the part of the chapter that I'd like to focus on is in 1 Timothy 6 beginning there verse number 20 where the Bible reads, "O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy 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." I want to focus on that phrase this morning, "science falsely so called." The title of my sermon this morning is this, "Science fiction religion." Science fiction religion, because if you think about it, that which is not true, that which is a fable or a fairy tale is fiction. The science that we have today, that's considered fact, is actually in many ways science fiction. It's not actually real, it's only been invented in people's minds.
Notice what the Bible says here, right after it says, "science falsely so called," in verse 21 it says, "which some professing have erred concerning the faith." I like that word "professing" because professing is often used about a religion. He professes Christianity. He professes Islam. I will submit to you this morning that a lot of what we call science today is actually more like a religion than it is science. That's why the title of the sermon is "Science fiction religion."
First of all let me give you a dictionary definition of religion, and then I'll give you a dictionary definition of science. Religion is defined as a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature and purpose of the universe. Religion is defined as a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of person [or sects 00:01:53]. Religion is defined as the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices.
Now listen to the definition of science, a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths, systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws. Science is defined as systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. A third definition, knowledge, as of facts or principles, gained by systematic study. You see the word that keeps coming up over and over again in our definitions of science is "knowledge", things that we know, not things that we're guessing or hoping or thinking possibly could be true. No it's knowledge, it's fact, it's law. That's what science means.
In fact when you think of the famous word "omniscience" that we use about God, what do we mean when we say that God is omniscient? We mean that he's what? All knowing. Right? Because we say he's omnipotent, meaning all powerful, because omni means all. All potent, all powerful, omnipotent. Then we say he's everywhere, he's omnipresent, all present. Then we also say he's omniscient, but when you look at the word omniscience, how do you spell omniscience? You spell it with omni and science. All knowledge, meaning that God is all knowing, he has omniscience.
Science is what we know to be true, not just this guessing, theorizing, hypothesizing. No, knowledge is a set of beliefs that through testing hypothesis, through experimentation, through observation, we've collected this body of knowledge, fact, laws that is known as science. Whereas religion, what's the word that kept coming in in the different definitions of religion? It's a belief. Okay? It's a different there between a religion which is a belief, which is faith, and science, real science, which will be knowledge or fact that we can actually taste, see, touch, smell, hear, we can actually observe it with the 5 senses.
Now 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, "Do you believe in science?" Who's ever been asked that question, "Don't you believe in science? Do you believe in science?" That's a pretty good question because it is something that you have to believe in. 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 in it 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 2 things I'm going to demonstrate this morning. Number 1, that belief system is based upon hatred for God, by that I mean the God of the Bible. Number 2, it's based upon science fiction. 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. 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 2 things. Number 1, a deep seated hatred for the God of the Bible and number 2, 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 this morning. Let's turn Romans chapter 1, that's always a good place to start any sermon. Romans chapter 1, that's where the apostle Paul decided to start, right? Romans chapter 1, great chapter. While you're turning I'll read for you the best verse in Romans chapter 1, verse 16, "For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek."
That's one of the greatest verse in the Bible it tells you that salvation is for everyone that believeth. Notice he didn't say it's the power of God onto salvation for every church member, for everyone who's baptized, for every one who lives a good life. No it says, "to every one who believeth; to the Jew first and also to the Greek." Another thing about that verse I want to point out is that Christianity is a belief. It is faith, it is a religion, okay? We will stand and boldly proclaim that without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he that cometh to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarded of them that diligently seek Him.
I'm not going to get up here today and present for you the proof for God in some scientific manner. No, this is the proof right here. Faith is the substance of [inaudible 00:07:31] and faith is the evidence of things not seen. Here's all my evidence. But what I would submit to you is that the atheist also has faith. He's not anymore scientific than I am. I'm basing it on faith in this book. Who has faith in this book this morning? Right, but here's the thing, the atheist today he as faith in other books. He has faith in other men besides the man Christ Jesus. He has faith just like I have faith. His faith is in that which is vain and unprofitable. His faith comes from a deep seated hatred for God and an over indulgence in science fiction.
Now Romans chapter 1 verse 19 the Bible says, "Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath showed it unto them." Now, manifest means that it's able to be seen, it's out there. He says, "God hath showed it unto them. 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 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, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things."
