Evolution Exposed!

Compiled from the writings of David Brandt Berg


Most people today have been so deceived into believing that the theory of Evolution is true, that it never even occurs to them to question or doubt it! Even many so-called Christians automatically believe the “high priests” of the modern “sacred cow” of science and they swallow the lie of Evolution, ignorant of the Bible’s warning to “AVOID the PROFANE and VAIN BABBLINGS and oppositions of science FALSELY so called!” (1Timothy 6:20). This Scripture describes the theory of Evolution EXACTLY, for Evolution is NOT a true science at all!

The World has become so deceived, that Evolution is now referred to in most textbooks as “the Great Principle” of biology. But according to the dictionary, a “PRINCIPLE” means a “foundation TRUTH”, a “FACT”. But there is NO proof for the theory of Evolution! Therefore it must be believed by FAITH. Yet at the Chicago Darwinian Centennial in 1959 when Sir Julian Huxley addressed his speech to the congregation of 2,500 delegates, he said, “Evolution has no room for the supernatural…We all accept the FACT of Evolution… Evolution of life is no longer a theory. It is a FACT…the basis of all our thinking.” A “fact” that can’t be PROVEN, however, is NOT a fact! And in the following pages, we shall point out WHY Evolution is not a fact, but a mere THEORY instead.

At the core of Evolutionary theory is the big assumption that LIFE somehow arose from NON-LIFE by pure blind CHANCE. That “there simply `happened’ to be the right chemicals in the right place, in the right arrangement, it was just the right time and conditions, and then suddenly! Presto! Some unknown electro-chemical process took place and LIFE created ITSELF!” Evolutionists dogmatically assure us. But as Princetown University Professor of Biology, Edwin Conklin, said, “The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of the unabridged DICTIONARY resulting from an EXPLOSION in a printing shop.”

As for the so-called “simple cell”, from which the Evolutionists say all living creatures have evolved, “Look” magazine stated, “The cell is as COMPLICATED as NEW YORK CITY!” Evolutionist Loren Eisley likewise admitted in his book, “The Immense Journey”: “Intensified effort has revealed that even the supposedly simple amoeba is a complex self-operating chemical factory. The notion that it was merely a simple blob turned out to be, at best, a monstrous caricature of the truth!”

Can you imagine: A dictionary or a chemical factory…or New York City coming into existence by itself Poof! Without any assistance from an intelligent designer, planner or creator? Such is the “logic” of Evolution’s assumption that the infinitely complex “simple” cell accidentally came TOGETHER, then became ALIVE by blind, unguided chance! Commenting on this, the British biologist Woodger said, “It is simply DOGMATISM–asserting that what you WANT to believe, did in fact happen!”

According to the Bible, all of today’s plant and animal forms belong to FIXED SPECIES, of which each was individually created by God and has remained in its present form since Creation! Evolution, however, states that all life forms are constantly CHANGING and “EVOLVING” into different, “more advanced” life forms, and that therefore there really is no such thing as a set “SPECIES”, since all life forms are related, having evolved from the same basic ancestor, and are even now still in a constant state of change! So say the Evolutionary theorists!

This is in direct contradiction to God’s Word which states that God created all living creatures “after their KIND” and able to bring forth seed or fruit “after their kind.” (“Kind” is the King James Bible translation of the Hebrew word “min”, today translated more accurately as “species”.)

We have never heard yet, & they’ve never proved yet that any DOG ever became a CAT or a CAT a DOG! There are all kinds of dogs and all kinds of cats, but there are no dog-cats or cat-dogs! Because God created everything “after its own kind” and they can’t possibly get OUT of that kind!

These facts even disturbed Darwin, who questioned: “Why, if species have descended from the other species by fine gradation, do we NOT everywhere see innumerable TRANSITIONAL forms? Why is not all nature in CONFUSION, instead of the species being as we see them, well defined?” The answer to his question is simple! All he had to do was read Genesis chapter one, and he could have known that species have not descended from OTHER species, but were CREATED by GOD in orderly, set “kinds”, and THAT’S why all nature is not in confusion!

But some people question: “Haven’t the scientists working with genetics produced new species of hybrid plants and animals? Doesn’t this prove that entirely new species could evolve from interbreeding between different parent species?” No. The accepted definition among the scientific community of a “species” is: “A group of organisms that freely interbreed and produce fertile offspring.” The rare hybrids that can be produced are not “fertile offspring”, but are STERILE! As the Collegiate encyclopedia acknowledges: “The infertility of species hybrids is one mechanism by which species can remain distinct.”

God Himself has placed the barrier of sterility against the mixing up of His original appointed “kinds”. A good example of this is the MULE, which is a species hybrid between a male ass and a female horse. Although outwardly appearing to be a new species, or “kind”, it is impossible for a male and female mule to reproduce mule offspring. The only way is to continually cross a male ass with a female horse. That God-ordained biological principle was even verified by the Evolutionary professor of zoology, Richard B. Goldschmidt, who wrote, “Nowhere have the limits of the species been transgressed, and these limits are separated from the limits of the next good species by the unbridged gap, STERILITY.”

You might ask, “But what about the extensive RADIATION EXPERIMENTS that have produced actual MUTATIONS and CHANGES in creatures such as the fruitfly? Isn’t this ample evidence to prove that similar mutations could be the ‘chief building blocks of Evolutionary change’ as Sir Julian Huxley has called them, and as most scientists and educators today claim them to be?”

The answer to this is that though fruit flies have been the subject of countless experiments in which they are bombarded with radiation, resulting in many mutations, the mutations produce DEFORMITIES, only dwarfed bodies, shriveled wings etc.–They never produce a new “kind”! None of the many thousands of scientific experiments with mutations have EVER produced a new species of animal or plant!–NEVER! All of the geneticists and Evolutionists, with all their knowledge, and under “perfect” laboratory conditions…using modern radiation equipment (which multiplies the occurence of mutation a MILLION-fold), have utterly failed to mutate or to change one “kind” into another! They can’t even do it when they DELIBERATELY attempt to under IDEAL conditions! Yet these same Evolutionists SOMEHOW expect us to BELIEVE that blind, unguided CHANCE has produced the millions of beautiful, varying and complex forms of life on Earth today!

To illustrate the effect of gene mutations on an organism, H. Kalmus stated in his book “Genetics”, “A popular comparison would be with a watch; if a part of the mechanism is altered by some change, it is very unlikely that the watch will be improved by the accident.”

A clear-cut example of the negative effects of gene mutations occurred in HIROSHIMA and NAGASAKI, Japan, at the end of World War II. The members of the populace that escaped immediate death from the hellish atomic bombs used against these cities were subjected to varying degrees of atomic RADIATION resulting in thousands of mutations. NONE of these mutations produced any new superior, advanced forms of human beings as Evolution might lead us to expect. Instead, the poor victims of these gene mutations suffered deformities, damage & death!

Another crucial point is, if this complicated, fabricated framework of fiction called Evolution were TRUE, then there should be more MISSING LINKS dug up than anything else! Right? If billions of years of Evolution had taken place, we’d be up to our ears in missing links! But in over 13O years of archaeological and paleontological excavations, literally HUNDREDS of MILLIONS of fossils have been extracted from all fossil-bearing rock strata and NONE of them are “transitional forms” or missing links–they all obviously belong to a definite species! It is estimated that over 100,000 different, distinct species of fossils have been found and categorised! Yet NO “LINKS”!

A.S. Romer, professor of zoology at Harvard University, recently summed up the present situation when he said, “‘Links’ are missing just where we most FERVENTLY DESIRE them, and it is all too probable that the `links’ will CONTINUE to be missing.”

There are NO man-apes and NO ape-men, and all that baloney you read about and see pictures of in most biology textbooks is just hellish tommy-rot! Darwin claimed that “The Simiadae (monkeys) branched off into 2 great stems, the New World and the Old World monkeys; and from the latter, at a remote period, Man proceeded.” However, scientists soon found it impossible to reconstruct a halfway believable Evolutionary chain showing Man rising directly from the ape family, so they cooked up a new theory!

MODERN Evolutionists now claim that Man came not from the apes, but from a more primitive primate who was the common ancestor of both apes and Man! But as the prominent Evolutionists who wrote the book “The Primates” confessed, “Unfortunately, the early stages of Man’s Evolutionary progress along his individual line remain a TOTAL MYSTERY.” And as “The Scientific American” added, “The nature of the line leading to living Man remains a matter of PURE THEORY.”

Despite all this, most modern Evolutionists INSIST that Man descended from primates. To “prove” their theory, they point to the AUSTRALOPITHECINES (“southern manapes”) whose fossils have been unearthed in Africa in recent years, and they hail them as “the missing link”. A close look at the Australopithecines, however, reveals that they were not “human” at all! For example, their brains were only a THIRD as large as Man’s, yet some Evolutionists THEORISE that they were toolmakers, and therefore Men. But even this is highly disputed within Evolutionary circles! Famed anthropologist J.T. Robinson claims that the toolmaking was NOT done by these so-called “man-apes” at all, but by TRUE men. Evolutionist LeGros Clark warned: “There is NO certain evidence that they possessed ANY of the special attributes which are commonly associated with the human beings of today. Evolutionist R.L. Lehrman wrote: “Australopithecus” was merely an upright intelligent ape, not a man. The small braincase bearing heavy ridges over the eyes was like that of any ape.”

