Many people today believe that the Bible is not compatible with science, but this is only because much of what we call science today is what the Bible calls science falsely so called. Theoretical physicists such as Lawrence Krauss, Michio Kaku, Stephen Hawking and others produce bizarre fictional theories about the origin and nature of our universe that have no basis in observable reality. If people really knew what these so called scientists believe, they would understand the truth of what the Bible says in Romans 1:22. "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools."
Michio Kaku:
It takes no energy to create a universe. Universes are for free. A universe is a free lunch. Then you may say to yourself, "Well, that can't be right."
Lawrence Krauss:
Essentially you can get a universe from nothing without any supernatural shenanigans that basically, by quantum mechanics and the laws of psychics we understand in principle, an entire universe with 100 billion galaxies, each containing 100 billion stars, can come from nothing because its total energy could be zero and therefore you don't need to literally violate any laws of physics to create a universe. Now, we don't know that for certain.
Michio Kaku:
In other words, the universe is for free.
Stephen Hawking:
Because there are laws such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing.
Lawrence Krauss:
In fact if you ask what would be the characteristics of a universe that was created from nothing just by the normal laws of physics, it would be precisely the characteristics of the universe we live in. Again, that doesn't prove it, but it makes it quite plausible.
Stephen Hawking:
Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing. It is why the universe exists, why we exist.
RT Anchor:
Then how did we go from nothing to something?
Lawrence Krauss:
Because in fact if you add up all the energy in the universe, it looks like it's zero. Everything we see was once contained in a region smaller than the size of an atom. It's hard to imagine, but it's true. In fact I wrote a whole book about it.
News Anchor:
And we talked about it on this program, I believe.
John Green:
In the barest fraction of the first second the universe inflated from something many, many, many times smaller than an atom to about the size of a grapefruit. Think of it this way, in much less than a blink of an eye, if it had originally been the size of a tennis ball, it would have inflated over 90 billion light-years across.
Michio Kaku:
We believe, though we cannot yet prove, that our multiverse of universes is 11-dimensional. Think of this 11-dimensional arena and in this arena there are bubbles, bubbles that float, and the skin of the bubble represents an entire universe. We're like flies trapped on fly paper. We're on the skin of a bubble, it's a 3-dimensional bubble. The 3-dimensional bubble is expanding and that's called the Big Bang theory.
Lawrence Krauss:
Our universe is just a small random accident in a vast multiverse and it's fascinating because it means, as each universe pops out or falls out of inflation, it can fall out in a different way. It's like falling down a mountain. You can fall in lots of different directions and each different direction that you leave inflation, in some sense, could give different laws of physics in that region of space or at least certain different laws of physics. If that's the case it may be that many of the fundamental laws that we see and think are truly fundamental are just accidents of our experience. It could be in each universe there are different laws of physics and that may help explain other paradoxes about the universe we see.
Michio Kaku:
We're nothing but a soap bubble floating in a bubble bath of soap bubbles. In some sense, the multiverse can be liken to a bubble bath. Our universe is nothing but one bubble, but there're other bubbles. When two bubbles collide, that could merge into a bigger bubble, which could be the Big Bang. Moreover, beyond our own universe there might be an endless number of other universes bubbling into frothy eternity like a pile of pasta, water boiling over. In fact, that's what probably the Big Bang is, or perhaps a bubble visioned in half and split off into two bubbles. That could be the Big Bang.
Lawrence Krauss:
Some people get upset that we change the meaning of nothing.
Michio Kaku:
Or perhaps the universe popped into existence out of nothing. That is also a possibility.
Lawrence Krauss:
Most of the religious people object to my definition of nothing never defined it themselves. Here's what their definition of nothing is. Nothing is that from which only God can create something. Come on. They create this useless definition.
Michio Kaku:
The universe could essentially be nothingness, which was unstable, and created a soap bubble. Now you may say to yourself, "That can't be right because then it violates the conservation of matter and energy. How can you create a universe from nothing?"
Youtuber:
Spacetime was created by the Big Bang. Thus, time didn't exist before the Big Bang, so it doesn't make much sense to ask what happened before it. There was no 'then' then. Of course, this like many ideas in cosmology doesn't really make any sense to our puny human brains. It's largely beyond our comprehension.
Lawrence Krauss:
Otherwise very speculative ideas because inflation, even though it was well motivation, is based on physics we've never measure, physics that what we call the grand unified scale, and without an empirical handle, it's all just talk.