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? That's explained in verse 29 and on, "Being filled with all unrighteousness." 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. But not only that, it says in verse 30 about these same people, "Backbiters, haters of God."
Now that's what I'm saying about this belief system. These people hate God, they don't want to retain God in their knowledge. Therefor they set out teach and preach the gospel of atheism. They go out to evangelise people that there is no God. They do 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. Look what the Bible says back in verse 22, it says, "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools." Another reason why many of these fools call themselves a professor. Yeah, they profess themselves to be wise. The Bible says that they're fools. It says that they "changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man."
Now remember in 1 Corinthians 11, the Bible teaches that man is the image and glory of God. Man is the image and glory of God. God created man in his own image, but they "changed", the Bible says, "the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things." One way to interpret this verse, which is a very legitimate interpretation, is that they're basically taking mankind which is made in the image of God which is the glory and image of God and reducing from a immortal soul, an eternal never dying soul, to a corruptible man, who is liken to fourfooted beasts and creeping things. What does this religion, this science fiction religion teach about man?
Do they teach that man glorifies God by His very existence because he's the glory and the image of the creator? No, they teach that he's a corruptible man, that he's going to die and be gone and the he is in the image of beasts. They think that he is a glorified orangutan. They think that he's a glorified chimpanzee. They changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Obviously the main interpretation of this verse would be that they took God and made idols of Him, they made images of Him, an image of corruptible man, an image of a beast. But the Bible is so deep there are multiple layers of meaning. I believe that God is also prophesying what we see today in the form of this science falsely so called.
Now let me give you some of the elements of this sci-fi religion, this science fiction religion. It has the elements that you'd expect to find in a religion. What would you expect to find in a religion? You'd expect to find preachers or apostles of that religion. You'd expect to find evangelists and teachers of that religion, wouldn't you? You'd also expect to find certain rules governing morality, certain ideas about right and wrong that come from that religion. Whether we were talking about Hinduism, Islam, whatever, these are the type of things you'd expect to find. Usually you'd expect to find a creation story in a religion, right? All the different religions of the world have a belief about how it all started, the creation story.
Another element that you'd expect to find in a religion is an end times teaching, what's called eschatology, the study of final things. The religions of this world will point to some kind of a future apocalypse, whatever they see that as. Obviously the Bible's no exception, we have the Book of Revelation telling us how it all ends. I'm going to go through these elements. Let's start with first of all then preachers of this sci-fi religion. This religion, this science fiction religion definitely has some preachers. 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.
Now the Bible says, and if you would turn over to 1 Timothy 6. The Bible says in Psalm 62 verse 9, "Surely men of low degree are vanity, and men of high degree are a lie: to be laid in the balance, they are altogether lighter than vanity." God is saying here that men of low degree are nothing in God's [inaudible 00:14:49]. God doesn't respect any [inaudible 00:14:51] person, but that men of high degree are actually less than nothing in His [inaudible 00:14:55], "lighter than vanity," because they're a lie. What does it mean, "men of high degree are a lie?" That they're a fraud. That they're not really as smart as they think they are. That they're not really as great as people are making them out to be.
Of course these preachers in this sci-fi religion, they love to glorify themselves through their degree. They've reached the degree of bachelor. I was get to get out of the degree of bachelor, when I got married. I reached the associate's degree, the bachelor's degree, the master's degree. That comes back to He-Man, you know, masters of the universe. The master's degree, the doctorate, the PhD. In their world, this is what exults them among their peers, "He is a PhD." But God says that "men of high degree are a lie." They're lighter than vanity. They're worth less than the guy that's of low degree the Bible says, but God doesn't respect any man's person.
The first one of these apostles ... Before I do that let me just show you something in 1 Timothy 6. This kind of jumped out at me while the scripture was being read. I love reading the Bible in church. Have you ever noticed that when the Bible's read in church things jump out at you that you don't always get when you're reading the Bible at home, because we're gathered here together and God's spirit in the midst of us. When we read the Bible as a church it seems like God really speaks to us. That's why we read the whole chapter before the sermon. That's actually a profitable time in the service to listen and learn.
One of the things that jumped out that, because we're in this chapter that's talking about science falsely so called and people erring from the faith. I like this, verse 3, "If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; He is proud, knowing nothing." See, the fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge the Bible says. It makes sense that God's saying, if anybody is rejecting the words of Jesus Christ he's knowing nothing. These people that think they're so smart, the Bible says the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God and that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge. Fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.