Next on the list is “PITHECANTHROPUS ERECTUS”, affectionately known as “Java Man” for short. He was “discovered” by Professor E. Dubois, follower of Ernest Haeckle (a German Evolutionist who concocted and was caught in several scientific frauds. Haeckle praised and perpetrated Evolutionary theory as a means by which he hoped to destroy Christianity and was the first to dream up the imaginary Evolutionary “Family Tree”.)

Little does the uninformed person realise that Java Man was “reconstructed” from only a small fragment of a skullcap, 3 teeth and one thighbone found over 5O feet apart in an old riverbed in Java! Neither do Evolutionists tell you that after the World had accepted this “link”, Dr. Dubois himself confessed that `Java Man’ was not a “primitive man”, but a giant, tree-walking GIBBON! Yes, after FURTHER STUDYING his fossils, Dubois came to the honest conclusion and announced with CERTAINTY that “Java Man” was merely an EXTINCT ape and NOT half-ape, half-man! He was NOT the “missing link” after all!

Next: The “PILTDOWN MAN” or EOANTHROPUS DAWSONI!: The “Encyclopedia Britannica”, 1946 edition reported: “The discovery which ranks next in importance was made by Mister Charles Dawson at Piltdown, Sussex, between the years 1911 and 1915. He found the greater part of the left half of a deeply-mineralised human skull, also part of the right half; the right half of the lower jaw carrying the first and second molar teeth. Amongst British authorities there is now agreement that the skull and the jaw are parts of the same individual.”

However, it was later found out that the resurrection of the Piltdown Man involved considerable “monkey business”! “Science Newsletter” tells us: “One of the most famous fakes exposed by scientific proof was Piltdown Man, found in Sussex, England…and thought by some to be 500,000 years old. After much controversy it turned out to be not a primitive man at all, but a composite of a skull of a modern man and the jawbone of an ape…The jawbone had been ‘doctored’ with bichromate of potash and iron to make it look mineralised.” The skull was taken from a Medieval graveyard! Even the teeth had been filed down to look older! As “Reader’s Digest” pointed out: “Every important piece proved a forgery. Piltdown Man was a fraud from start to finish!”

Since Evolutionists theorise that we evolved from the before-mentioned Australopithecines, they “logically assume” that these apes must’ve evolved into some brutish form of sub-human “Man” before becoming modern Man. And what would such a non-existent creature look like? Why, more or less HUMAN, but very hairy and with thick brows, walking with a stoop and very moronic-looking!–Just exactly what you’d EXPECT a “missing link” to look like!

So when scientists discovered some very ancient HUMAN SKELETONS in the Neander Valley in Germany, they immediately called it “Neanderthal Man” and “reconstructed” his body and appearance to comform to what they thought a sub-human “Man” SHOULD look like!

But “The Collegiate Encyclopedia” wrote: “Neanderthal Man is traditionally pictured as having a bull neck, knock knees, a stooped gait, and a rather bestial appearance. The TRUTH is that Neanderthal Man had NONE of these traits, he walked erect, and his appearance was as pleasant as that of contemporary Man!” In other words, “Neanderthal Man” looked just like US! And WHY? Because so-called “Neanderthal Man” IS modern Man! The World has been deceived into believing that the ancient human skeletons they’ve excavated were the remains of a more “primitive” Man, when they are ACTUALLY the remains of MODERN Man who lived long ago! But Evolutionists would never admit that!

The Encyclopedia continues: “A remarkable fact about Neanderthal Man is that in males, brain volume varied between 1,425 cc and 1,641 cc with an AVERAGE of 1553 CC. The average brain volume of MODERN Man is about 1350 CC. Thus, the average size of the brain in Neanderthal Man was SUBSTANTIALLY GREATER than it is in contemporary Man.” So to theorise that Neanderthal Man “was a more primitive, less intelligent subhuman species” is absolutely ABSURD!

Another disturbing problem for Evolutionists is that the remains of modern-type Man have been found in the SAME rock strata as the so-called “prehistoric” Men! Proving that Man existed at the SAME TIME as these upright apes as well as Neanderthal Man. Other remains of modern-type men found in a LOWER, OLDER layer than their supposedly more primitive “prehistoric ancestors” were unearthed in 1947 at Fonte Chevade, France. “The Collegiate Encyclopedia” states: “In `Fonte Chevade Man’ we have the evidence that Homo Sapiens (modern Man) actually PRECEDED Neanderthal Man in order of appearance.”

So here the Evolutionists have to admit that “Homo Sapiens”, normal modern-type human beings, were running around at the same time as the so-called Pithecanthropines, and before the Neanderthals–both of whom we are “supposed” to have evolved from! HA! In other words, Man DIDN’T descend from apes, but they CO-EXISTED at the SAME time as DIFFERENT, DISTINCT SPECIES! Man is the same NOW as he was THEN and these apes would be too, except that they have become extinct!

It takes more faith to believe Evolution–this incredible, fictitious, confused, self-contradicting fairy tale of Man’s origins–than it does to accept God’s simple, inspired explanation in His Word! What about YOU? What do YOU believe?–The TRUTH of GOD?–Or Evolution’s foolish fables?

Most people today don’t know WHAT to believe! They don’t know WHERE they’re going. They don’t have any focal point of reality and don’t know what life is all about or who they are, or if their being alive has any purpose or value! Since the devilish theory of Evolution has eroded the only sure foundation of Truth in their minds and hearts, they’re left with nothing to base their lives on.

If you want God’s plain simple TRUTH, all you have to do is humble yourself as a little child and ask Jesus to open your eyes and come into your life. This is why Jesus said, “Except ye be converted, and become as little CHILDREN, ye shall not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven!” (Matthew 18:3).

GOD is the only One Who can give MEANING to the Universe and PURPOSE to the planets and LOVE to our hearts and PEACE to our minds and REST to our spirits and HAPPINESS to our lives and JOY to our souls and the WISDOM to know that “the fear of GOD is the beginning of wisdom” (Proverbs 9:10), and “the wisdom of this World is FOOLISHNESS with God”! (1Corinthians 3:19). Jesus said, “If ye continue in MY Words, ye shall know the TRUTH, and the Truth shall make you FREE!” (John 8:32). Free from sin, self, hypocrisy and the damnable lies which deceive and delude so many! Like Evolution!


  1. The word “science” literally means “to KNOW”. Therefore, Evolution is NOT a TRUE science, because it canNOT be proven or “known”! Margaret Mead, the famed Evolutionist, said in the introduction to her book, “We as honest scientists must confess that there is NOT ONE IOTA of concrete evidence to support the theory of Evolution.”
  2. Evolution is merely a philosophical set of BELIEFS that must be accepted by FAITH. In seeking to explain the origin of the Universe, the World, and the origin and nature of Man, it is literally a RELIGION!
  3. Evolution is anti-God! HITLER used it as his excuse for NAZISM, and KARL MARX stated that “Evolution is “the CORNERSTONE of COMMUNISM!” “By their FRUITS you shall KNOW them” (Matthew 7:20), and Evolution’s “fruit” is godless regimes, war and death!
  4. GOD created the many forms of animal and plant life within definite, well-defined “species”, and as science has REPEATEDLY PROVEN–CONTRARY to Evolutionary belief–they cannot get OUT of their set species!
  5. Evolution claims that CHANCE MUTATIONS are “the basic building block of Evolutionary change”. Despite MILLIONS of tests, however, Evolutionists have failed to beneficially alter even a single fruitfly!
  6. Not ONE single “missing link” between Man and ape has EVER been found!
  7. Evolution claims that all of Creation is constantly evolving into more complex forms. This assumption, however, is directly CONTRARY to a universally accepted, PROVEN LAW of Physics known as THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS which states: “ALL processes (left to themselves) go toward a greater state of DISORDER, DISORGANISATION, DISARRANGEMENT and LESS complexity.”
  8. If you don’t believe that the Genesis account of Creation is historically accurate and divinely authoratative, neither can you trust the writers of the Old and New Testament who frequently QUOTED it nor even JESUS Himself, Who quoted it in Matthew 19:4-5! (See also Luke 16:31.) But the Bible IS true! GOD’S unfailing WORD! Therefore we canNOT believe the Devil’s lie of Evolution!–Amen?

Source: http://freebiblestudiesonline.org/evolution-exposed/

Treasures. Copyright (c) The Family International


Whose Fool Are You?

David Brandt Berg


Man can’t help but believe in God if he just looks at creation. If you have a reasoning mind, all you have to do is look at the creation to know that somebody had to design it, pattern it, and put it together and make it work as it does. It’s obvious when you look around you that all that didn’t just happen by accident. Somebody had to plan it and figure it out, because God’s beautiful creation works so beautifully, so systematically, so perfectly. God designed it; it’s created.