Michio Kaku:
The highest dimension is 11. You cannot go beyond 11 because universes become unstable beyond 11.
Lawrence Krauss:
We have now in some sense hit the holy grail. Just a few months ago the announcement was made of observations that really turned metaphysics into physics, that take us back literally to a millionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second after the Big Bang, which is a time frame I've never thought we'd be able to observe directly. If they hold up, and I should say that it's just a single observation right now and in science we have to be quite skeptical, and has to be confirmed before we can really rely on it, but will allow us to test theories about the beginning of our universe and potentially the existence of other universes.
Female Physicist:
For every physicist that's the kind of holy grail.
TV Host:
These waves interact so weakly that they've really been propagating to us from a millionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of the second after the Big Bang and that means that we've changed everything.
TV Host:
13 billion years later we have a way to see this cosmic glow with the naked eye.
Dr. David Spergel:
You take your TV set, switch it between channels. A couple of percent of the static that you see on your TV screen is radiation from the Big Bang.
TV Host:
This cosmic radiation is a direct connection to the Big Bang. It also reveals the universe entered a new phase less than a trillionth of a second after its creation.
Female Physicist:
If you could go back to the really early universe just after the Big Bang, you'd find yourself in this seething, massive matter and anti-matter annihilating each other. You'd find yourself in the middle of this cosmic battle between both sides, caught in the crossfire, if you like.
Lawrence Krauss:
In some sense it explains why we're here, because it turns out, and it's amazing accident, and these were ideas that were known about 40 years ago and we hadn't yet been able to test them, that the only reason the particles in our body have mass that can form together to form us and everything we see on earth is it's an accident.
John Green:
Because it turns out, if you take a bunch of hydrogen and you wait like several billion years, you might just grow yourself some humans.
Ben Stein:
Well, then how did it get created?
Richard Dawkins:
Well, by a very slow process.
Ben Stein:
How did it start?
Richard Dawkins:
Nobody knows how it started. We know the kind of event that it must have been. We know the sort of event that must have happened for the origin of life.
Ben Stein:
What was that?
Richard Dawkins:
It was the origin of the first self-replicating molecule.
Ben Stein:
Right, and how did that happen?
Richard Dawkins:
I've told you we don't know.
Ben Stein:
You have no idea how it started?
Richard Dawkins:
No, no. Nor has anybody.
Ben Stein:
Nor has anyone else.
Pastor Anderson:
This belief system that today is known as science, the falsely so called science that God predicted would come about, this science falsely so called is not based on facts, it's not based on knowledge. It's actually a belief system. It's more like a religion. This is why a lot of people today will ask you this question, "Well, do you believe in science?" See, if it were just fact, if it were just knowledge, if it were something that could actually be proven through observation, experimentation, then you wouldn't have to believe in it. The reason you have to believe is because it's a religion, because of the fact that it is not science. It is a belief system and that belief system is based on two things I'm going to demonstrate this morning.
Number one, that belief system is based upon hatred for God, and by that I mean the God of the Bible, and number two, it's based upon science fiction, and I'm talking about Buck Rogers this morning. I'm talking about Star Trek. I'm talking about Star Wars. I'm talking about all the sci-fi that the Hollywood movies and the TV shows have made popular. That is really the basis for this belief system, and they say, "Oh, we're so rational. We're so logical." No, you're not. "Oh, it's all based on facts. It's all based on experiments." No, it isn't. It's based on two things. Number one, a deep-seated hatred for the God of the Bible and number two, it's based upon watching too many science fiction movies and TV shows. Those are the basis and I'm going to prove that to you. Now, Romans chapter 1, verse 19, the Bible says, "Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them."
Now, manifest means that it's able to be seen. It's out there. "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." You see, if they actually would perform observations and experimentation of the natural world that we live in, it would just proclaim the glory of the creator who made all of it. That is the logical conclusion, but it says in verse 21, "Because, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish hearts was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools." Jump down to verse 28. "And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient."
Now, what I want to point out here is that these people who deny the God of the Bible, these people, the Bible says don't want to retain God in their knowledge, why don't they want to retain God in their knowledge? Well, that's explained in verse 29 and on. "Being filled with all unrighteousness." Yet you don't want to retain God in your knowledge when you're filled with all unrighteousness because God is so holy, it's a constant reminder of your own unrighteousness. Not only that, it says in verse 30 about these same people, "Back biters, haters of God." That's what I'm saying about this belief system. These people hate God. They don't want to retain God in their knowledge, so therefore they set out to teach and preach the gospel of atheism.