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. Somebody who's not just an atheist but they want to preach the gospel of atheism to the world 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 exists, 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 what I said they come from, a deep seated hatred for God. Here's what Richard Dawkins says about God in His book, "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 blood thirsty ethnic cleanser, a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously, malevolent bully."
Tell us how you really feel, Richard Dawkins. You can tell here that he hates God. He hates God [inaudible 00:19:13] fiction, and he's read a lot of fiction. 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 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, "The reason why is because the God of the Bible is this misogynistic, homophobic, yadi yada yada ... " Does that makes logical sense, to say that something doesn't exist because it's unpleasant?
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 exists and I happen to be homophobic. I'm constantly labeled as mysoginistic. I'm constantly labeled as being this horrible person by the world, but you know what? I exist. I'm here. Come. 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. I'm literally here. What kind of science is that, to say, "It doesn't exist because I don't like his personality." That's really 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." He said, "It is possible that those from another planet and another galaxy far, far away ... 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 sounds scientific or does it sound pretty biased? Based on his deep seated hatred for God.
Now 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 and we'll see why these preachers of the sci-fi religion, why is it that they don't believe in the God of the Bible. Why is it that they embrace this religion of so called science? People say, "Atheism is a religion," right? You probably heard that. I agree with that statement, I think that that's pretty clear by the definitions of religions. Often when they list the top religions in the world they usually include atheism as being one of the top 5 religions in the world.
But it's almost more accurate, I think, instead of saying atheism is a religion, is science is a religion. Because science is really these people's religion, not so much atheism. Because even these so called big name atheists, they'll even sometimes throw out there the possibility that there could be a God, as long as it's not the God of the Bible, just make that real clear, but that there could be a God out there. Here's the thing though, science is their religion. That's really what it comes [inaudible 00:22:37] Again, when I say science I'm using it very loosely, the way that they use it, the so called science.
That's why I don't say, "Hey, science is their religion," I say, "Science fiction is their religion." It's a sci-fi religion this morning. Here's another scriptural reason why people reject the God of the Bible and go into this science religion. Look if you would at verse number 3 of chapter 3, "Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers," and 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. For this they ..."
Now look, when it says creation there I heard somebody says, "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 later. But 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, "Well you know, the conclusion I've drawn is that there's no God." No, no, no they're willingly ignoring it. 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're willingly "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," so the 2 things that 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're, "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, "Well 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 anyone would argue with that.
Listen to this story, this is from the Huffington Post. Who here thinks that the Huffington Post is a radical conservative news outlet? No, this is a godless, god hating outlet. Even they're calling out Richard Dawkins' wickedness. Okay? This is from the Huffington Post just a few years ago, "Richard Dawkins pedophilia remarks provoke outrage," that's the headline. "Canterbury, England. Richard Dawkins," and I'm just going to read the article verbatim from Huffington Post, except I'm going to have to censor some of it for the sake of little ears. "Richard Dawkins, one of the world's best-known and outspoken atheists, has provoked outrage among child protection agencies and experts after suggesting that recent child abuse scandals have been overblown. In an interview in The Times magazine on Saturday (Sept. 7), Dawkins, age 72, 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 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 renown atheist out there, this is the kind of stuff he's saying. Even the Huffington Post article itself starts up, "Richard Dawkins, one of the world's best-known and outspoken atheists," those are the first words of the article. If not the most well known and outspoken. "Referring to his early days at a boarding school in Salisbury, he recalled how one of the teachers," and he explains what the guy did to him, and it's not mild at all. I'm not even going to read it, because [inaudible 00:27:51] that I don't want to pervert your mind, but the stuff he did was not mild. Anybody that thinks it's mild is a filthy pervert themselves, yes that's you Richard Dawkins. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
"He said other children in his school peer group had been molested by the same teacher but he concluded: 'I don't think he did any of us lasting harm.'" Well, you know 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 at all." No, it turned you into a God hating atheist. Now you'll often find the 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. [inaudible 00:28:38] a lot of people have been molested who 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 says in this quote, "'I am very conscious that you can't condemn people of an earlier era by the standards of ours. Just as we don't look back at the 18th and 19th centuries and condemn people for racism in the same way as we would condemn a modern person for racism, I look back a few decades to my childhood and see things like caning, like mild pedophilia, and I can't find it in me to condemn it by the same standards as I or anyone would today,' he said. He said the most notorious cases of pedophilia involve rape and even murder and should not be bracketed with what he called 'just a mild," you know, whatever. Unless they kill, unless they just violently abuse you ... I mean 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 that, "It's not 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? Now let's see what Richard Dawkins considers child abuse. Here's a quote from his book, "The god delusion," "Faith can be very dangerous, and deliberately to implant it into a vulnerable mind ..." Let me start, I'm sorry. "Faith can be very dangerous, and deliberately to implant it into the vulnerable mild ..." I can't even read this junk, "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, and you're going to tell me that this man is so smart and he's so intelligent and 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 bumpkin because my apostle of my sci-fi religion is so much smarter than you. No, he things 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?
