All right. My message tonight, I'm going to be speaking about science's falsely so-called. Science falsely so-called. I'll be reading from 1 Timothy chapter 6, verse 20 and 21. O Timothy, keep that which is committed that I trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings and oppositions of science falsely so-called. which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen. Father God, Lord, I thank you for this opportunity to speak tonight. God, thank you for this church body, Lord. Thank you for giving us a country where we can come together to worship you and to hear your word, Lord. Without fear, God, I pray that you continue to extend the freedoms that we have here, Lord. And God, I pray that you would be with me as I deliver this message tonight, Lord, that it would be a blessing to those that hear it, God, that you would use it to give us something that we need to hear today, God. It's in Jesus' name I pray, amen. So we live in an age that is largely ruled by people who would have us believe that all their motivations are grounded in science. We just went through a time of a little tea tribulation called the COVID-19 pandemic. For two years, we were told by people in positions of power that the science had determined that we all needed to have experimental gene therapy and that we would need to wear masks at all times and stand six feet apart. Many people immediately fell in line with the science and dutifully lined up six feet apart with their sleeves rolled up to get their COVID shots so their grandmothers wouldn't die. Many others were skeptical of these claims and refused to get the shots, eschewed the masks. Some even decided that the COVID-19 sickness wasn't real. Many people on both sides were sure that everyone on the other side would soon be dead. Looking back now, It seems clear to me, at least, that there was a bad sickness going around that was probably engineered in a laboratory in China and released either accidentally or on purpose, and the pharmaceutical companies were ready and able to make a vaccine if the governments were willing to pay for it and make sure as many people as possible would take it. And some companies and individuals made a lot of money, but no real benefit seems to have come from this exercise to the millions of people who went along with it, and possibly many people were harmed from it. Reports of myocarditis and blood clotting were common. Many of the people who received the vaccines developed COVID anyway. Anthony Fauci, who was the main person responsible for the U.S. response to COVID-19 and possibly its origination as well, just recently made this statement. He said, I got infected about two weeks ago. It was my third COVID-19 infection, and I had been vaccinated and boosted a total of six times. That's quite a sales pitch for COVID vaccines, which he is still insisting that you should have and wear a mask too. I'm not a doctor and I'm not giving anyone medical advice, but it's not hard to understand why some people have developed a general distrust of all things science. Many evil things have been done in the name of science and in the name of progress. The eugenics movement sought to improve the human race by guiding reproduction in order to eliminate undesirable traits. This led to programs of sterilization and the founding of organizations like Planned Parenthood, whose goal is to prevent unwanted birth by distribution of birth control and murdering babies in the womb. Adolf Hitler was a fan of Margaret Sanger. This idea that the human race could be improved through selective breeding was a logical step from the idea that mankind had already become what it was. through the random chance of natural selection that had become the central pillar in what is now called the theory of evolution. Selective breeding is a science that has been practiced for as long as man has been farming and raising animals. It's what led to all the different varieties of domestic produce and livestock that we have today. Chickens that are able to put on more weight faster for meat production or that lay more eggs with less feed required. Fruit trees that produce larger and sweeter fruit. These are the results of selective breeding. Charles Darwin observed that something similar can happen in natural populations where animals can display certain traits in one location, but similar animals elsewhere would display different traits. And he theorized that this was due to environmental pressures, selecting one set of traits over another, that the traits made it easier for an animal to reproduce and thus pass those traits on to its offspring. I think that this is reasonable. It agrees with what we observe. It doesn't contradict any scripture as far as I can see. God created all the different animals and birds and fish after their kinds. And within those kinds, there was enough genetic variety to allow for multitudes of what we would call species to exist today. But Darwin had another thought. If there was a mechanism that allowed for a bird's beak to get a little longer than another bird's, or shorter depending on its environment, then probably that mechanism could be responsible for everything on that bird. And that through little incremental changes, that bird could have arisen from some other animal entirely. And in fact, all life could have arisen from a common ancestor, probably some bit of slime. And this is what is taught to