They go out to evangelize people that there is no God and they do it in the name of science, but it's science falsely so called. It's not real science. It's their belief. It's their faith. It's their system or ideology. Here are some of the big name preachers of this science religion. Richard Dawkins, Stephen Hawking, Michio Kaku, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Christopher Hitchens, Bill Nye, the Science Guy. These are the apostles of this false religion. These are the false teachers and false prophets. The first preacher of this sci-fi religion that I'd like to go over is Richard Dawkins. This man is an evolutionary biologist and he's the author of a book called The God Delusion. He's probably the most famous atheist, at least from what I've heard. It seems like I've heard of him more than anyone else as being the big, what I call an evangelical atheist, okay?
Somebody who's just no an atheist, but they want to just preach the gospel of atheism to the whole world. What's funny about that is, if I only had one life to live and I were an atheist and I thought I were just going to die and turn to dust, I wouldn't spend my life trying to fight against an imaginary being called God that supposedly doesn't exist. We've got Don Quixote, Richard Dawkins here, fighting with windmills and shadow-boxing against someone that he doesn't even believe exist. What's his point? Why doesn't he eat, drink and be merry because tomorrow he dies? What's the point, Richard Dawkins? He's a zealous evangelical atheist. Now let's see if his beliefs come from observation and experimentation science or whether they come from where I said they come from, a deep-seated hatred for God. Here's what Richard Dawkins says about God in his book.
Richard Dawkins:
“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”
Ben Stein:
That's what you think of God?
Richard Dawkins:
Yeah.
Pastor Anderson:
Tell us how you really feel, Richard Dawkins. You can tell here that he hates god.
Audience:
Yeah.
Pastor Anderson:
He hates God. In all of fiction and he's read a lot of fiction. I mean, the God of the Bible is worse than Darth Vader. The God of the Bible is worse than the emperor. The God of the Bible is worse than all of the villains of science fiction. He's such a bully. Here's what's funny, is that there was a debate between him and another guy and the guy asked him, "How do you know that the God of the Bible is not real?" He said, "Well, the reason why is because the God of the Bible is this misogynistic, homophobic" yada yada yada. Does that make logical sense ...
Audience:
No.
Pastor Anderson:
... to say that something doesn't exist because it's unpleasant? "Well, because God is the most unpleasant villain ever, that means he doesn't exist." Let me ask you something Richard Dawkins. Do you think I'm pleasant? Because I exist and I happen to be homophobic. I'm constantly labeled as misogynistic. I'm constantly labeled as being this horrible person by the world, but you know what? I exist. I'm here. As Jesus said, "Handle me and see that I am flesh and bone, and a spirit has not flesh and bone as you see me to have." What kind of science is that, to say, "It doesn't exist because I don't like its personality." That's real logical. That makes a lot of sense, buddy. "That's how we know." Then he's asked, "Is it possible that intelligent design is there from some other being?" He said, "It is possible that aliens could have created us."
Richard Dawkins:
It could kind of bout in the following way. It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe a civilization evolved by probably some kind of Darwinian means to a very, very high level of technology and designed a form of life that they seeded on to perhaps this planet. That is a possibility and an intriguing possibility and I suppose it's possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of our chemistry, molecular biology you might find a signature of some sort of designer.
Pastor Anderson:
It's possible that "long ago, in a galaxy far, far away" someone planted life on earth and put life here, but not the God of the Bible. Does that sound scientific or does it sound pretty biased, based on his deep-seated hatred for God?
Audience:
Right.
Pastor Anderson:
There's another reason why these guys come up with this stuff that's not based on evidence, that's not based upon experimentation, but it's just based on their belief system. Go to 2 Peter, chapter number 3. "Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts." Here's where it all comes from, "Walking after their own lusts." That's where it all starts. He says, "Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts and saying, 'Where is the promise of his coming?' for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation." Look, when it says creation there, I've heard somebody say, "These are Christians because they believe in creation." No.