If you look at the sea, the sky, the clouds, the mountains, the valleys, the trees, the flowers, they’re all virtually shouting, “There is a God. Look what He made. Look what a beautiful world He made for you to live in!”

The Bible says, “The fool hath said in his heart, ‘There is no God’” (Psalm 14:1). Many people who claim they don’t believe in God actually do believe, but they’re in rebellion against God. They don’t want to know Him and they don’t want to confess that He exists, because if they do, then they have to recognize Him. And if they recognize Him, then they have to admit that they owe Him some kind of acknowledgment and obeisance and obedience.

The greatest proof of the existence of God is His creation. That’s why the theory of evolution is so damnable and ridiculous, because it tries to explain away creation by saying that it just happened by accident and it threw itself together.

“For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse” (Romans 1:20). His invisible existence is manifested or proven by the things you can see—His creation. The existence of our invisible God is proven by His visible creation.

That is why many people reject creationism and opt to believe in chaotic evolution. If the world and its inhabitants are God’s creation, then they’re His property—and if they’re His property, then He’s got the right to be boss—and they don’t want God to be boss. Therefore “they did not like to retain God in their knowledge” (Romans 1:28).

“Because that, when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools” (Romans 1:21–22). They decided that they could do without God and the Bible, and so they became absolute fools, who “changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man … Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator” (Romans 1:23, 25).

Evolution—the theory that it all just happened by accident, that it all just kind of fell together—is the hardest thing in the world to believe. Just as there had to be a watchmaker behind the synchronized perfection and order of every watch, so there had to be a Creator behind the synchronized perfection of the universe.

Evolutionary theory has become the general theme of modern so-called science. And yet, evolution has never been proven to be either a truth or a fact. There is no proof for evolution. It has to be believed. Even Charles Darwin himself, who developed this theory, confessed that “the belief in natural selection (evolution) must at present be grounded entirely on general considerations… When we descend to details, we can prove that no one species has changed … nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory.”

Some of those fossils that were supposed to be the missing links have now been debunked. Some were even confessed fakes, like Piltdown Man and Java Man.

“In the beginning, God,” not chaos, not some nebulous cloud of gases, but “in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” The first verse of the first chapter of the first book of the right book, the Bible.

“And God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them” (Genesis 1:27). Mankind didn’t look like some ape man or monkey, or some fish or bird. “And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul” (Genesis 2:7). Creation is the premise and preface and basic foundation of the entire Bible.

Evolution has no foundation in fact; there’s no evidence for it; no discovery has been made to prove it. The Bible prophesies that in the last days, “the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; and they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables” (2 Timothy 4:3–4). This time has come and these days are here, and their ears have turned from the truth and are turned unto fables—like evolution.

Do you believe in God? Look at the world, look at the beautiful trees, look at the flowers, look at the sea, look at the sky! Does God love you? You can see it and you can feel it in the beautiful world He’s given you to live in.

God is the only one who can give meaning to the universe and purpose to the planets and love to our hearts and peace to our minds and health to our bodies and rest to our spirits and happiness to our lives and joy to our souls and the wisdom to know that “the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom” and “the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God” (Proverbs 9:10; 1 Corinthians 3:19). Take Jesus and His truth today. God bless you.


Copyright © The Family International


The Heavens Declare

A compilation

free-bible-studies-online-anchorFor his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.
—Romans 1:20 ESV


Many years ago Sir Isaac Newton had an exact replica of our solar system made in miniature. At its center was a large golden ball representing the sun, and revolving around it were smaller spheres attached at the ends of rods of varying lengths. They represented Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars and the other planets. These were all geared together by cogs and belts to make them move around the “sun” in perfect harmony. One day as Newton was studying the model, a friend who did not believe in the biblical account of creation stopped by for a visit.

Marveling at the device and watching as the scientist made the heavenly bodies move in their orbits, the man exclaimed, “My, Newton, what an exquisite thing! Who made it for you?” Without looking up, Sir Isaac replied, “Nobody.” “Nobody?” his friend asked. “That’s right! I said nobody! All of these cogs and belts and gears just happened to come together, and wonder of wonders, by chance they began revolving in their set orbits and with perfect timing.”

The unbeliever got the message! It was foolish to suppose that the model merely happened. But it was even more senseless to accept the theory that the Earth and the vast Universe came into being by chance.

—Richard W. de Haan

Evidential faith

Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell me, if you have understanding.
—Job 38:4 ESV


There are evidences that establish the reasonableness of faith in God and His existence; yet His existence cannot be established by scientific demonstration. The Bible teaches that people must believe that God is. (Hebrews 11:6) Belief in the existence of God is not based on faith mixed with emotion. People can know that God exists. This knowledge is based on clear and sure revelation. On the other hand, belief in the existence of God is much more reasonable than a denial of God. Atheists claim to be scientific and rational in their denial of God. It can be seen, however, that they are neither scientific nor rational. Atheists have not proved mathematically, or by any scientific experiment, that God does not exist. The very fact that God is a Spirit (John 4:24) makes this line of approach impossible in the first place.

Not being able to prove or disprove the existence of God by scientific experiment can only be an argument against God’s materiality, not against His existence. There is nothing in the physical world that can disprove the existence of a spiritual being. To be able to disprove the existence of God, people would have to be present everywhere and know all things. If people could possess such powers, they would but demonstrate that they are God, for the possession of such powers is an attribute of Deity.

Faith is based on evidence. People can know that God exists, for the evidence indicates His existence.

—W. D. Jeffcoat


The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork. Day to day pours out speech, and night to night reveals knowledge. There is no speech, nor are there words, whose voice is not heard. Their voice goes out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them he has set a tent for the sun, which comes out like a bridegroom leaving his chamber, and, like a strong man, runs its course with joy.
—Psalm 19:1–5 ESV

His declaration

When Psalm 19:1 tells us that “the heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament showeth His handiwork,” what are the heavens it is referring to? It is talking about not just the atmospheric heavens but the sun, the moon, the stars and constellations. These all declare the glory of God; they glorify the Lord, and show how great and wonderful God is! To declare is to make a statement—the heavens make a statement! In other words, the heavens are showing the glory of God; they’re faithful witnesses to the glory of God.

The Psalm goes on to say, “Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night showeth knowledge.” The heavens declare God’s glory, so they glorify Him, because they’re His creation and they show how He made them. They also show His knowledge, the way He organized everything with such intricacy.

In Romans 1, the apostle Paul says that God’s handiwork, His creation, makes a statement: “Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath showed it unto them. For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world”—the invisible things of God, in other words, that there is a God, the fact of His existence even though we can’t see Him—“the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen.”

In other words, by the creation of the world, by looking at the physical creation, it is evident that there must be a Creator. “From the creation of the world these things are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse.” (Romans 1:19–20)

So if people keep an open mind and are willing to receive it, God’s entire creation is speaking and telling us that there is a God. When you look out at the beautiful creation all around us, you know there’s a God. It’s the greatest proof of His existence.

His whole creation is talking. The whole planet is practically yelling, “There’s a loving God who loves you and who created you and created all the world for you to enjoy, and He wants you to love Him!” So “there is no speech nor language where their voice is not heard.” (Psalm 19:3)

Wherever there is speech and language, wherever there are people, they should be able to hear the speech and the language of God’s creation, to tell them that there is a God who loves them.

—David Brandt Berg

Why is there something rather than nothing?

“The first question which should rightly be asked,” wrote G. W. F. Leibniz, is “Why is there something rather than nothing?” This question does seem to possess a profound existential force, which has been felt by some of mankind’s greatest thinkers. According to Aristotle, philosophy begins with a sense of wonder about the world, and the most profound question a man can ask concerns the origin of the universe. In his biography of Ludwig Wittgenstein, Norman Malcolm reports that Wittgenstein said that he sometimes had a certain experience which could best be described by saying that “when I have it, I wonder at the existence of the world. I am then inclined to use such phrases as ‘How extraordinary that anything should exist!’” Similarly, one contemporary philosopher remarks, “My mind often seems to reel under the immense significance this question has for me. That anything exists at all does seem to me a matter for the deepest awe.”
—William Lane Craig


Science supports the notion that the universe had a beginning and that something independent of the universe brought it into being. The well-accepted scientific belief in the universe’s origination and expansion and the second law of thermodynamics (energy tends to spread out) support the universe’s absolute beginning from nothing. This sounds remarkably like Genesis 1:1! The chances of a thing’s popping into being from literally nothing are exactly zero. Being cannot come from non-being; there’s no potential for this. Even skeptic David Hume called this “absurd”—a metaphysical impossibility.
—Paul Copan


Lord Kelvin (1824–1907), British inventor after whom the absolute scale of temperature is named, is known for his work on the first transatlantic telegraph cable and for formulating the Second Law of Thermodynamics. He said: “The commencement of life upon Earth certainly did not take place by any action of chemistry or electricity or crystalline grouping of molecules. We must pause, face to face with the mystery and miracle of the creation of living creatures.”