Dawkins, an evolutionary biologist, has been married 3 times and has one daughter. This guy doesn't seem to be an expert in biology. He's mating with at least 3 women and producing one child? This guy is not an expert, apparently. It's kind of funny that this guy is getting his butt kicked, evolutionarily speaking. If we're talking survival of the fittest, if we're talking about selective reproduction, I've got my 9th on the way Richard Dawkins and I've been married to only one woman. You've been married to 3 different women. This guy, it seems like he's really living to the full. He says, "You've got to live your life to the fullest. Don't let Christianity hold you back."
I submit to you that my quality of life, being married to the same person for over 15 years now and having 8 children is higher than the quality of life of a guy who's married 3 different women. That's a lower quality of life my friend. I'm not down on you, obviously there are great men in the Bible who only have one child. I'm not criticizing people who only have one child, but what I am saying is that this guy is all about reproduction, that's his whole study, evolutionary biology. This guy marries 3 different women and produces one child. This guy is supposedly living his best life now. If you're so smart why can't you stay married to the same person? Why do you keep failing at marriage?
You say, "Well, he just wanted to," then why did he get married? When you get married you're claiming that it's for like, right? He claimed it's for life, gets married, and then fails. Gets married again, claims it's for life, fails. Gets married a third time, to a woman that he's still with apparently. I'm not really impressed with his life. Although he's only fathered on daughter, albeit he's had 3 different life's mates, he did father the meme.
Now listen, I want to give honor where honor is due here, because people always tell us about how, "These scientists have given us so much and we enjoy the cars and the airplanes and we enjoy the smartphone, and then we have the gull to deny their science religion." Let me point out to you that these apostles of sci-fi religion, they didn't us the technology that we have. If you actually look at the achievements, the scientific achievements of Richard Dawkins, Michio Kaku, Stephen Hawking, you'll find that they are nil. But look, I have to give Richard Dawkins credit for one major achievement. I'm going to be balanced up here.
Because this guy did contribute something. You know how when you're on Facebook there are these things called memes? Who knows what I'm talking about? Listen to me, don't tell me that evolutionary biologists don't invent anything. Don't tell me that we do not benefit as humanity from these scientists such as quantum physicists, theoretical astrophysicists and evolutionary biologists. No, these guys are bringing something to the table. Did you know that Richard Dawkins came up with that word meme? The word that we've all wondered how to pronounce our whole lives, is it mam, is it mim, is it mehmeh, mimi? Nobody knows how to pronounce it. Couldn't you have come up with something where people would just know how to pronounce it Richard Dawkins? But no, he came up with that term meme.
He is someone who's contributed to our quality of life. Listen to this, this is from Wikipedia. "Fathering the meme," is what this section on Wikipedia is called. This guy he's surviving, he is propagating his gene pool more than just through that one daughter, because he fathered the meme. "Dawkins coined the word meme (the behavioural equivalent of a gene) as a way to encourage readers to think about how Darwinian principles might be extended beyond the realm of genes." Get it? Meme, gene. "Because memes are not always copied perfectly," don't you hate that? "They might become refined, combined, or otherwise modified with other ideas; this results in new memes, which may themselves prove more or less efficient replicators than their predecessors."