Christians are not the only ones who believe in creation. The atheists believe in creation. It's just a different creation. Their creation story is the Big Bang. We'll get to that a little later. It says here, "All things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. For this they willingly are ignorant of." It's not that they went into the lab, did some experiments and said, "You know, the conclusion I've drawn is that there's no God." No, no, no. They're willingly ignorant. What is it that makes them have a will to be ignorant about the creation? They have a will to be ignorant about the flood. It says they are, "Willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old."
That God spake the world into existence, that God said, "Let there be light" and there was light. That in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. It says, "And the earth standing out of the water and in the water." The two things they're ignorant of there are the creation and the flood, which account for the physical phenomenon that we see in this world, the creation and the flood. They're ignorant of those things. They make up their own version, but why are they willingly ignorant? The Bible says it is because they are walking after their own lusts. Now more evidence of this is found in Psalm 14. You don't have to turn there. In Psalm 14:1 the Bible reads, "The fool hath said in his heart, 'There is no God.'"
Often we stop quoting there. We don't quote the whole verse. You've heard that statement your whole life. Let's read the whole verse. "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good." That's the whole verse. What's the verse actually saying here? He said that there's no God because he's corrupt and because he has done abominable works, so he doesn't want to believe that there's a God. The same thing is found in Psalm 53, verse 1. "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity: there is none that doeth good." That's the reason, according to 2 Peter, 3, according to Psalm 14, according to Psalm 53.
Listen to this. You say, "What makes you think that Richard Dawkins has done abominable iniquity? First of all, we already know that he hates God. I don't think anybody would doubt that. I don't think anybody would argue with that. Listen to this story. This is from The Huffington Post. Now, who here thinks that The Huffington Post is a radical, conservative news outlet? No, this is godless, God-hating outlet, and even they're calling out Richard Dawkins' wickedness. "Richard Dawkins pedophilia remarks provoke outrage." That's the headline.
David Pakman:
Richard Dawkins has made some statements that some are considering to be a little bit odd. He essentially defended mild pedophilia. Richard Dawkins kind of set the stage as the evolutionary biologist who is known for being what some consider an outspoken atheist. He told the story to The Times magazine of England that he was sexually abused when he was a kid. He says that a teacher put his hands in his shorts and that it didn't do lasting harm. Then he said, the exact quote was, "An unidentified school master pulled me on his knee and put his hand inside my shorts" when he was a child. He said that he didn't think that the abuse, which he referred to as "mild touching up" did any of us any lasting harm. I guess it wasn't just to him that this was one, it was to some of his classmates as well.
Pastor Anderson:
Said that he was unable to condemn what he called "mild pedophilia" that he experienced at an English school when he was a child in the 1950s. Where do this guy's beliefs coming from? He's molested as a kid and he says, "I can't condemn it. I can't condemn the fact that my teacher that was a dude molested me. No big deal. It's just mild pedophilia." What a bunch of filth. This is the most renowned atheist out there. This is the kind of stuff he's saying. He said other children in this school peer group had been molested by the same teacher, but he concluded, "I don't think he did any of us lasting harm." I've noticed something about you that you hate God. I wonder if that has to do with the fact that you were molested.
"Oh, no. It didn't harm me all." No, it turned you into a God-hating atheist. You'll often find that people, when they get molested, they lash out against God and hate God and become a hater of God unfortunately. Not everyone. Of course, there's redemption there and a lot of people who've been molested were able to get over that and live normal lives and live godly lives, but unfortunately there's a tendency for those who get molested to be bitter against God. They shouldn't but that's just a phenomenon. He said the most notorious cases of pedophilia involve rape and even murder and he shouldn't be bracketed in with what he called just a mild whatever.
Unless they kill you, I mean, unless they just violently abuse, come on, it's just a little mild pedophilia. Look, anyone who says that I believe is a pedophile themselves because no normal person would justify pedophilia like, "It's no big deal." I submit to you that Richard Dawkins is presumably a pedophile if he's going to say that it's fine. Why else would he be saying it's fine? Let's see what Richard Dawkins considers child abuse. Here's a quote from his book The God Delusion. "Faith can be very, very dangerous, and deliberately to implant it into the vulnerable mind of an innocent child is a grievous wrong." He says that putting faith into the mind of an innocent child, that is a grievous wrong, but just molesting and raping it mildly, "I can't condemn it. But don't you dare teach him the Bible."