For myself, faith begins with a realization that a Supreme Intelligence brought the universe into being and created man. It is not difficult for me to have this faith, for it is incontrovertible that where there is a plan, there is intelligence. An orderly unfolding universe testifies of the truth of the most majestic statement ever uttered: “In the beginning God…”

—Dr. Arthur Compton (1892–1962, Nobel Prize winner in physics)


The most astounding thing God has ever done to show His existence to us is when He passed through the veil between heaven and earth and came to live among us as a man.
—Sue Bohlin


Copyright © The Family International. All Rights Reserved.


Where’s the Proof?

By David Brandt Berg


After all those millions of years of evolution, you’d think Earth would be ten feet deep in missing links and you’d find them every place you dug a hole, but it’s not and you don’t. There’s no conclusive evidence of evolution having happened.

Those who believe in evolution say, “It had to have happened because the only alternative is that God created things, and we don’t believe that. We can’t see Him, and we don’t believe in Him anyway—it’s irrational.” Well, they can’t see any evidence for evolution either, unless it’s some of the various hoaxes they’ve concocted and wild ideas they’ve dreamed up—that’s what’s really irrational!

On the other hand, there’s plenty of evidence for Creation—the Earth and everything in it! The beauty, the majesty, the complexity of life, the Earth, and the heavens could only have come from the Creator, not from random chemical interactions over millions or billions of years.


Darwin’s Missing Links

If life had evolved into its wondrous profusion of creatures little by little, then one would expect to find fossils of transitional creatures which were a bit like what went before them and a bit like what came after. But no one has yet found any evidence of such transitional creatures. This oddity has been attributed to gaps in the fossil record which gradualists expected to fill when rock strata of the proper age had been found. In the last decade, however, geologists have found rock layers of all divisions … and no transitional forms were contained in them.

—Niles Eldredge, “Missing, Believed Nonexistent,” The Manchester Guardian (November 26, 1978)


The reason for abrupt appearances and gaps can no longer be attributed to the imperfection of the fossil record as it was by Darwin when paleontology [the study of ancient life by means of the fossil record] was a young science. With over 200,000,000 catalogued specimens of about 250,000 fossil species, many evolutionist paleontologists … argue that the fossil record is sufficient.

—W.R. Bird, The Origin of Species Revisited (Nashville, Tn.: Thomas Nelson, Thomas Nelson Co., Nashville, 1991)


The universal experience of paleontology is that while the rocks have continually yielded new and exciting and even bizarre forms of life … what they have never yielded is any of Darwin’s myriads of transitional forms. Despite the tremendous increase in geological activity in every corner of the globe and despite the discovery of many strange and hitherto unknown forms, the infinitude of connecting links has still not been discovered and the fossil record is about as discontinuous as it was when Darwin was writing the Origin [of Species]. The intermediates have remained as elusive as ever and their absence remains, a century later, one of the most striking characteristics of the fossil record.

—Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (Chevy Chase, Md.: Alder and Alder, 1986)


First, and perhaps most important, is the first appearance of fossils. This occurs at a time called the “Cambrian.” The fossils appear at that time in a pretty highly developed form. They don’t start very low and evolve bit by bit over long periods of time. In the lowest fossil-bearing strata of all [the Cambrian], they are already there, and are pretty complicated in more-or-less modern form. This situation has troubled everybody from the beginning—to have everything at the very opening of the drama. The curtain goes up and you have the players on the stage already, entirely in modern costumes.

—Norman Macbeth, speech at Harvard University, September 24, 1983, quoted in L. D. Sunderland, Darwin’s Enigma (1988)


The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches. … A species does not arise gradually by the gradual transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and fully formed.

—Stephen Jay Gould, “Evolution’s Erratic Pace,” Natural History 86 (May 1977)


Intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic change, and this is perhaps the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory [of evolution].

—Charles Darwin, Origin of the Species, quoted in David Raup, “Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology,” Field Museum Bulletin (January 1979)


To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story—amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.

—Henry Gee, In Search of Deep Time: Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life (New York: The Free Press, 1999)


The creation account in Genesis and the theory of evolution could not be reconciled. One must be right and the other wrong. The story of the fossils agreed with the account of Genesis. In the oldest rocks we did not find a series of fossils covering the gradual changes from the most primitive creatures to developed forms, but rather in the oldest rocks, developed species suddenly appeared. Between every species there was a complete absence of intermediate fossils.

—D.B. Gower, “Scientist Rejects Evolution,” Kentish Times [England] (December 11, 1975)




External link: Darwin’s Missing Links

Copyright © Activated Magazine. All rights reserved.


Playing God?

By Maria Fontaine


Someone once wrote me with the question, “Is it right for medical science to ‘play God’?”

The case in point was a court case in the UK involving a pair of conjoined [Siamese] twins. If the twins were separated, the doctors involved told the twins’ parents, one would certainly die, but the other might survive; if they weren’t separated, they would both die. The parents abhorred the idea of sacrificing one child to save the other and believed that nature should be allowed to take its course. They opposed the separation, but their wishes were overruled in a highly publicized court case. The twins were separated. One died, and the other survived.

This case exemplified one of a growing number of moral dilemmas that people face as science and technology find new ways to sustain and manipulate life. Others include in vitro fertilization and related procedures such as pre-implantation genetic diagnosis, cloning, stem cell research, and euthanasia, also termed “assisted suicide.”

For anyone who knows me well, my response to the “playing God” question was predictable: “I don’t know. Let’s ask Jesus.” So I did. Here are excerpts of what He had to say:

It’s difficult to make across-the-board judgments in these matters. Each case involves many factors, and I look at people’s hearts. Many people make wrong decisions, but if they don’t know any better and if they make those decisions based on love or unselfishness or wanting to do right, I take that into consideration and judge accordingly.

By the same token, there are those who are motivated by selfishness or pride, or who have rejected the truth of God’s Word or the voice of their conscience. I hold those people fully accountable for their actions.

Those who choose wrongly, without knowing, will receive instruction, gentle reproof, and training when they pass over to the afterlife. Those who knew better are more accountable, and they will have to suffer more severe consequences.

In the past, most people believed in and trusted God. They knew that life and death were in His hands. This faith and understanding brought peace of mind. But in this day and age, because so many people do not believe in God or look to Him and Me for answers, they have lost their point of reference, and therefore they have no peace. It is this lack of faith, coupled with pride and independence, which robs people of the peace I could give them and causes them to take matters into their own hands, to “play God.”

Many people are sincere, but sincerely wrong. They want to do what’s right and think they are, but because they don’t ask for divine wisdom in the matter, they go far astray. Doctors, scientists, politicians, and judges may think that they know what’s best and that it’s their right to decide such matters, but they don’t and it’s not.

Wayward man, in forgetting God, is reaping the fruits of his own wrong living. I don’t fail, but because the wicked of this world refuse to receive the truth and be guided by My love, they fail.

The world is heading downward, moving toward an increasingly godless society where man’s system will make all the decisions based on so-called scientific evidence.

This is why it’s so important for people to hear these two messages: that God is love, and that they have a choice to do good or evil. These two messages could have a far greater positive effect on lives—and the world—than anything science or technology has or will ever come up with, because they are what put people in touch and in tune with God and enable them to make godly decisions. Then and only then can they be assured that they are acting as God’s agents, helping to carry out His loving plan in others’ lives, as well as their own.




External link: Playing God?

Copyright © Activated Magazine. All rights reserved.


God Was the First to Know!


Some say that the Bible is full of scientific inaccuracies, but the fact of the matter is that numerous truths about our world were in the writings that now make up the Bible hundreds or even thousands of years before science “discovered” them.

For example, it wasn’t until around the time of Christopher Columbus (1451-1506) that science established that the earth was spherical and hung in space, but the Hebrew prophet Isaiah wrote in about 700 bc that God “sits above the circle of the earth” (Isaiah 40:22). About 3,000 years before Columbus, it was written in the book of Job that God “stretches out the north over empty space; He hangs the earth on nothing” (Job 26:7). Also, when Jesus spoke of His Second Coming, He referred to a night scene (men sleeping), a morning scene (women grinding), and a midday scene (workers in the field) happening simultaneously (Luke 17:34-36). This, of course, is an in­direct reference to a spherical earth.

Galileo (1564-1642) was the first to “discover” that the number of stars is uncountable—a fact that has been clearly established by modern scientists, who now estimate the number of stars in the “billions and billions.” The Greek astronomer Ptolemy (100?–170 ad) had said there were 1056. Johannes Kepler (1571-1630) counted 1005. The Danish astronomer Tycho Brahe (1546-1601) counted 777. Twenty-two centuries before Galileo, the prophet Jeremiah said, “The host of heaven cannot be numbered” (Jeremiah 33:22).

In 1643, with the invention of the barometer, Evangelista Toricelli discovered a way to measure the atmospheric air pressure and thereby proved that air has weight. In what is believed to be the oldest book in the Bible, Job is quoted as saying that God “establishes weight for the wind” (Job 28:25).

