web metrics

Contrary to popular belief, scientific revolutions do not arise because men are presented with a truer theory or better explanation, or even better evidence. Scientific revolutions come about because the old guard dies off and the new order takes over. In a sense, old ideas are “killed off” by the new ones. Outside of Christ, man's only hope for immortality is to leave behind him something more enduring, something of lasting fame or reputation; and since the names of men are attached to the ideas they originate, one could say that the originator of the new order “killed” the originator of the old. Let us illustrate with the early stages of the Copernican Revolution.

The death of Copernicus

It is up to each new theory to prove itself superior to the accepted theory. So it is that the theory of geocentricity must prove itself to a scornful world. Significantly, the theory of heliocentrism violated this rule. Copernicus, Kepler and Galileo all argued that heliocentrism should be accepted on philosophical grounds alone, without any scientific proof. This is what got Galileo in trouble with the Catholic church: he insisted that heliocentrism be accepted as truth without any proof of its truth. For the first 180 years of its life, there was absolutely no evidence for heliocentrism and, indeed, all the evidence supported the geocentric model. A touch of hypocrisy, there? Certainly, but as we shall see shortly, such is not surprising.

Now Copernicus, who published his heliocentric theory in 1543, was ”killed” by Kepler. What do I mean? No, I don't mean that Kepler literally murdered Copernicus; after all, Copernicus died before Kepler was born. What I mean by “killed” is that Kepler's theory replaced Copernicus's theory. Specifically, Copernicus did not place the sun at the center of the universe but, instead, placed the center of the earth's orbit at the center. So Copernicus still needed epicycles in his theory. By placing the sun at the focus of an ellipse, Kepler removed one of Copernicus's remaining epicycles. The resulting model was no longer that of Copernicus but now was that of Kepler. Kepler had “killed” Copernicus.

In turn, Kepler was “killed” by Newton as the latter formulated gravity and thus explained Kepler's Laws. Finally, Newton was “killed” by Einstein. Now physicists are looking for places where Einstein's theory fails so that the originator of a new and improved theory can “kill” Einstein.

The God of reason and the birth of science

Science is uniquely as Western creation: more specifically, it is a Judaeo-Christian creation. Yet to read most modern books, one gets the impression that science is new, that it was unheard of before Galileo. Indeed, one is left with the notion that science is only possible on an atheistic foundation. Exactly the opposite is the case. Early science was designed to find evidence of God and his truths in the creation. The Association's "Tulip" paper is an example of this kind of science as it finds the gospel in the form and function of a tulip. Early science had God up high in his heaven: eternal, omniscient, and omnipotent; and man was a temporal, fallible, weak creation.

Originally science was based on Isaiah 1:18-20, where we read these words:

Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool. If ye be willing and obedient, ye shall eat the good of the land: But if ye refuse and rebel, ye shall be devoured with the sword: for the mouth of the LORD hath spoken it.
It was thought that a God who would reason would create a reasonable universe and that such a universe would yield up its secrets to reason. Science was based on the Bible because both the Bible and the universe were created by a reasonable God. None of the African gods, none of the Asian gods, indeed no other gods of any peoples are reasonable. Even the Greek gods were capricious and malicious. Their actions were emotional, not reasonable. Their worship services are emotional, without any reasoning, but consisting entirely of feelings. Of all the religions of the world, and of all the gods and goddesses which men worship, none was reasonable. Only the God of the Old Testament (Judaeo) and New Testament (Christian) stressed reason.

Neither are the creations of those peoples reasonable. Consider the Egyptians of the time of Moses. Their scholars studied the stars and speculated on the origin of the universe just as scholars do today. Yet they could not agree, even as scholars do not agree today. One group thought that the earth and the heavens were made out of pulp and that men evolved from the slime of the Nile River. The other group thought that the earth had been hatched from an egg with wings. (Thence the "cosmic egg.")