You're going to tell me that this man is so smart and oh, he's so intelligent, and oh, oh, oh, how dare you, pastor Anderson, speak against Richard Dawkins when he has more intelligence in his little finger than you have in your whole body? You're just an uneducated pumpkin because my apostle of my sci-fi religion is so much smarter than you. No, he thinks pedophilia is fine and that teaching the Bible is child abuse. You can't even make this stuff up. The truth is stranger than fiction. This stuff's bizarre, isn't it?
Richard Dawkins:
If you think about it, teaching kids or allowing the notion that the earth is 6000 years old to be promulgated in school, that's child abuse.
Pastor Anderson:
Let's about the creation myth of this sci-fi religion. Number one we talked about the preachers. There are these preachers. We talked about one, Richard Dawkins. We're going to get into some more. Let's talk about their creation myth. What does the Bible teach about creation? Go to Genesis, chapter 1 if you would. "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." I'm going to also read for you Exodus 20, verse 11. "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that in them is, but he rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it." We see there than in six days God made the heaven and the earth. That's Genesis 1:1.
"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" and "the sea and all that in them is" so there's no gap between Genesis 1, verse 1 and verse 2. For sake of time we'll just jump down to verse 24. "And God said, 'Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beast of the earth after their kind'; and it was so." Something that comes up with the plants and with the animals is that they reproduce after their own kind. This is not evolution. When it says kind it doesn't mean necessarily the exact species or the exact variation. For example, the kind of animal doesn't change, but you can have wide variety within that kind. For example, you have a dog. That's a kind of animal, a dog. Right?
But you have all kinds of different dogs and they all look different. They all share a common ancestor. It's not like God just told Noah to put every breed that the American Kennel Club has listed on the ark. Obviously he's just got two dogs, a male and a female. People said, "You think that all of the dog breeds we see today came from two dogs?" They think that all the animals we see today came from two animals. Hello? They think it's crazy that we think a poodle is related to a rottweiler or whatever or a chihuahua is related to a great dane, but they don't think it's weird to think that an elephant is related to a turtle. That's when they try to make these calculations like, "There's no way you could fit the animals on the ark" because they try to put every little variation of animal on the ark, every species, instead of every kind.
You say, "What separates a kind?" If they can breed with each other, it's the same kind. Okay? Obviously you can breed different kinds of dogs and they can breed together and so forth. Everything brings forth after its own kind. What's the creation myth of the sci-fi religion? Now we're going to get into another, one of the prophets of the sci-fi religion named Stephen Hawking.
Stephen Hawking:
Because there are laws such as gravity the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing. It is why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.
Pastor Anderson:
You may ask yourself the question, "How can the universe create itself?" Because gravity. Hello, idiot. How dare you? Wait a minute. Do you even have a degree? Do you have a degree in science, and I'm not talking about mimetics? I'm talking about real science. Do you have a degree in evolutionary biology? Do you have a degree in astrophysics? Do you have a degree in any kind of science? Huh? Because you can't even hold a candle to these great men who preach this sci-fi religion. Listen to me, I don't care if you understand or not, the universe can and will create itself from nothing because gravity. Because gravity, case closed. If you don't get it, well, you're just too dumb to get it and I don't know what to tell you.
"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing." Doesn't this really bring new meaning to the verse, "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools"? How can you dare insult the intelligence of Stephen Hawking? If some guy told you that in the street you'd say, "Go home, you're drunk" but because it's Stephen Hawking we take it real seriously and it's repeated in the news. This quote was all over the news as being profound. It's amazing. "Have you read Stephen Hawking's new book? It's fascinating. It's like a bestseller book."
TV Anchor:
Did the universe need a creator? Not according to the physicist and mathematician Stephen Hawking, who argues that God wasn't necessary for the creation of the world. Professor Hawking claims that the Big Bang theory of creation can now be explained by science alone without the need to consider some form of divine intervention.
Stephen Hawking:
Because there are laws such as gravity the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.
TV Anchor:
According to Stephen Hawking the latest theory is that our universe is just one of many and the laws of physics must mean that countless other universes were formed before the Big Bang. Would God have done all that just to create us? While the traditional religious view is that it took divine intervention at the very least to start it all, scientists accept that the Hawking theory is controversial.
TV Anchor:
Many theoretical physicists would argue that we are now addressing questions that not so long ago were seen to be beyond the realm of science and what we are doing, inevitably, is pushing religion on to the back foot so that questions where only religion could give hope to give us an answer, science is now doing that as well.