Jet streams—the strong permanent high-altitude wind currents that have a major bearing on weather systems—were discovered by science in the 19th century. Nearly 3,000 years earlier, King Solomon wrote, “The wind goes toward the south, and turns around to the north; the wind whirls about continually, and comes again on its circuit” (Ecclesiastes 1:6).

The Bible also described the water cycle many centuries before it was clearly delineated by science. “He [God] draws up drops of water, which distill as rain from the mist, which the clouds drop down and pour abundantly on man” (Job 36:27-28). “All the rivers run into the sea, yet the sea is not full; to the place from which the rivers come, there they return again” (Ecclesiastes 1:7).

The true relationship between science and the Bible is perhaps best summed up in the words of British astronomer John Herschel (1792-1871): “All human discoveries seem to be made only for the purpose of confirming more and more strongly the truth contained in the sacred Scriptures.”


Copyright © Activated Magazine. All rights reserved.


Science and Miracles

By David Brandt Berg


The word “miracle” comes from the Latin word miraculum, “object of wonder.” So a miracle is something out of the ordinary that causes astonishment. We are astonished because it doesn’t follow the natural course of events that we are accustomed to, but everything God does is natural to Him. It’s miraculous to us, but it’s natural to God.

And the word “science” comes from the Latin scire, “to know” or “to discern.” You could say that science is the knowledge of God’s miracles, since everything God created is a miracle, far beyond our power or understanding. True science is knowledge that causes us to look at God’s creation and glorify God.

Knowledge that people have gained from observation of God’s miraculous creation is called scientific knowledge. Maritime knowledge is an example of this—knowledge of such things as tides and the flow of the oceans. This is simple science.

Scientists have discovered God’s natural laws of physics, chemistry, engineering, electronics, aerodynamics, and so on, through scientific experimentation, and then tried to put them into some useful form with inventions such as the telephone, the television, airplanes, automobiles, lasers, etc. Then many of those scientists praise themselves and take all the credit to themselves for having made whatever it is they made, when all they actually did was use God’s natural laws and materials and put them together. Well, they deserve some credit for figuring out those things, because it’s often quite a job!

“Invent” is derived from the Latin invenire, “to come upon,” which comes much closer to the truth than the modern meaning of invent: to create something new. People don’t actually create anything; they just discover, or “come upon,” things that God has already created or laws He has put into operation, and figure out how to use them to their advantage.

Some people use the term “scientific miracle” when something is such a scientific wonder that it causes them to look at it in amazement, but that doesn’t mean it is supernatural; it is merely science using God’s natural laws to accomplish a so-called miracle.

Take the airplane, for example. People have simply learned how to use God’s laws of aerodynamics to counteract His more apparent law of gravitation. But to someone who has never seen an airplane, it’s a miracle. The first time my grandmother saw an airplane, back in the early days of aviation, she shook her head and said, “There’s got to be a string attached to it somewhere!”

Television is another scientific marvel. Some very smart people figured out how to capture, broadcast, receive, and reproduce images and sounds via a combined electronic audio and video signal. Most people don’t understand how a TV works; they only know how to use it. So since it’s beyond their understanding, it’s a wonder to them, a so-called miracle.

People usually think of things that are beyond their comprehension as supernatural or miraculous, but they are not supernatural to God. They’re also not supernatural to the scientist who knows how to use God’s natural laws to make something wonderful.

Everything is natural to God. It’s like saying there is nothing impossible with God (Luke 1:37). A lot of things God does are beyond our power and grasp of things and what we consider natural, so when they happen we say they are supernatural. But with God nothing is impossible, so nothing is supernatural to Him!

When someone gets healed of an incurable disease, for example, we call it a miracle because we’re seeing the evidence or manifestation of some of God’s laws that we know nothing about. To God, on the other hand, it’s simple! He knows how to undo whatever damage the disease may have done and thereby creates what to us is a miracle—a supernatural act that is beyond our capabilities. We can only pray for Him to do it, and marvel at His power when He does.

The same is true of the miracles that are recorded in the Bible. When the Red Sea parted for Moses and the Israelites, it says, “The Lord caused the sea to go back by a strong east wind” that parted the waters and dried the naturally muddy seabed so they could walk over on dry ground. “And the waters were a wall to them on their right hand and on their left” (Exodus 14:13-31; Hebrews 11:29). That was some wind!

That was contrary to what we consider natural laws, but it was nothing for God. He can do such things easily because He can use laws that He doesn’t ordinarily use to supersede or overcome some of His other laws and bring about the desired outcome.

God doesn’t usually call into effect those laws that seem supernatural to us. He seems to reserve those for emergencies and extreme circumstances: to save and protect His people, to heal them, to supply their needs, and to care for them in other ways they may not even be aware of.

Science has to first of all discover God’s natural laws, such as the laws of motion or aerodynamics or electronics or whatever, and then make machinery to harness those natural laws and do seemingly supernatural things. But God doesn’t need any machines; He just does it!

People have to go to a lot of work to transfer a picture from a broadcasting source to a TV, but God can send a picture by His own natural laws—supernatural to us—by just thinking the picture and transferring it to our minds or even our natural vision.

I get a lot of solutions to practical problems that way. I often go to sleep thinking about a problem, wondering how I’m going to solve it, and then get the solution in the form of a dream or picture in the night. Sometimes I even get pictures in broad daylight. When I’m thinking and praying about a problem, I see God’s answer in the form of a picture.

It’s amazing what prayer can do when you get in tune with God. He sees it all and knows it all, and He can easily show you where some lost item is, or how to fix something or do something, or whatever you need. So turn on your receiver and look to the Lord for the answer, and He will give it. And of course He is also ready, willing, and able to work a miracle of healing, supply, protection, or whatever else we may need when we ask Him to in faith and claim the promises from His Word. To us that’s a miracle, but it’s nothing unusual for Him!


Copyright © Activated Magazine. All rights reserved.


Are Science and Faith Compatible?


“It is increasingly clear to modern science that the universe was exquisitely fine-tuned to enable human life. We are somehow critically involved in [God’s] purpose.
Our job is to sense that purpose as best we can, love one another, and help Him get that job done.”
—Richard Smalley (1943–2005), awarded the 1996 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for the discovery of fullerenes, the third elemental form of carbon. Smalley is considered the Father of Nanotechnology.


“If I had no other data than the early chapters of Genesis, some of the Psalms, and other passages of Scripture, I would have arrived at essentially the same picture of the origin of the universe as is indicated by the scientific data.”
—Arno Penzias (b. 1933), awarded the 1978 Nobel Prize in Physics for the discovery of cosmic background radiation—patterns that physicists have interpreted as showing that the universe was created from nothing.


“We’re just working with the tools God gave us. There is no reason that science and religion have to operate in an adversarial relationship. Both come from the same source, the only source of truth—the Creator.”
—Joseph Murray (b. 1919), awarded the 1990 Nobel Prize in Medicine and Physiology for his pioneer work in transplantology.


“A scientific discovery is also a religious discovery. There is no conflict between science and religion. Our knowledge of God is made larger with every discovery we make about the world.”
—Joseph H. Taylor (b. 1941), awarded the 1993 Nobel Prize in Physics for the discovery of the first known binary pulsar.


“When confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why the only possible answers are religious. … I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life.”
—Arthur L. Schawlow (1921–1999); shared the 1981 Nobel Prize in Physics for the development of laser spectroscopy.


“So many of my colleagues are Christians that I can’t walk across my church’s fellowship hall without tripping over a dozen physicists.”
—William D. Phillips (b. 1948), awarded the 1997 Nobel Prize in Physics for using lasers to produce temperatures only a fraction of a degree above absolute zero.


“I only trace the lines that flow from God.”
—Albert Einstein (1879–1955), awarded the 1921 Nobel Prize in Physics for his work in theoretical physics, especially the law of photoelectric effect.

Copyright © Activated Magazine. All rights reserved. Visit the website to subscribe.


The Emperor’s New Clothes

–The Naked Truth about the New Psychology

Excerpts from the book by William Kirk Kilpatrick
(Westchester, Ill: Crossway Books, 1985)
(William Kirk Kilpatrick is associate professor of educational psychology at Boston College. A graduate of Holy Cross College, he holds degrees from Harvard University and Purdue University. He is a popular lecturer on psychology and religion at colleges and universities around the U.S. Other books he has written are Identity and Intimacy and Psychological Seduction.)

