public awareness videos, as well as teaching videos and 3D fiction productions. We graduated from Bob Jones University. Michael has a BA in Bible and an MA in Church History with postgrad coursework in Math, Science, Physics  and Computer Science. Mary has a BA in English.

We need to preface a statement of our beliefs by quoting from the Preface of our book Antidisestablishmentarianism.

A true open mind is founded in belief, faith and trust. The historic meaning of believe is to perceive or understand with the mind and then make an informed decision.2 The most basic use of the word believe which the average American would understand is that of a juror in court. Which witness do you believe? Which piece of evidence is believable? A synonym would be the word credible. When we believe something or someone and then act on that belief, that is faith. The active part of belief is faith. The passive part of belief is trust. Suppose your brother says that he will drive you to the doctor. If you believe him, then you understand what he says and you make a decision to get ready. If you get in the vehicle with him, that is faith. You act on your belief. When you sit in the vehicle as he drives, that is trust, a passive reliance on what you have proven true. You trust in his driving skills. You trust in the vehicle. You trust the roads, etc. Everything we do is a combination of belief, faith or trust. By restoring their historic definitions, belief, faith and trust re-emerge as the clear language of true experimental science. These terms were deliberately segregated from science to deceive people into believing Secular Humanism.

This explains what we mean by belief. Not opinion, not blind acceptance, but a conclusion or verdict based on tested evidence.

We believe the Scriptures are authoritative, a true foundation for right understanding in all areas of life. They are the basis of true Science, accurate History, and correct standards for life, conduct, and judgment.

Our church background is independent Baptist. (See the Blog post “Why I Am a Baptist” for details on this.) We have attended many different kinds of churches, as well as services at truckstop chapels, throughout the country. We have friends who come from nearly every denomination and have had discussions with Atheists, Jews, Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists, among others. In these discussions we have two rules: Be civil and be honest. When the speaker can’t meet these two conditions, the discussion is over.

We do not believe a person can pick and choose what to believe in the Bible or decide what to consider symbolic or literal. “When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense.” (Dr. D. A. Waite, Ephesians.) The Bible does use figures of speech and symbols. Jesus Christ is neither a lion nor a lamb, and He does not have a sword sticking out of his mouth. These are figures of speech and symbols. They do not make any part of the Bible less true or authoritative.

1 Comment

Filed under Bible Teaching, Current Issues, Politics, History

What’s Elk Jerky for the Soul?

Today we Christians hear many messages designed to make us feel better, and above all to be easy to digest (understand, absorb), like chicken soup. Much “feel good” Christian teaching is, however, not biblical.

I Corinthians 3:1 says, “And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ. I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able.”

Milk is good for babies. It’s easy to digest. Paul calls these “milk-drinking” Christians carnal. They shouldn’t be babies. They should have grown up by now. Today we have lots of carnal Christians subsisting on milk. We have based this blog on a passage of Scripture today’s “milk-fed” Christians might not know.

Hebrews 5:11-14: “Of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing. For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat. For every one that useth milk is unskillful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe. But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.”

The writer of Hebrews wants to teach his audience so much, but they are not concentrating and taking in the message. He says they ought to be teachers by now, but they’re back to being milk-drinkers. They need to learn the “first principles” all over again.

Here’s the key portion of the passage: “such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.” Elk jerky is about the “strongest” meat we could think of. That’s why it says in the banner, “It’s tough, but you need it.” Soldiers carving a victory out in time of war could pretty much live on jerky. It builds you up, but it’s kind of tough if you’re used to milk. Christians should understand that they are battling to carve out a victory for Christ. If you are a “milk-drinking” Christian, it’s time to get used to some elk jerky to feed your soul.

Do you really want to be “unskillful in the word of righteousness”? Don’t you want to be “of full age“? Are you really satisfied with what may make you feel good, but is designed for babies? Don’t you want to be one of “those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil”?

Use self-discipline. Push yourself to grow in Christ. Chewing elk jerky develops some physical muscle and strength. Disciplining yourself takes you out of the carnal Christian category and puts you in the “full age” or mature Christian category.

Our Findley Family Video Publications website states that our main purpose is to “Disestablish America’s Established Religion,” Secular Humanism. The blogs on this site are going to cover, a little more briefly and less colorfully, the areas in which Secular Humanism has taken over our world. You’ll find as you follow our posts that it’s taken over every area. History, Science, Culture, Education, Politics, and even the churches, are permeated with secularism.

We are in the Conflict of the Ages, fighting the Prince of this World and spiritual wickedness in high places. We need survival rations for that battle, something light, easy to carry, but packed with what you need to keep going and growing. That’s what elk jerky for the soul really is.

1 Comment

Filed under Bible Teaching, Current Issues, Politics, Excerpts from our Nonfiction Books, Writing, Reviewing, Publishing, and about Blogging