I'm sorry, I've got to get out the Dr. [Spergel 00:36:03] glasses. "Thus providing a framework for a hypothesis of cultural evolution based on memes, a notion that is analogous to the theory of biological evolution based on genes." Basically what he's saying is, "Yeah evolution, haven't you seen how memes evolve? Hello, memes evolve, guess what so does everything else. If we could just get people to see how memes evolve, maybe they'll understand that everything else evolved." "Although Dawkins invented the term meme, he has not claimed that the idea was entirely novel, there have been other expressions for similar ideas in the past." Now the popularization of these things led to the emergence of a new field called memetics. You've heard of genetics. Now there's a new field called memetics, "a field from which Dawkins has distanced himself."
Memetics is the bastard son of Richard Dawkins, he gave birth to a whole branch of science and he won't even claim it has his own. Come on, own it Richard Dawkins, be proud of it. A whole branch of science, you came up with it. He's like, "No, I don't want anything to do with all those memes on Facebook. I don't want to be associated ... " Those memes are evolving my friend, case closed. "James Gleick describes Dawkins's concept of the meme as 'his most famous and memorable invention'," and that it is, "far more influential than his selfish genes or his later proselytising against religiosity." You think you're going to go down in history Richard Dawkins for being against religion? Nope, it's the meme. It's memetics. You coined it buddy, own it.
I've got to hurry, I'm running out of time. Let's talk about the creation myth of this sci-fi religion. Number 1, 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. Genesis chapter 1, of course it starts with that famous verse, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the Earth." I'm going to also read for you Exodus 20 verse 11, where the Bible reads, "For in six days the Lord made heaven and Earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it."
We see there that in 6 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," there's no gap between Genesis 1 verse one and verse 2. Now you didn't really need me to tell you that, because honestly if you just opened the Bible and started reading it, there's no way you would just assume a gap there. That idea is a new idea that goes back to the 19th century because of the fact that with evolution and the big bang and all these different things coming about in people's minds, they tried to adapt the Bible to try to fit with the new science religion and to go together with it. I don't believe it's compatible. The Bible here is clearly stating, if you just take it for what is says, that the Earth is created in 6 days and then God rested on the 7th day.
Also, in this chapter we find that everything brings forth after it's own kind, look at verse number 11, "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." For sake of time we'll just jump down to verse 24, "God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his 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.
Now, 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 a wide variety within that kind. For example, you have a dog, that's a kind of animal, a dog. 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 just got 2 dogs, a male and a female. People say, "Uh, you think that all the dog breeds we see today came from 2 dogs?" They think that all the animals we see today came from 2 animals. Hello?
They think it's crazy that we think a poodle is related to a rottweiler or whatever, or a chihuahua is related a great Dane, but they don't think it's weird to think that an elephant's related to a turtle. Yeah, obviously Noah ... and 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. Okay, 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 is this crippled guy that basically he can't even move, he can't talk. I'm not sure what's wrong with him but he has some kind of a disease. Of course there are many great people and godly people who are afflicted with disease, but here's the thing, it's so sad to see a guy who is in this condition, can barely even move, but yet it's like he's using every bit and ounce of strength that he has to hate the God of the Bible and to deny the truth of God's word. Which really makes him a disgusting creature, the fact that he hates God with every last ounce of his being and that he's ready to plunge into the depth of hell, when in reality if he accepted the Lord Jesus Christ he could have a brand new body, he could be leaping for joy in heaven.
Instead he chooses to go straight into hell and to be in that condition for all eternity. Now here's what Stephen Hawking says about the creation. On one side we have God's word, which says what? "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." Here's what he says in his book from 2010, "The grand design," "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing." Let me read that again and I'll read a little further this time, "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason that there's something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It's not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going."
You may ask yourself the question, "How can the universe create itself?" Because gravity. Hello, idiot. How dare you ... Wait, wait a minute. Do you even have a degree? Do you have a degree in science? I'm not talking about memetics, 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? 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 you're just too dumb to get it. 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?" Now 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. 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 a best seller book.
Let's go through the life of Stephen Hawking, let's look at his achievement because I think once you see all of his great achievements, all of his great knowledge, all the invention that he's given us, I think you'll understand why we should stop and take that quote a little more seriously. Beginning in 1973 Hawking moved into the study of quantum gravity and quantum mechanics, but you probably don't even know what that means, do you? His work in this area was spurred by a visit to [Moscow 00:46:19]. Have you ever even been there? And discussions with Yakov Borisovich Zel'dovich and Alexei Starobinsky, who's work showed that according to the uncertainty principle, rotating black holes emit particles. To Hawking's annoyance, his much checked calculations produced findings that contradicted his second law, which claimed the black holes could never get smaller and supported Beckenstein's reasoning about their entropy.