The Hindu account of creation is equally unreasonable. According to it, many millions of cycles ago, this earth came to be as a flat, triangular plane, with high hills and mountains, and with great seas. It is built of several stories, all of which rest upon the heads of elephants whose tails are turned out and whose feet rest on the shell of an immense tortoise. In turn, the tortoise stands on the coil of a great snake; and when the elephants get restless and shake themselves, then the earth quakes. Neither of these theories fit the observations then any more than they fit what we know today. Why do they persist to this day? Well, if the gods who created the cosmos are not reasonable, why should their creation be reasonable? Only the God of the Jews and Christians was reasonable, and only his account of creation is reasonable. All else is superstition (Acts 17:22).

Beyond reason

For centuries the reasoned base for science persisted, but all that started to change about the twelfth century. Man created universities, and as started to explore the earth and encounter other cultures. He started looking at the universe as his own creation instead of as God's creation. For hundreds of years the humanists, whose outlook of life was neither Christian nor Jewish, but Greek, bided their time in the hierarchy of the Roman church until they could break loose and free themselves from its oppression. The only power was to be had through the offices of the Pope of Rome.

The humanists, then as now, are ever backward looking. They hope to recapture the glory that was Rome, the glory that was Greece. They try to work their way back to the Garden of Eden. But the garden is closed; and the civilizations that were Greece and Rome are abominations to God, and their glories are myths carved in stone.

It was the humanist influence which throughout the Dark Ages,( also known as the Middle Ages,1) introduced and preserved a slew of superstitions into of the Roman Catholic church in particular and Western culture in general. True science could barely hold its ground against humanism. With Wycliffe's publication of the Bible in the popular tongue, men had free access to the words of God, free access to the truth. Men took those words quite literally, and they placed God and his words, his Holy Bible on a pedestal far above their very lives. For the next 350 years the light of the scriptures shone forth in increasing power, dispelling the darkness and giving birth to the Philadelphian church age. With it came a renewal in science, but in the confines of the Roman Catholic Europe, no such light shone forth.

It was the Bible which led to a new age of science in Northern (Protestant) Europe. The Catholic world stayed steeped in Aristotelian ignorance. The Humanists broke free of the church of Rome, taking advantage of the confusion caused by the Reformation, and they proceeded to take an increasing political role throughout Europe well into Germany; but there they were stopped for 200 years, leaving Germany as the wellspring of a strange mixture of humanistic and Christian beliefs. To the south, the combination of humanism and Romanism led to a dogma which heralded the decline of true science. The man who first proposed and promoted that dogma was Thomas Aquinas.

The heresy of Aquinas

According to Aquinas, the mind of man was not corrupted by the fall, by original sin. For this dogma this there is no scriptural basis whatsoever. Indeed, it is anti-Bible and anti-God, a damnable heresy. Look at the context of Isaiah 1:18 above. Note God's reasoning places man's opinion, man's reasoning ability, subservient to the will of the Lord. This is what Thomas Aquinas ignored for to him the Bible was to be suborned to the “scholarship” (the Bible says “superstition,”) of the Greek philosophers.

Now let us turn aside a moment to see the tremendous stupidity of the humanists' veneration of Greek philosophy. The Greeks searched after wisdom. To the humanist that search is an expression of wisdom. But that is not in the least bit reasonable, for one only searches for what one does not have. That the Greeks searched for wisdom only meant that they did not have wisdom. And if they had not wisdom, where is their greatness? But this is typical of backwards-looking humanism, for they never see where they're going and so they can never see the truth.

Now to return to Aquinas's belief that the mind of man was not subject to the corruption of the fall. Note that the Bible tells us that Eve was deceived, although Adam was not deceived. So Eve's mind, her reasoning, fell because she was deceived. But what of Adam's mind? The Bible says that he was not deceived but made a conscious decision with his mind to disobey God. So his mind, too, fell; and his reason, too, is affected by the fall.

The humanists loved Aquinas's notion that the mind of man is incorruptible. They lapped it up. It made them the measure of all things, and this is the central tenet of humanism. Aquinas lowered God from his exalted position and raised the mind of man to equality with God. Aquinas was wrong, dead wrong; but with the endorsement of the Roman church, his blasphemous legacy lives on to this day. Aquinas had gone beyond reason and exalted the absurd.