Pastor Anderson:
In the late 1970s Hawking was elected the Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at the University of Cambridge. Hawking's promotion coincided with a health crisis which led to Hawking accepting, all be it reluctantly, some nursing services at home. At the same time he was also making a transition in his approach to physics, becoming more intuitive and speculative rather than insisting on mathematical proofs. Okay, so these guys are all about proof. It's all about the evidence, right? No, it's more just like intuitive, man. Dude, dude, just smoke this. You're going to understand black holes, man, I'm telling you. Dude, this is going to take you into a whole new dimension, man. You're not going to need to rely so much on this mathematical proofs. That's stuff is just holding you back, man. You got to get more intuitive. You got to get more speculative, man. Just take this drug, man. It's going to open your mind to a whole new galaxy, man. It's more speculative rather than insisting on mathematical proofs. Who needs them? Who needs proof?
TV Anchor:
While Stephen Hawking himself admits that the theory that there're multiple universes is still just a theory, it's yet to be confirmed by any evidence, which may leave many believing that science hasn't got all the answers yet.
Pastor Anderson:
Hey, this is what he said. I'd rather be right than rigorous. I'm not going to be rigorous in my testing and make sure that this stuff is actually right. I'd rather just say I'm right.
Lawrence Krauss:
When you're a theoretical physicist and you speculate about what might be, there's nothing more terrifying or perhaps less plausible than the possibility that the universe might actually obey what you're saying. In my career most of the time the universe isn't smart enough to do what I say it should. It's really remarkable when these very speculative ideas that seem well motivated, but almost seem too good to be true actually work out.
Pastor Anderson:
Hawking has argued that computer viruses should be considered a new form of life. Is this guy's smart or what? Hawking has argued that computer viruses should be considered a new form of life and has stated, "That maybe it says something about human nature that the only form of life we've created so far is purely destructive. Talk about creating life in our own imagine." You haven't created life, Stephen Hawking. You're never will.
Audience:
Amen.
Pastor Anderson:
Only God can create life. In an interview published in the Guardian Hawking regarded the concept of heaven as a myth believing that there is no heaven or afterlife and that such a notion was a fairy story for people who are afraid of the dark. Hawking has stated that given the vastness of the universe aliens likely exist, but that contact with them should be avoided. Here's the thing about that, is that there's no evidence for aliens. None, zero, zilch, nada, but yet when you listen to these atheists, scientists, they all talk about aliens. Why? Because it's based on two things, deep-seated hatred for the God of the Bible, but don't forget element number two, science fiction. Here's a major source.
Michio Kaku:
I love to watch science fiction movies but I cringe. I cringe whenever I see a depiction of the aliens. First of all, the aliens speak perfect English. Not just British English, they speak perfect American English, and obviously they're a human inside some kind of monkey suit.
When we physicists look for alien civilizations, we don't look for little green men.
When we physicists look at outer space for alien life, we don't look for little green men. We look for type one, type two and type three civilizations. A type one civilization has harnessed the planetary power. They control earthquakes, the weather, volcanoes. They have cities on the ocean. Anything planetary, they control. That's type one. A planetary civilization. A civilization that resembles something out of Buck Rogers or Flash Gordon. A type two civilization is stellar. They consume so much energy they can play with stars. That's, for example, the Federation of Planets in Star Trek. Star Trek would represent a typical type two civilization. They play with stars. They are immortal. Nothing known to science can destroy a type two civilization. Then we have type three, which is galactic. The Empire of Star Wars would correspond to a type three civilization. What are we on this scale? On this scale are we type one that control hurricanes, are we type two that control star systems, are we type three that roam the galactic space lanes? No. We're type zero.
Pastor Anderson:
Let's jump to the fourth point, the eschatology of the sci-fi religion, the eschatology or end times beliefs of this sci-fi religion. When we think of our eschatology it has to do with the second coming of Jesus Christ. Again eschatology is just a fancy-schmancy word for the study of end times or the study of the last things. Well, our eschatology focuses upon what? The second coming of Jesus Christ. The Book of Revelation that gives end times prophecy, it starts out talking about the second coming of Christ. It says, "Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so. Amen." Then it ends with, "Behold, I come quickly: blessed is he that keepeth the sayings of the prophecy of this book."