The Emperor’s New Clothes

Psychology Masterclass
Psychology Masterclass (Photo credit: Birmingham City University)

As a short commentary on our capacity for self-delusion it’s hard to improve on Hans Christian Andersen’s story of the Emperor, the tailors, the little boy, and the suit that wasn’t there.
Like any good piece of mythology, the story has almost infinite application. But it seems to me it has a special application to our current veneration of psychology and psychologists.
Why? Well, because the story is essentially about bowing to expert opinion. It has to do with vanity, and conformity, and foolishness in high places as well; but mainly it’s about the folly of letting common sense take a back seat to expert knowledge. If you recall, the ploy used by the swindlers was to claim that the beautiful clothes could only be seen by those who were fit for the offices they held or who were very clever. They could not be seen by anyone who was unfit for the office he held or who was very stupid.
Who can blame the Emperor and his court for being duped? Most of us would much rather be thought very bad than very stupid. The Emperor, despite his vanity, is really a bit unsure of his judgment; so he sends his faithful Minister to check on the progress of the weavers. The Minister, despite his position, is likewise unsure of himself. And so on down the line. Each one thinks, I can’t see anything in this, but who am I to say?” Moreover, by the time the contagion reaches the public, the new enlightened view of clothes-making has the added authority of state endorsement.
Now I wouldn’t go so far as to say that psychology is completely naked–that is, completely devoid of truth. There is a solid and growing body of useful facts as well as useful theories and useful therapies coming out of the psychological community. We mustn’t forget that. But the greater danger, I think, is not that we won’t take psychology seriously, but that we take it too seriously. Because along with the respectable work just mentioned, there is also adrift in the psychological community an abundance of speculation, wishful thinking, contradictory ideas, prejudice, doubletalk, and ideology disguised as science.
In short, the psychological garment, while not completely imaginary, nevertheless has large holes in it. If we fail to notice these holes, it’s partly because psychology has achieved emperor-like status in our culture, and partly because all the clever people swear that it’s cloaked in handsomely woven ideas. If we are tempted to think, “I can’t see anything in this,” we are quick to remind ourselves, “but who am I to say?” Our confidence has been over matched by the force of expert psychological opinion.
The situation we are in concerning our mental health is similar to the situation we are in regarding our physical health. Given the years of training, sophisticated technology, and specialized vocabulary available to doctors, not many of us are inclined to question a physician’s diagnosis. The same sort of ultimate expertise now attaches to the psychological profession. And in some ways the psychologist’s position is even more secure. After all, if the physician makes a mistake–a faulty diagnosis or the wrong treatment–it soon becomes apparent. But mistakes on the part of the therapist are not as evident. If the client gets worse rather than better, it can be blamed on his own resistance or lack of motivation or some such thing. And if a theorist makes a mistake, it can go undetected for decades.
Despite the overlap between the two professions, however, there is still a basic difference between the physician’s expertise and the psychologist’s. The physician deals with bones and blood, muscles, organs, and nerves; the psychologist with moods and motivations, memory, thoughts and relationships. Or, to put it more directly, the physician’s subject matter can be touched and seen, even if sometimes only with the help of surgical instruments or microscopes. It’s another matter with the psychologist’s subject field. Who has ever seen an ego structure or an inner dynamic? Much of the psychological garment truly is invisible. Which is not to say there is nothing there–Christians, too, believe in many unseen forces–but rather to suggest that psychology, like Christianity, is partly a matter of faith.
Of course, most people don’t regard psychology as a form of religion but as a form of science. They are under the impression that all the theories and therapies are based on research and hard facts. In addition, most of us are somewhat awed by psychology’s alliance with the medical profession, and by its alliance with government. Most states have both a department of mental health and a department of social services. And the professionals who staff these bureaucracies have very similar training and views. Both bureaucracies have considerable powers of their own, and in conjunction with the courts their power is nearly absolute. When, in addition to all this power, we consider the prestige accorded psychology by the media, which seek out and amplify every psychological pronouncement or opinion, it is little wonder the average citizen falls into line. If the Emperor and his court insist that he is fully clothed, who are we to dissent?
Except that the subject matters at issue are those things closest to our hearts: our sense of right and wrong, our families, our happiness, our dreams, our purpose for living. Somehow we have been made to believe that psychologists know more about these personal things than we do. The long and short of the psychological revolution is that ordinary people are treated as amateurs in the matter of living their own lives. And the amazing thing is that ordinary people have accepted this professional judgment upon them.
Psychology purports to be neutral about values. It simply wants to help you make better choices. Exactly what those choices will be is up to you. Or so it seems. This cloak of neutrality makes it difficult to criticize the flaws in psychology or even to see them.
Is psychology neutral? Well, yes, in some respects. In some respects it is what it claims to be, a science and a profession. But if you care to look closely, you will find that in many other respects it looks suspiciously like a “liberal and progressive” movement. And that usually means anti-traditional and anti-religious.
It is suspicious, for example, that the supposedly neutral values espoused by clarification curriculums in our schools turn out to be a kind of basic training in relativism. In these classes, choice is elevated to the status of a virtue. In fact, there appear to be no other virtues. There are really no right choices or wrong choices in values clarification, just choices that make you feel comfortable or uncomfortable.
A study by Everett Ladd and S.M. Lippsets of the political beliefs of American academics disclosed that among their colleagues in the various disciplines, academics in sociology and psychology hold the most radical political views.
Once you get to know people in these professions, a pattern quickly emerges. It is the same pattern that distinguishes media professionals–that is, a strong preference for what is liberal and progressive, and a strong bias against what is traditional or religious. It shouldn’t be surprising, then, that the American Psychological Association requires its members to subscribe to a code of ethics that favors abortion rights, gay rights, and women’s rights (of the more radical variety). If this is neutrality, then, to paraphrase Shakespeare, neutrality should be made of sterner stuff.
I would suggest that there is something about the psychological mentality and approach which perpetuates and even aggravates the conditions it means to cure. Many ideas which had their start in the psychological community (or received a big boost from it) have now worked their way into the heart of society. I think it fair to say that many of them have wreaked havoc. The subjectivism and relativism of psychological thinking, the confusion about free will, the overemphasis on autonomy and self-acceptance, the denial of guilt, the neglect of and even hostility toward traditional and religious values, the lack of any meaningful system to replace these, the transmutation of virtues into hang-ups and perversions into preferences, the undermining of all forms of authority except psychiatric and bureaucratic–all have helped to bring our society to a crisis of catastrophic proportion.

Mixing Psychology with Christianity
C.S. Lewis once said that he preferred to take his Christianity in the same way he took his whiskey–straight. Since Christianity is strong stuff, there is always a temptation to water it down. But, as Lewis realized, the result of such dilutions is a weakened faith.
The current recipe for a Christianity that will travel more smoothly down the gullet calls for blending it with psychology. This mix has become extremely popular with Christian educators, since it seems to add a dash of relevance to the ancient faith. They think of it, of course, not in terms of a dilution, but in terms of the improved product that results when one metal is alloyed with another.
In any event, the practice of blending Christianity with psychology constitutes one of the major trends to have surfaced in American churches over the last thirty years. And it cuts across denominational lines. Catholics do it, Episcopalians do it, even (to paraphrase the old song) evangelicals do it. For example, not long ago a Boston-area priest ended his sermon by concluding that the purpose of Christ’s coming was to say, “I’m OK and you’re OK.” Similar messages abound in the new catechisms. Book Four of the Benziger series for Catholic schoolchildren states that Jesus … “was trying to show people how they could be themselves.” Book Eight seems to attribute most of Saint Paul’s success to his high self-esteem. A study guide for evangelical students goes to great lengths to assure the reader that Moses had a “good self-image.” In a recent book a leading Protestant evangelical redefines sin as “negative self-image.” And religious educators in both Catholic and Protestant circles seem exceedingly anxious to rework Christian ideas on moral growth in order to make them compatible with the schemes proposed by psychologists.
Although there is room for some accommodation between Christianity and psychology, there are some areas where it is clearly a matter of either/or. Either the psychologist is right or the Christian is right. Both can’t be.
In such cases, attempts to reconcile Christianity to psychology will actually have the effect of undermining the Christian point of view. The most obvious example of this undercutting is provided by the psychological emphasis on self-acceptance. Although there are many kinds and types of psychological theories and therapies, this remains a prevalent theme. It is very nearly the First Commandment of the psychological society that we should accept ourselves as we are. We are urged to greater self-awareness on the happy assumption that we will like what we find. We are, as the saying goes, OK. We just have to learn to be ourselves.
In contrast, Christianity starts off by saying that we’re not OK the way we are. There is something wrong with us–a twist in our natures. And the twist is not removed by liking yourself, but by starting to live in Christ. There are plenty of reasons why Christians ought to be happy about themselves, but those reasons are linked to the fact that we’ve been rescued from the fate of just being ourselves, and they have very little connection with psychological rationales for self-love. Christians are not supposed to facilitate the growth of the old self. They’re supposed to give it up and put on a new self.
The main practical effect of this psychological infiltration has been a lowering of the consciousness of sin among Christians. In the Catholic Church, for example, there has been an enormous falling off of the practice of confession over the last twenty-five years. Like everyone else in the psychological society, Catholics have learned to accept themselves. Although this may be good for the ego in the short run, it might be unfortunate for the soul over the long run, since Christ came to save sinners, not self-actualizers. Just as a rich man has a difficult time entering Heaven, so does the fellow who knows nothing but psychological adjustment and self-esteem. Both types are insulated from the saving knowledge of how desperate the human condition is and how utterly dependent they are on God. C. S. Lewis said that “Christian religion is in the long run a thing of unspeakable comfort. But it does not begin in comfort; it begins in dismay, and it’s no use at all trying to go on to that comfort without first going through that dismay.” This kind of necessary dismay, however, is precisely the thing that the psychological society, with its encouragement to self-esteem and self-sufficiency, is designed to preserve us from.
Most psychology is relentlessly reductionistic. It is in the business of reducing things to a size where they can be examined with psychological calipers or fit into psychological categories. For example, a psychoanalytically trained psychologist will tend to look at a great painting not as a reflection of man’s search for the Good and the Beautiful, but as a sublimation of the sex drive. In a similar way, when a behavioral psychologist looks at a man offering worship to God, the only explanation he can supply is that the man has been conditioned to act that way. The reductionist world view does not leave much room for the Christian view that some things are sacred and therefore on an entirely different level of being. The psychological mind is more comfortable with reducing everything to the same level.