The death of science

At first Aquinas had a minimal affect on the science of Northern Europe. Luther and most reformers kept the Bible first and knew better than to subscribe to the notion that the mind of man was infallible. But the ideas of Aquinas spread throughout the Roman world into Poland where they reached a humanist by the name of Nicholas Copernicus.

I do not want to belabor the point because that's been done in many previous articles and books, but the result of the Copernican Revolution, which removed the earth from the focus of God's creation, was that the Bible, and thus God, was removed from the realm of the sciences. After all, if God said that the sun daily goes about the earth, and Copernicus's unfallen, infallible mind concluded that it does not, then God must be wrong because man, not God, is the measure of all things. As Galileo phrased it years later: “The scriptures teach men how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go.” So man went one step further and raised himself above God in the realm of natural revelation. Man became not just the measure of all things, but he elevated his opinions to be the standard of all truth. True science was dead.

God is made irrelevant

With the death of science a new order took over. Reason was superseded and the old Greek anti-reason took over. God's role in the creation became “unthinkable.” The cost to mankind was great and tragic. After Kepler formalized the heliocentric (Copernican) system the cosmos was reduced to a machine. This set the stage for the dehumanization of man. Today man is only a machine.

With the advent of Darwinism man became nothing but a cosmic accident. Man lost all reason. He lost his reason for being. He lost his reason for doing. And he lost his reason for living. He lost all sense of truth. God, who started out in Western civilization at the top with man at the bottom, had now fallen so far below man that he was irrelevant and not in the least bit needed. Today, the leading paradigm of science is to remove the need for God out of the universe, to deny the creator and to worship the creature above the creator. Any man who believes the Bible today cannot be a scientist in the common sense. That was not the case 150 years ago, but it has been increasingly the case for the last 110 years.

The new paganism

Today there is a movement in the colleges and universities of this nation which movement is called multiculturalism. It holds that Western civilization is a pack of lies. It believes that Western culture is more corrupt than any other culture, be it Eastern or African; no matter how cruel those cultures may be.

On the surface it may seem to the average Westerner that this is a conspiracy, a deliberate lie to discredit Western history and Western values; but the truth is that the West has brought it upon itself. It is not a conspiracy. Western civilization's greatness was built on the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ, upon the righteousness, truth, and justice of God. Now western civilization says that God is irrelevant. It has destroyed its own foundation. Is it any wonder that there is a new paganism, one which has never denied its gods and which now takes encouragement from the West's denial of its God? And with the denial of God, the West has denied justice, morality and truth. With the denial of the God who say: “I am the way, the truth and the life,” the West has chosen confusion, lies and death. Cursed be the men who brought that to pass. May they ever roast in the fires of hell (Revelation 6:10).

And where today are the descendants of Thomas Aquinas? Who are these men who tore down God and left themselves in his place? Who is responsible for the deception which demoted God to irrelevancy? Who puffed themselves up as the ultimate authority in all matters Biblical? Give up? Why they are called Bible critics. They are those who question what God clearly wrote and replace it with their own opinions of what God “meant to say” but didn't have the wits to say properly in the first place. They are those who question whether or not Jesus forgave the woman who was caught in adultery (John 8:3 vf.) Those who question whether the closing verses of Mark are inspired. Those who question the authenticity of a particular text by footnotes and commentaries. It is they who are primarily responsible for the decline of the West. It is they who add words and subtract words from the words of God. On them is pronounced the only curse in the New Testament: “For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.” (Revelation 22:18-19.) Of all men these are the most accursed, yet today these men are the most honored.

The Bible teaches that we, the believers, are in a refiner's fire and that we shall come out a fine gold, but remember that, in purifying gold, some of the impurities settle to the bottom but most rise to the top as scum. Let God be true and every man a liar. Now the Bible teaches in Isaiah 59:19 that “So shall they fear the name of the LORD from the west, and his glory from the rising of the sun. When the enemy shall come in like a flood, the Spirit of the LORD shall lift up a standard against him.” Do you see the standard, dear reader? Do you see it there from the rising of the sun? Beyond that, do you see it from the fear of the name of the LORD?


1 Middle of what? Why the middle of the Christian era, of course. Note that the Middle ages runs from about A.D. 500 to 1500.

Translated from WS2000 on 14 February 2005 by ws2html.