Science: “The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.” (Oxford English Dictionary)

A definition of science is given as lead to this post because it is vitally important to recognize what science “is” and “isn’t.” Per the definition, science requires both observation and experiment. Yet many of the claims of the predominant voices of secular and atheistic “scientists” are the outcome of observation and mere speculation prejudiced by a determination to deny God. Sadly, the┬álargely uncritical masses readily embrace, and falsely expand upon, the declarations of these “scientists.” The harmful impact on society – the ungodly molding of worldview for so many due to the promulgation of naturalistic and anti-biblical declarations of atheistic scientists who can’t see past their prejudices – has been and remains a grave concern.

When operating in a focused and specific manner in their areas of expertise, many secular atheists prove themselves quite brilliant and capable in their particular subject matter, and can thus be rightly regarded as scientists in those domains, to the extent that their prejudices do not cloud or mislead their thinking in such focus. However, these same individuals should no longer be regarded as authoritative scientists when they are merely expressing opinions outside of the realm of their scientific expertise, or are wrongly extrapolating based on flawed logic. For example, it seems that the astrophysicist Neil Degrasse Tyson has said, “Every account of a higher power that I’ve seen described, of all religions that I’ve seen, include many statements with regard to the benevolence of that power. When I look at the universe and all the ways the universe wants to kill us, I find it hard to reconcile that with statements of beneficence.” (

If Tyson did indeed state the above quote (frankly I haven’t exhaustively researched the validity of the attribution), then his reasoning is flawed, or at least incomplete, at multiple points, and is certainly not scientific. Whether it was meant “tongue-in-cheek” I’m not sure, but Tyson has granted that the universe as an entity is capable of having desire, and that, specifically, it wants to kill us. Furthermore, Tyson uses this proposition as a basis for concluding that the beneficence of a higher power should therefore be doubted. As mentioned, Tyson is an astrophysicist, and in his quote he is commenting on the universe (his field of study), yet what he is saying is not at all scientific, and should so be recognized. Nonetheless, I found Tyson’s quote at a website titled BrainyQuote, and I expect that there will be some who conclude from this quote – and because Tyson is a renowned astrophysicist – that the benevolence of any possible higher power should indeed be questioned. Again – his declaration is unscientific, flawed in proposition and conclusion, and should not, therefore, be accepted.

Society is bombarded (and I use that warfare term intentionally in) by such pseudo-scientific statements as Tyson’s, and by prejudiced, unbiblical, seemingly-scientific declarations as those commonly observed on signs at national parks regarding the age of the earth and evolution. This bombardment should be recognized as an attack by forces of spiritual darkness. (More to come)