On Serving Two Masters
Much of the content of humanistic psychology derives from the central assumption that man is good and has no inclination toward evil. Selfishness, aggression, and other undesirable behaviors are blamed on man’s environment, not on man himself. The biblical notion that man is weakened by sin is either implicitly or explicitly rejected by most psychologists of this persuasion. Erich Fromm, for example, states that his psychology would be untenable if the doctrine of original sin were true.
Unlike the Christian view, the psychological one fails to distinguish between physical or existential goodness and moral goodness. Man is simply good as he is. As a consequence, much stress is laid on simply being oneself and accepting oneself. This self-acceptance is encouraged without regard to any prior transformation of the self, meaning, of course, that the need for repentance, for forgiveness, for baptism, or for God’s grace are all nullified at the outset. Tied in with this concept is the standard humanist notion that man is perfectible and can achieve this perfectibility through his own powers. In the language of human potential psychology, people are either “self-actualized,” or “self-determined,” or “self-fulfilled.” (Abraham Maslow, The Farther Reaches of Human Nature [New York: Viking Press, 1971], p.7)

The Cross Is Rendered Unintelligible
This very broad broom sweeps away a few more Catholic/ Christian dogmas. Since man can perfect himself without God’s help, and since there is very little wrong with him in the first place, Christ’s sacrifice on the cross becomes both unnecessary and unintelligible. Sacraments, likewise, are rendered unnecessary as means of grace, and come instead to be looked upon merely as celebrations of human virtue. Prayer also becomes an activity of dubious merit within this framework. And the Christian practices of self-denial and sacrifice can only appear as obstacles to growth. In humanistic psychology, man achieves fulfillment by satisfying his wants, not by denying them. Other Christian virtues such as obedience and conformity to God’s will are difficult to reconcile with the humanistic emphasis on self-will and autonomy. Where the psychological model prevails, these virtues will tend to be slighted or ignored even by Christian educators.

Objectivity of Truth Denied
Another stock ingredient in humanistic psychology is subjectivism. The idea of a common truth to which all are bound is seen as an encroachment on freedom. Hence, the only truths are personal truths. This attitude explains why humanistic therapies are invariably nonjudgmental, and why humanistic education is geared in the direction of having students create their own values. Moreover, since the humanist has no objective criteria for choosing values, he has to rely on instincts. When an activity feels as though it is valuable or worthwhile,” writes Carl Rogers, it is worth doing.” (Carl Rogers, On Becoming a Person [Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1961], pp. 90, 91)
All of this is, of course, very much in keeping with modern sentiments, but it is difficult to square with Catholic and Protestant belief which maintains that truth is both objective and unchanging, and that the most important truths (the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Redemption) come to us through divine revelation rather than self-revelation.

The Sense of Sacredness Must Be Restored
Now in many respects, teaching Catholic/Christian faith is more like teaching a physics class than a social studies class. It has to do with immutable laws. One does not decide upon the validity of divine truths by the group discussion method any more than one uses that method to decide upon the point at which water boils.
In other respects, teaching Christianity is like teaching poetry or folklore or myth. Memorization–the storing up of wisdom–is called for. In still other respects, it is like a class in gym or dance: the muscles need to be trained as well as the mind; the proper movements and steps have to be practiced over and over.
But finally, of course, faith is literally like nothing else on earth. The church is at once our supernatural mother and the Bride of Christ, and God our Father dwells in unapproachable light. These mysteries can only be approached in an atmosphere of reverence and humility. The atmosphere of free inquiry and self-concern simply won’t work.

Why the Secular Needs the Sacred
At the time of the U.S. Supreme Court’s deliberations over the legality of Christmas creche displays, ABC’s Nightline” interviewed, among others, Father Robert Drinan and the mayor of Pawtucket, Rhode Island, the city where the issue first boiled over onto the national scene.
Father Drinan worried about the trauma and mental anguish such displays cause to little boys and girls who are not Christian. It was a case, said he, of the arrogant majority imposing its values on a minority, and it shouldn’t be allowed to happen in a pluralistic society. The mayor of Pawtucket, on the other hand, was in favor of a Christmas display, but took pains to downplay its religious nature. The manger scene, he said, had become a tradition in Pawtucket, and people should be allowed to keep their traditions. If you look at it in the right way, suggested the mayor, it’s not really a church/state problem at all.
It’s understandable that he would take such a tack. This is a pluralistic society, after all. And indeed his argument is quite typical. Many attempts at defending the church” side of church/state issues are framed in similar terms. It’s either a defense (we’re not really trying to influence anyone else”) or a demand (Christians have a right to educate their children in their own way”). Unfortunately, neither approach gets at the main source of resistance to the religious side of such questions, because the main problem is not hostility toward religious practices (though there is plenty of that) but indifference. A great many people have come to the conclusion that as far as the everyday functioning of society is concerned, religion doesn’t matter one way or the other. So why rock the boat? In other words, there exists a widespread assumption that the secular can get along without the sacred. From this point of view, religious beliefs may be seen as nice and commendable, and even helpful, but they are not seen as necessary to leading a good life or having a good society. Many Americans seem to believe that a secular culture can maintain morality without a sacred core. And so, if a Christmas scene offends, it’s better to pluck it out and replace it with a nonoffensive Santa. If the creche is nothing more than a nice tradition, it’s not worth the fuss.
The mayor might have had more effect on this indifferent mass if he had said what he probably really thinks: cut out the creche and you cut out the heart of Western civilization. And he would be right. The sacred view of life is not simply an alternative within society; it is indispensable to society. To step away from it is to step into the void.
What does the sacred do for the state? The brief answer is simply that it makes sense out of life–a service the state cannot perform for itself, and yet without which it cannot exist.
This is hardly a new argument, but it is one that is not often used. Although it can be sensed or intuited by the simplest folk, it cannot be easily put into words. Nevertheless, it’s worth trying. Dostoyevsky puts the matter in its most direct formulation when he has Ivan Karamazov say: If there is no God, everything is permissible.” Dostoyevsky meant this not as a figure of speech, but as something akin to a mathematical axiom, something along the lines of if a triangle has one right or obtuse angle, its other two angles must be acute.”


Outlook © The Family International. All Rights Reserved.


Does HIV Really Cause AIDS?