Now here's the thing about this, don't you hate it when you have a law and then you do all these calculations and everything proves that your law is false? It's like you keep using that word law, it's like you don't know what it means though. Law? I thought a law is something that we know for sure. No, but Stephen Hawking's got these laws that keep getting disproved by facts, by a bunch of Russian guys that are hanging him out to dry, quantum physically speaking.
In the late 1970s Hawking was elected the Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at the University of Cambridge. His inaugural lecture as Lucasian Professor of Mathematics was titled, "Is the end in sight for theoretical physics?" I sure hope so. He proposed that N=8 Supergravity as the leading theory to solve many of the outstanding problems physicists were studying. Hawking's promotion coincided with a health crisis which to Hawking accepting albeit 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 guy are all about proof, all about the evidence, right?
No, it's more intuitive man. Dude, dude, just smoke this, you can 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 rely so much on this mathematical proofs. That's stuff just holding you back man. You've got to get more intuitive, 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? 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's actually right, I'd rather just say I'm right because it really annoyed me when that guy proved me wrong in Russia.
In 1981 he proposed that information in a black hole is irretrievably lost when a black hole evaporates. This stuff has really improved my quality of life, I know that this stuff really went into the development of my particular smartphone. The information paradox violates the fundamental tenet of quantum mechanics and led to years of debate including the black hole war with Leonard Susskind and Gerard 't Hooft. By 2003 consensus among physicists was growing that Hawking was wrong about the loss of information in a black hole. In a 2004 lecture in Dublin he conceded his 1997 bet, this doesn't real scientific, "I'll bet you that information is lost in a black hole. I've got $100 of change that it's lost." But then 2004 rolled around and it's time for Hawking to ante up, time for him to pay up, because he conceded his bet against Preskill, but he described his own somewhat controversial solution to the information paradox problem involving the possibility that black holes have more than one topology.
I know I've been proven wrong but maybe it's both. "As part of another longstanding scientific dispute, Hawking had emphatically argued, and bet," this guy puts his money where his mouth is, he "had emphatically argued and bet that the Higgs boson would never be found. The particle was proposed to exist as part of the Higgs field theory by Peter Higgs in 1964. Hawking and Higgs engaged in a heated and public debate," remember when you pay-per-viewed that? It was like when people pay-per-viewed Tyson versus, what was the guy? Yeah it was like when you pay-per-viewed Tyson versus Hollyfield. Remember that debate, Hawking and Higgs? It was a very "heated and public debate over the matter in 2002 and again in 2008, with Higgs criticising Hawking's work and complaining that Hawking's 'celebrity status gives him instant credibility that others do not have.' The particle was discovered in July 2012." Oops. This guy's got a gamlbing problem. He's throwing good money after bad. "Hawking quickly conceded that he had lost his bet and said that Higgs should win the Nobel Prize for Physics, which he did in 2013."
By the way, Hawking and Higgs are dumb and dumber, just so you know. Anyway, "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 2 things, deep seated hatred for the God of the Bible, but don't forget element number 2, science fiction is a major source, we're going to get into that.
"Hawking has argued that computer viruses should be considered a new form of life," is this guy smart or what? We're not worthy, Stephen Hawking. I repent in sackcloth and ashes. I know that thou canst do everything Stephen Hawking. "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 have created so far is purely destructive. Talk about creating life in our own image.'" You haven't created life Stephen Hawking and you never will. 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'." That's who believes in heaven and eternal life, fairy tale for people who believe in the dark. You're the who spent your whole life talking about black holes, sounds like you're afraid of the dark. I got to hurry, I'm already out of time but I'm going to keep on going because I can.
Let's go Isaiah chapter 22 verse 13, let's talk about the morality of this sci-fi religion. We talked about the creation story of the sci-fi religion, which is that the universe can and will create itself from nothing because gravity, duh. Then we talked about the preachers of this religion, we listed off several of them, we paid particular attention to Stephen Hawkings and Richard Dawkins, it's easy to mix those up sometimes and they're both highly esteemed, we don't want to dishonor them by mixing up their names. Thirdly let's talk about the morality of this sci-fi religion. There are a couple different denominations of the sci-fi religion. This is a whole other sermon, it needs to ... Come back tonight for that, because it's a whole sermon of itself. The morality of the sci-fi religion coming soon to a pulpit near you.
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. Now, 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 last things. 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." And then it ends with, "Behold, I come quickly: blessed is he that keepeth the sayings of this book." It starts out and ends with, that 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, "You know 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 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.
But part of their eschatology in this sci-fi religion is that they desire a one world government and a one world religion. 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, theoretical physicist. This guy is real into science fiction. He's kind of an expert that they'll turn to if they want to really talk about light sabers, really talk about the force fields around the Starship Enterprise. He's kind of a go-to guy to really get the answers that we want, you know what I mean? This guy's an expert on physics 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 one world government, he basically says you're a terrorist because you have to understand that it's our destiny.
Because he says this, he says, "There are three types of civilizations," and I'll close on this point. If you would go to Psalm 2, that's the scripture we're going to close on, Psalm 2. But he says, "There are three types of civilizations," he says, "When we scientists go out looking for aliens, when we go out," he doesn't call them aliens, intelligent life in the universe, call it right. "When we go out look for intelligent life in the universe we're not looking for little green men, we're looking for type 1, type 2 and type 3 civilizations." Because it'd be ridiculous to look for little green men, right? Because we all know they're going to be a different color than that. Why would they be green? Hello.
He says, "We're not looking for little green men," oh no, "we're looking for type 1, type 2 and type 3 civilizations." He says, "Let me tell you what a type 1 civilization is. It's one who has mastered their planet. They have total control of their planet, they're harnessing of the power of their planet. That which is the core, that nuclear reactor that's in our core and all that, they've harnessed it. And then they've harnessed the power of their sun. They've mastered control of their planet, they're in dominion of their planet. Type 2," and he said, "an example of this would be Buck Rogers. Buck Rogers is the best example I could give you this." Then he said, "There's a type 2 civilization where they have mastered their own galaxy. This would be the galactic federation of Star Trek. Then you have a type 3 civilization where they have mastered multiple galaxies. This is what we know was the galactic empire of Star Wars." That's the pinnacle right there.
Now this created great controversy amongst physicists because some of them think Star Trek is way better than Star Wars. Just to name a notable name, Neil deGrasse Tyson for example, very well known atheist, scientist. He think this theory's wrong because of the fact that Star Trek is better and than the Star Trek Enterprise would demolish the Millennium Falcon in a one on one fight. If you don't realize that you're an idiot. He said, "No type 3 is the Star Wars society." He says, "You know what we are? You know what we are on that scale?" What do you think we are, you think we're type 1, you think we're type 2, you think we're type 3? You know what we are? We're 0. We're a type 0 civilization, we're not even any of these. We are so lame that we're a 0.
But here's the problem, no one's ever discovered a type 1 civilization. There's no such thing as a type 1, type 2 or type 3. Even he'll admit there's no evidence that there's any aliens even out there. But yet he has this whole grading scale. It'd be sort of like this. It'd be sort of like if I said, "Basketball players can be put in 3 categories, type 1, type 2 and type 3. A type 1 basketball player can dunk the ball on a 15 foot rim. A type 2 basketball player can dunk the ball on a 20 foot rim. A type 3 basketball player can dunk the ball on a 25 foot rim. You know what Michael Jordan is? Type 0. You know what Shaquille O'neal is? Kareem Abdul Jabbar? You know what these guys are they're type 0."
Wouldn't that be ridiculous and stupid, since there's no one who could do those things? It doesn't exist. But this is the thing that you can expect to hear from someone like Michio [Kaka 01:02:20] and his inflated ego of his overstated intelligence that we're looking for type 1, type 2 and type 3 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 0 to a type 1 is a one world government. That's the only way. We must unite in a one world system. If people don't want to unite they're terrorists." That's what he said. Look it up.
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 counsel together," that's what we see now, the rulers uniting together, the United Nations. They take counsel together, "against the Lord, and against his anointed," or Christ, "saying, Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us. He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh." Why do you laugh at these guys this morning? Why do you mock them? Why do you mock a guy in a wheelchair? Come on, you wouldn't mock a guy in glasses would you?
Let me tell you something, the reason I'm mocking, the Lord's going to mock. 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 preacher that I grew up listening to and the baptist preachers that I would look today and look up to and listen to their words. 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 text book any day of the week. In Jesus name we pray, Amen.