children in every public school under the name science. They are shown examples like the peppered moth, The peppered moth is widespread in Britain and Ireland and frequently found in ordinary back gardens. I'm reading an article, I think. I forgot to note that. So this is from an article about the peppered moth. It is an amazing story that has made it famous all over the world. It is one of the best known examples of evolution by natural selection. Darwin's great discovery and is often referred to as Darwin's moth. Peppered moths are normally white, with black speckles across the wings, giving it its name. This patterning makes it well camouflaged against lichen-covered tree trunks when it rests on them during the day. There is also a naturally occurring genetic mutation which causes some moths to have almost black wings. These black forms, called melanic, are not as well camouflaged on the lichen as normal peppered forms. so they are more likely to be eaten by birds and other predators. This means that fewer black forms survive to breed, so they are less common in the population than the pale or peppered forms. This is the normal situation observed in the countryside of Britain and Ireland. However, in the 19th century, it was noticed that in towns and cities, it was actually the black form of the moth that was more common than the pale peppered form. Industrialization and domestic coal fires had caused sooty air pollution, which had killed off lichens and blackened urban tree trunks and walls. So it was now the pale form of the moth that was more obvious to predators, while the melanic form was better camouflaged and more likely to survive and produce offspring. As a result, over successive generations, the black moths came to outnumber the pale forms in our towns and cities. Since moths are short-lived, this evolution by natural selection happened quite quickly. For example, the first black peppered moth was recorded in Manchester in 1848, and by 1895, 98% of peppered moths in the city were black. In the mid-20th century, controls were introduced to reduce air pollution, and as the air quality improved, tree trunks became cleaner and lichen growth increased. Once again, the normal, pale peppered moths were camouflaged and the black forms were more noticeable. Now the situation in urban areas has again become the same as in the countryside, with normal pale-peppered moths being far more common than the black forms. So natural selection has been seen to work in both directions, always favoring the moth that is best suited to the environmental conditions. The same thing has been observed throughout Europe and the USA. So modern science has decided that because some moths are different colors than other moths, and those color variations might confer an advantage in certain situations, this is observable evidence that moths must have evolved from something that was not a moth. What the article didn't really make clear was that these black-peppered moths were always there. It makes it seem as though they just appeared in response to the changing environment, when in reality all that happened was a change in the distribution of two color patterns that were already present in the total population of moths. but they are championing this type of normal variation within a kind of animal as evolution and attaching it to the idea that an animal can change into a different kind of animal as long as you give it millions of years. This is very deceptive, but when it's presented by someone who is an authority, like a teacher, very few people would ever question it as a fact." In Daniel 1 we read, it says, "'And the king spake to Ashpenaz, the master of his eunuchs, that he should bring certain of the children of Israel, and of the king's seed, and of the prince's, children in whom was no blemish, but well favored, and skillful in all wisdom, and cunning in knowledge, and understanding science. And such as had ability in them to stand in the king's palace, and whom they might teach the learning in the tongue of the Chaldeans." In verse 17, as for these four children, God gave them knowledge and skill in all learning and wisdom. Daniel had understanding in all visions and dreams. Now at the end of the days that the king had said he should bring them in, then the prince of the eunuchs brought them in before Nebuchadnezzar, and the king communed with them, and among them all was found none like Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah. Therefore stood they before the king. And in all matters of wisdom and understanding that the king inquired of them, he found them ten times better than all the magicians and astrologers that were in all his realm." I think Daniel and his companions probably understood something about breeding. If the king wanted to know, how to get bigger watermelons. Daniel could probably start a program, and within a few years, Babylon would have had the biggest watermelons found anywhere. But he would start with smaller watermelons and select the seeds from the biggest ones, and then he would pollinate those watermelon blossoms with pollen from the other big watermelons until he had produced a variety of watermelon that produced all big watermelons. He wouldn't start with a coconut and try to get it to produce a watermelon. A coconut tree will always produce coconuts, and Daniel would know this. Genesis 1 verse 11 says, And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself upon the earth. And it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, and the herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself after his kind. And God saw that it was good. I don't know if Daniel ever grew a watermelon, but possibly Joseph could have. I found an article in the National Geographic called, The 5,000-Year Secret History of the Watermelon. It says, Ancient Hebrew texts and Egyptian tomb paintings reveal the origins of our favorite summertime fruit. People have been eating watermelons for millennia. We know this because archaeologists found watermelon seeds along with the remnants of other fruits at a 5,000-year-old settlement in Libya. Seeds as well as paintings of watermelons have also been discovered in Egyptian tombs built more than 4,000 years ago, including King Tut's. One tomb painting in particular stands out. The watermelon depicted in the image is not round like the wild fruit. Instead, it has the now familiar oblong shape, suggesting that it was a cultivated variety. So selective breeding is science. But the leap from that to evolution and a common ancestor is more akin to science fiction, or what the Bible refers to as science falsely so-called. That label might apply to any supposed knowledge that is not actually knowledge, not just what we would call science in this modern day. I think the term science in the Bible is just another word for knowledge, not necessarily indicative of the underlying philosophies or how that knowledge may have been obtained, but certainly many modern philosophies that demand they be referred to as sciences could be described as science, falsely so-called. Our verse said, O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings and oppositions of science, falsely so-called. Webster's 1828 defines profane as irreverent to anything sacred applied to persons. A man is profane when he takes the name of God in vain or treats sacred things with abuse and irreverence. irreverent, proceeding from a contempt of sacred things or implying it as profane words or language, not sacred, secular, relating to secular things as profane history. When science seeks to understand God's creation and puts God's word in its proper reverence place as divine revelation, I believe this is an honorable pursuit. Proverbs 25 says, it is the glory of God to conceal a thing, but the honor of kings is to search out a matter. And he goes on to say, the heaven for height, and the earth for depth, and the heart of kings is unsearchable. But when science seeks to explain God's creation outside of the revelation of the scriptures, in essence to explain away the scriptures, then it has become profane and vain, and that it cannot explain nature any more than old wives' tales can. And we're told in 1 Timothy 4, but refuse profane and old wives' fables, and exercise thyself rather unto godliness. We can find examples of applied scientific disciplines in the scripture. Jesus comments in Luke 12 about the state of meteorology in his day. Verse 54, And he said also to the people, When ye see a cloud rise out of the west straightway, ye say, There cometh a shower, and so it is. And when ye see the south wind blow, ye say, There will be heat, and it cometh to pass. Ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky and of the earth, but how is it that ye do not discern this time? The Bible tells us that it is God who sends the rain, yet Jesus says that they are able to know when it will rain or when it will be hot based on the signs that precede these events. Obviously, this is an example of an observational science. The ability to forecast the weather to some degree of accuracy is very useful. I think back on the weather forecasting when I was a young man and how hit or miss it was, it was kind of a joke that the weatherman would always be wrong. But as our ability to observe weather patterns has increased, I find the weather forecasting today is much more reliable for most purposes. There is still a lot of uncertainty, but overall, the knowledge of how weather patterns develop and storms are formed is greatly increased. And I think it's a good thing to be able to know when to expect bad weather. Proverbs 22, verse 3 says, a prudent man foreseeth the evil and hideth himself, but the simple pass on and are punished. A prudent man could be prepared for a hurricane or some other severe weather event and get his family to high ground, but ignoring a severe weather warning could certainly lead to serious consequences. In Luke 14, verse 28, we read, for which of you, intending to build a tower, sitteth not down first and counteth the cost, whether he have sufficient to finish it, lest happily after he hath laid the foundation and is not able to finish it, all that behold it begin to mock him, saying, this man began to build and was not able to finish. This is an example of a situation employing the branch of mathematics known as economics. If you intend to build a structure and you want to finish it, you have to know when you begin whether you have the resources to do it or not. You'll need to be able to estimate the cost of materials and labor and anticipate changes in the market that might hinder you. If you can't get the numbers to add up, you might need to build a smaller tower. Jesus asks, who would start building this tower without first doing the math? But he's using this as an illustration to believers who should understand that there is a cost associated with following him and that we should not be caught unaware by it. So the Bible is not anti-science or anti-knowledge. The Bible warns about science falsely so-called and vain babbling. And some of this science falsely so-called could actually be theology, bad doctrine. Galatians 1 verse 6 says, I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ, unto another gospel, which is not another, but there be some that trouble you and would pervert the gospel of Christ. I guess I'm bringing this up because Caleb was telling us about his friend's confused beliefs, that he was a Christian, but he also said that human evolution was a fact. I probably held similar beliefs when I was young. As I said, the public schools are used to push evolution as if it were undisputed science. But the more I learned about God in the Bible, the more I saw that the belief in the Bible and the belief in evolution were contradictory. If evolution was true, then the Bible couldn't be, at least as far as its account of creation was concerned. And if the creation account wasn't true, how could I say I believed what it said about sin and death and redemption? But I had some good people around me who showed me how evolution wasn't really true science. It was the philosophical worldview that was anti-Christ. And as such, I rejected it and believed what the Bible says about how God created man with Adam and how Adam fell through sin and brought death into the world. To try to believe that death was always part of creation while man evolved from some kind of squirrel monkey, but then sin caused death and Jesus had to die to atone for our sin is cognitive dissonance. It's a contradiction, it doesn't make sense, and something has to give. Some churches might say that the Bible is wrong, that the creation account is just an allegory so as not to offend people who believe they came from monkeys. That would certainly be vain and profane babbling, and any church that teaches that should be ashamed. But there is a possibility of going too far in the other direction, that is, to defend what we believe the Bible is teaching with our own science, falsely so-called. For example, if I were discussing evolution with someone and they brought up the type of changes I was discussing earlier, the small changes in a type of animal that's evidence of evolution, I might counter by saying that there was no such evidence of changes in animals, that the examples of moths changing colors were fabricated by the Smithsonian Institute. They went around painting moths at night to convince people that evolution was true. I don't know anybody that's actually making that argument. But I have seen similar arguments made about astronomy, where people claim that NASA is faking photos of space, and as evidence they show images and videos of what they say stars really look like. These will show multicolored orbs with shimmering patterns or spikes protruding at irregular intervals, and they say this is what stars really look like when you zoom in on them with a particular camera. YouTube is full of videos showing this, and it looks cool, and to someone who doesn't know better, it might seem believable. But it isn't true. What these videos and images are showing is stars that are just out of focus. It's easy to demonstrate that this is the case, but some people use these videos to say that NASA is hiding the truth about stars and that this supports the biblical cosmology that they don't want you to know about. Some people may be doing this on purpose to try and make Christians seem uneducated. Some people may be sharing these videos sincerely, having been convinced that they were telling the truth, but stars that are properly focused do just appear as points of light. Ecclesiastes 10 says, dead flies cause the ointment of the apothecary to send forth a stinking savor, so doth a little folly in him that is in reputation for wisdom and honor. I think we should want to have a reputation for wisdom and honor, so we should shun profane and vain babblings, science falsely so-called, old wives' fables, and other gospels which are not gospels. 2 Timothy 3 says, But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived. But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them. And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith, which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. Father God, Lord, we thank you, God, again, for your word that you've preserved for us, God. We thank you that it's perfect, that we know we can believe every word of it, God. And Lord, we do thank you for good science, Lord, that has made our lives easier in so many ways, God. And Lord, we also know that there's Science that's misused, God. Science that's abused, Lord. And we just pray, God, that you would come quickly, Lord, and set this world straight, God. That you would separate the wheat from the chaff, God, and get rid of all the science falsely so-called, Lord. All the evil wickedness, God, that's done in the name of science and in the name of progress, God. Lord, we pray for the true progress, God, that's gonna come when you rule this earth with a rod of iron, God. And Lord, we thank you so much. We pray we'd be found worthy when you return, God, that we could be accounted worthy to enter into your kingdom, and hear you say, well done, thou good and faithful servant. In Jesus' name I pray, amen.