It starts out and ends with, that's the theme, the second coming of the Lord Jesus Christ. There's an eschatology of the sci-fi religion that has to do with the coming of aliens. We look to the coming of Christ. They look for the coming of aliens. You talk about these guys, they say, "Inevitably, eventually, we're going to come into contact with aliens." Kind of like, "We're waiting for Jesus to come back." They're waiting for aliens. They're waiting for the UFOs to show up. A lot of them are kind of scared of these UFOs too and saying, "It's going to be like when Columbus came to the Indians." It didn't go so well for the Indians. That's how it's going to be when the aliens come to us.
Part of their eschatology in this sci-fi religion is that they desire a one world government and a one world right now. I'm just going to briefly touch upon one of the apostles of the sci-fi religion named Michio Kaku. This guy, Michio Kaku, is a very famous astrophysicist and he says that if you're not for a one world government, if you're against one world government you're a terrorist. Anyone who doesn't want a one world government, he basically says, "You're a terrorist because you have to understand that it's our destiny."
Michio Kaku:
The transition between type zero and type one and that's where we are today. This transition is perhaps the most important transition of all time. Some people don't want it. They fear this transition because this transition is to a planetary civilization tolerant of many cultures. These are the terrorists, that in their gut they fear this because they know they are witnessing the birth pangs of a beginning of a new planetary civilization and the terrorists want nothing to do with it. What is terrorist? Terrorism in some sense is a reaction against the creation of a type one civilization. They don't like the march towards a type one civilization. Which tendency will win? I don't know, but I hope that we emerge as a type one civilization.
Pastor Anderson:
Here's the problem, no one's ever discovered a type one civilization. There's no such thing as a type one, type two or type three. Even he'll admit there's no evidence that there's any aliens even out there.
Michio Kaku:
When we look at outer space we see no evidence of type one, two or three anywhere, no evidence whatsoever. The mathematics say that there should be thousands of type one, two and three civilizations on the galaxy. We see no evidence of any whatsoever.
Pastor Anderson:
Yet he has this whole [inaudible 00:40:33]. It'd be sort of like this. It'd be sort of like if I said, "Basketball players can be put in three categories, type one, type two and type three. A type one basketball player can dunk the ball on a 15 foot rim. A type two basketball player can dunk the ball on a 20 foot rim. A type three basketball player can dunk the ball on a 25 foot rim. You know what Michael Jordan is? Type zero. You know what Shaquille O'Neal is, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar? You know what these guys are? They're type zero." Wouldn't that be ridiculous and stupid since there's no one who could do those things? It doesn't exist. This is thing that you can expect to hear from someone like Michio Kaku and his inflated ego of his overstated intelligence that, "We're looking for type one, type two and type three civilizations." Come on, haven't you seen Buck Rogers? Haven't you seen Star Trek? Haven't you seen Star Wars?
He said, "The only way we're going to make it from a type zero to a type one is a one world government. That's the only way. We must unite in a one world system and the people who don't want to unite are terrorists." Look at Psalm 2, verse 1. "Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take council together" and that's what we see now, the rulers uniting together, the United Nations, and they take council together against the Lord and against his anointed or his Christ. Saying, "Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us. He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh." You say, "Why do you laugh at these guys this morning? Why do you mock them? Why do you mock a guy in wheelchair?" Come on, you wouldn't mock a guy in glasses, would you? Let me tell you something, the reason I mock, the Lord is going to mock.
Audience:
Amen.
Pastor Anderson:
He said, "I'll mock when your fear cometh." "The Lord shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision. Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure." We know it's the anti-Christ who wants a one world government, that wants a New World Order. This sci-fi religion is in direct opposition with God's plan for this world. They want that which the devil wants. That's what it all comes down to. These apostles of sci-fi religion, I'll tell you why they're being propped up by the media. Because the media is run by people who want a one world system. A conspiracy to create a New World Order is what is behind propping up these really smart guys that aren't really quite as smart as we thought, are they? It's about a New World Order. It's about the devil.
Let's bow our heads and have a word of prayer. Father, we thank you so much for the clear teaching of your word, Lord. I thank you so much for the Baptist preachers that I grew up listening to and the Baptist preachers that I would look at today and look up to and listen to their words, and that I don't have to listen to these kind of foolish apostles of sci-fi. Lord, thank you that we have the word of God, which is never changing, always true and beats any science textbook any day of the week.