By Celia Farber

SPIN Magazine

Peter Duesberg
Peter Duesberg (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Over five years ago, Berkeley biologist Peter Duesberg stunned and infuriated the scientific community by insisting that the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) does not cause AIDS. He was so certain, he said, he would volunteer to be injected with it.
Duesberg’s critique of the HIV-AIDS theory began with the observation that HIV is a latent, inactive, and barely present virus. This virus, he said, which infects only an insignificant amount of immune cells, could not possibly explain the total immune devastation seen in AIDS, and he claimed that something else, possibly the widespread use of recreational drugs, chronic promiscuous male homosexual activity, parasitic infections or malnutrition must be the real culprits.
Over the years, his has not been the only voice of dissent in the HIV debate, but it has been the loudest, most persistent and most credible one.
Who is this man that dares to challenge the entire medical establishment, & has offered to be inoculated with the HIV virus to prove that it does not cause AIDS? Dr. Duesberg has been a molecular biologist at the University of California at Berkeley since 1964, a member of the prestigious National Academy of Science, one of the world’s most respected retro-virologists and is the first person to draw a genetic map of a retrovirus.
Impressed? Many of the members of the medical research establishment once were before he opposed their pet theories about HIV & AIDS. They now call him an academic jerk, & refuse to continue the funding for his research after 22 years of continuous support.
If Duesberg is right, the federal medical establishment is wrong. And if their seven-year old hypothesis that the HIV virus causes AIDS is wrong, thousands more will become the ultimate victims of what Duesberg believes is a co-factor associated with drugs and/or malnutrition. “Duesberg is a thorn in the side of the establishment for the simple reason that he”, as one of his colleagues said, “probably knows more about retroviruses than any man alive.”
In the last two years, with intensity and attention that ebbs and flows, the scientific community, media and AIDS community have been embroiled in an often confused and visceral catfight over Duesberg. As one of the most controversial figures in AIDS, he is both admired and scorned, depending on whether you’re willing to entertain the possibility that he is right.
Duesberg’s critique of HIV is massive, and in parts complex, and although several scientists have taken a stab at debunking him, he says none have succeeded.
Meanwhile, the “implications” of his critique have been frowned upon by journalists and health care workers alike, who insist that Duesberg is irresponsible “for confusing the public” and discouraging AIDS patients from taking the anti-HIV drug AZT. Dr. Duesberg says that AZT, which is a chemical therapy which allegedly combats AIDS, was developed exclusively to kill bone marrow cells & lymphocytes, the only known result of which is to terminate life.
Concerning the use of AZT against AIDS, another respected scientist, Dr. Robert Root-Bernstein, who is a professor of physiology at Michigan State University, said the following: “AZT is like any chemotherapy, for example those that are used for treating cancer patients. I use an analogy which I think is quite accurate, which is the following. It’s like having rats in your barn. You go into the barn and you set fire to the straw to drive the rats out and then you hope you can put the fire out before the barn goes up in flames. That’s the risk you’re taking whenever you do cancer chemotherapy and AZT is the same way. In the long term it’s not going to save anybody.” In other words, if the HIV virus does not kill you, which is debatable, AZT surely will.
At the peak of his frustration over Duesberg, Dr. Robert Gallo, a leading AIDS researcher who claims to be the co-discoverer” of HIV, but who in an ironic twist of events has seen his reputation tarnished lately, blurted out that Duesberg’s theory, and his emphasis on alternate causes, is …”cock and bullshit…,” and assured the public that HIV killed like a truck.” Dr. Mathilde Krim sighed and told SPIN: “It’s true, we cannot prove that HIV causes AIDS, and Dr. Duesberg cannot prove that it doesn’t. That’s science.” To this Duesberg responded, “You can never prove a negative, but you can prove a positive. And those that claim the credit for the discovery of HIV as the cause of AIDS–those who sell test kits, who treat AIDS with AZT, which is in itself very dangerous–carry the burden of the proof. Not those who ask, ‘where is the evidence?'”
Eventually, things started to change, slowly at first, and then in big sweeps. Today, researchers are quoted regularly saying that “co-factors seem to be necessary in the development of AIDS.” Gallo himself came up with a new herpes virus that he said worked in conjunction with HIV and which explained the loss of T-cells, clearly not brought on by HIV.
In January this year, the New York Times reported on its front page that one of the three major AIDS diseases, Kaposi’s Sarcoma, is not caused by HIV, but by an as yet unidentified infectious agent. Researchers had arrived at this by studying men with the cancer who had no trace of HIV. People with KS were now told that they may not have AIDS at all. Researchers were quoted as saying that they always wondered about this,” and needed to keep an open mind,” apparently forgetting that Gallo and other scientists wrote elaborate research papers demonstrating how HIV causes Kaposi, even though it has never been found in the cancer.
AIDS started with Kaposi’s Sarcoma, appearing primarily in gay men, and eventually afflicting nearly half of all gay men with AIDS. Today the figure is 21 percent of AIDS classified cases in gay men. How many people have been put on AZT for a disease which now, 10 year later, is said not to be AIDS but a whole new sexually transmitted disease”?
All of a sudden, the HIV theory isn’t so solid. Here is a new agent, not a virus, that is also capable of causing what appears to be AIDS. The tragic question is how many lives could have been saved had the AIDS establishment been open to other theories and alternative research from the beginning?
Another blow that shook the HIV establishment was the 70,000-word expos on “Dr. Gallo, co-discoverer” of HIV, published late last year in the Chicago Tribune. The piece, which detailed, among other things, how Gallo may have stolen credit for the discovery of HIV from Dr. Luc Montagnier in Paris, triggered a long overdue skepticism in the people who are running AIDS  research.
The article, which apparently took two years to complete, struck so hard that Congress has launched a full-scale investigation into the allegations of scientific fraud and misconduct of Gallo and his lab workers. Issues were raised in the article that, “if proven true, are professionally unacceptable at best, and illegal at worst,” said a spokesman for Congressman John Dingell’s Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.
It is ironic, against this backdrop, that Duesberg has been singled out as the black sheep of AIDS research. We caught up with him in his UC Berkeley lab, where he worked intently through the weekend, clad in white and peering through plastic safety glasses at strips of rubbery DNA gells, glowing pink on an ultraviolet lit table. His manner is bubbly for a scientist, and he speaks with a distinct German accent. The phone rings regularly, and Duesberg darts back and forth between the phone and cutting blocks of DNA from his slab of gel. Finally, he settles down and we have this talk:

SPIN: Since our first interview two and a half years ago you’ve taken a lot of heat. Are you still as convinced as you were then that HIV is not the cause of AIDS?
Yes, more than ever.
 Now that it has been reported that one of the most common AIDS diseases, Kaposi’s Sarcoma, is not caused by HIV, do you think this is a breaking point in the HIV debate?
No, I’m sure they will recover and say there are two types of Kaposi’s Sarcoma or that it’s a cofactor, or something.
It’s unbelievable what information you can feed 250 million Americans, provided it comes from the “right” sources. Even the science writers don’t criticize, don’t ask questions: They just follow every little move the AIDS establishment makes. What’s worse is that the HIV establishment–which couldn’t get enough of saying how “off the wall” I was, how “pernicious,” “dangerous,” “irresponsible,” “attention-seeking,” “leather-jacketed,” “homophobic,” “homosexual,” all of these words, for, among other points, questioning how one of the major AIDS diseases, Kaposi’s, is caused by HIV–these same people are now saying that for years they have wondered about this.
So they said that the immune deficiency caused by HIV paved the way for this process to take place?
Well, that is the major implication, which I have challenged all along. That is one of the biggest misconceptions in that field to begin with. Cancer is not caused by immune deficiency. That theory essentially died with a little animal called the nude mouse. The nude mouse doesn’t have an immune system, so if that theory were correct, the nude mouse would get cancer all the time. But it doesn’t have any more cancer than the rest. That’s why immuno-therapy against cancer has never worked.
Immunotherapy against cancer was a favored hypothesis by big minds–like George Klein, who in his keynote speech at the AIDS conference in Stockholm called me a “charlatan.” He wrote that in the Journal of AIDS Research as well, but I wrote a letter asking him to retract unless they could prove that I am a charlatan. I am trying to claim damages for this, you see. The queen of Sweden was there at the conference, and she hasn’t talked to me since. She never talked to me before either, but who knows? Maybe she would have.
But back to the other issue: with Kaposi’s Sarcoma gone, we should have a new definition of AIDS again, shouldn’t we? All this time the HIV-AIDS hypothesis proponents have only asked how HIV causes KS. Now suddenly they’re quoted for wondering whether the cancer is caused by HIV. I raised this question persistently. How can they be justifying AZT treatment, which was solely based on the virus hypothesis, if they don’t know what the cause is? How can that be justified, if all of these people in one stroke changed their minds after one paper?
You said that Dr. Luc Montagnier [discoverer of HIV] has said that you are essentially right. Tell me about that.
That’s right. I’m currently in a debate with him in the Journal of Research in Immunology. They’ve asked me to debate the cause of AIDS with him in what they call a mutual interview. He hasn’t responded yet, but I heard from two sources, one from the NIH, that Montagnier told John Crewdson [author of the Chicago Tribune expos on Gallo]  that he agrees with me–that the virus is not sufficient to cause AIDS.
   It says that you have …”outraged health-care workers by suggesting that AIDS patients abandon treatment with drugs meant to control the virus, and by claiming that, in fact, heterosexuals need not use condoms or change their sexual practices.”
Yes, I mean, I have said there is no proof that HIV is the cause of AIDS, and it’s just a hypothesis which I consider unlikely on top of it, but certainly it’s not more than a hypothesis. Why should I give this hypothesis preference over the hypothesis that we’re going to be invaded by Martians next week? Why shouldn’t we spend money in building an interplanetary system to protect us from the Martian invasion? I think I have the same right to call them irresponsible for not participating in this interplanetary defense system to keep the Martians out of this planet.
No, seriously speaking, why doesn’t anybody think they are irresponsible for giving AZT when they don’t even know what it’s doing–when they don’t know if the virus is causative, or even if it is, how AZT could be working against an inactive virus. Here they are involved in scientific fraud charges–Gallo, Baltimore and others–and I’m the one who gets called “irresponsible” all the time.
And what about the activists? How do you feel when they say that you’re “homophobic” for saying that AIDS could be caused by environmental or behavioral factors? Are you in fact, making a moralistic judgment on gays when you say this?
I want to know what homophobic means, actually.
That you have an intrinsic distaste for gay people, and you’re biased by that.
But homo” means human. Intrinsic distaste for humans?” I mean, I feel that way a lot lately, I guess. (laughs)
No, but seriously, how do you respond?
Well, if I were so homophobic, why would I care how they die? If I wanted them to die, I would promote Fauci and Broder’s AZT therapy program. I don’t think they are logical. If I were homophobic, I would say HIV causes AIDS and they’re spreading it, wouldn’t I? Nothing is more homophobic than saying AIDS is caused and spread by this virus.
Outlook © The Family International. All Rights Reserved.

%d bloggers like this: