Bad Evangelizing: What Really Happened?
Download Adobe.pdf of this Essay • HOME
I agree wholeheartedly that science without morality is dangerous, and we live in a world where "dangerous" means world ending. But to suggest science, which is about learning about God's creation, is inherently evil suggests that God created an evil thing. One cannot blame the devil for an evil creation: he can only corrupt what God created. So, to call science inherently evil is a heresy. This sermon is not helping place science under the purview of morality, it is seeking to have morality wash its hands of science. In other words, it promotes a deliberate refusal to engage in our God given duty to help others who go astray. That being said, this video is very suspect in many ways as well.
About 3 minutes in, the preacher makes a common atheist mistake of assuming that God is of this universe by suggesting that angels and other spirits live in the 6 hidden dimensions.
About 14 minutes, and again about 23 minutes in, he speaks of horrible, paranormal activities now haunting CERN. How did he come by this information? This is too serious a "fact" to not reference.
Also about 14 minutes in, he is making another common mistake that scientists are predominately atheistic. Actually, older generation scientists were quite religious. So are many current ones, but I admit the "name brand" scientists are atheists. However, there is a growing sentiment among them, especially cosmologists, that the universe is just a little too well planned to be a mere accident. Of course non-God answers are being sought, but if this is what it takes to return the lost sheep, then I think it's a good thing. Just let them ponder their inability to answer that question long enough.
About 18 minutes in, he shows his ignorance that the universe is made of equal parts of matter and anti-matter, but this is a forgivable case of ignorance. There is more matter than anti-matter in the universe, actually virtually the entire universe is made of matter. This is despite the theory that big bang would have created equal pairs of matter and anti-matter and that they would have annihilated each other almost immediately after being formed. Yet this is obviously not the case. It is currently believed that for every 1 BILLLION pairs of matter and anti-matter that were created, one extra particle of matter was created and thus the universe was allowed to live. CERN is trying to understand why this extra particle of matter was allowed to exist without a matching anti-matter particle.
About 24 minutes, he starts speaking about aliens being predicted by the scientists. Like the super-natural, such an outlandish claim needs to have its source be referenced. Furthermore, there is no proof in the Bible that aliens don't exist. The Bible is about God's revelation of salvation to man, so why would it deal with life on other planets? Christianity is ONLY discredited if ALL four of the following statements are true: 1) There is sentient life on other planets capable of knowing right from wrong. 2) They, like humans, have fallen from grace by choosing to ignore God's plan for them and go their own way. 3) Their mode of salvation must lie with the Earthly sacrifice of Jesus. 4) This mode of salvation is denied them. I feel he should have thought of this before simply and arrogantly discrediting the idea of life out in space.
But it is about 28 minutes into this where I feel he really and truly discredited himself as even a rudimentary search into this subject would have shown otherwise: Dark Matter is NOT anti-matter. If it was, there would be no reason to run the CERN experiment as scientists would believe that matter and anti-matter existed in pairs after all. Dark matter is a hypothetical particle, anti-matter is a known particle. Dark matter is believed to ONLY have the property of gravity (specifically, the "weak force", and is used to explain why the Universe simply doesn't tear itself apart. It is called "dark" because it can only be detected by its gravitational influence, not by light.
I feel this sermon was poorly researched and its accusations questionable. It appears to do more to promote the self-righteous pride of his "faithful" followers than to truly address any moral issue.