The Church Meeting in Jesus’ Name
602 Oak Knoll Dr.
San Antonio, TX 78228
Epistle
October 2022
2022 Event Calendar
OCTOBER 15
- Men’s Meeting
DECEMBER 23-31
- Mexico Mission Trip
2023
FEBRUARY 10-19
- Revival with Evangelist David Spurgeon
APRIL 22
- Women’s Conference
JUNE 12 –16
- Vacation Bible School
JUNE 25 – JULY 8
- Poland Mission Trip
JULY 23 – 30
- Mission Conference
Science Falsely So Called
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. 2 Timothy 6:20,21
The word translated “science” in this text is changed to “knowledge” by near unanimous consent in modern Bibles, including the ASV, RSV, NASB, NIV, ESV, NET, and almost all others. The idea is that science had not been invented yet, and the word Paul uses (gnosis) only meant common knowledge. Furthermore, scholars inform us, even the King James translators used the word science in the same way we use the word knowledge, so even such KJV “updates” as the NKJV change the word to knowledge. Modern Bible experts reason that Paul and the Bible as a whole cannot possibly be warning us to be skeptical about modern science, which to most moderns is a system of impregnable truth. And they are embarrassed by so many Bible thumping anti-intellectuals who have been disparaging science for years, and who give the uncomfortable impression that the Bible and science are at war with each other. The last thing Bible experts of the 21st century want is to be considered superstitious hicks by educated scorners.
Now the fact is, modern science was invented by almost pure Bible believers. From Roger Bacon to Francis Bacon to Isaac Newton, from John Ray to Gregor Mendel to Louis Pasteur, from Blaise Pascal to Joseph Priestly, from Nicolas Copernicus to Galilei Galileo to Kepler, Bruno and Brahe, from William Thomson (Lord Kelvin) to Michael Faraday, mostly founders of fundamental scientific fields of study, and all were Bible believers, some of them devout Christians. Even skeptics like Franklin and Spinoza were greatly influenced by the Bible. There is no warfare between the Bible and true science.
However, modern educators and science authors will define science as incompatible with the belief in the supernatural. Their idea is that science is the study of nature, and therefore cannot investigate or conclude the supernatural. Of course there are several problems with this simplistic “non-overlapping magisterium” assumption. First, true scientists have been reaching conclusions about the supernatural since modern science emerged from medieval superstition. Copernicus argued that the Ptolemaic theories were too complicated and confused to be a work of our rational God. That is, he used his understanding of the supernatural Creator to guide his search for scientific answers. All the early astronomers invoked God’s genius in their discoveries. And even modern science broaches the supernatural regularly when speculating about the “Big Bang” (a decidedly supernatural event), theorizing something-from-nothing, multiple universe scenarios or quantum many-worlds theories. And the biological evolution hypothesis makes obvious assumptions, even if unstated, about the importance, or rather insignificance of mankind, and by extension the nonexistence of morality and judgment. Devout evolutionists like Hitler, Stalin and Mao drew the obvious conclusions. Even true science cannot help but overlap the spiritual and supernatural occasionally.
It really boils down to your definition of science. If you include in the definition that science rejects the supernatural as an explanation, then your science is atheistic, and you by your definition are superior to people just as educated and diligent as you, but who are willing to consider God when he is the obvious conclusion. But historically science hasn’t been defined that way. And limiting yourself to only natural explanations limits your ability to appreciate aspects of creation that are certainly not products of mindless nature, such as an original Big Bang, the unfathomable complexity of DNA, the emergence of mind from mindless matter, and the universal, breathless beauty of creation. Science should not be defined as anti-supernatural. All true scientists should be open to supernatural conclusions when the evidence points in that direction. It is unscientific not to consider them when appropriate.
But scientists don’t want the discipline, or the word, to be soiled by superstitions and speculations. And that is certainly important. Claims of religious authority or mysteries considered miracles should not be given equal weight to rigorous scientific inquiry. But neither should obvious inferences from the discovery of DNA or the logical probability of some sort of Big Bang be darkened with the nonsense of irrational atheistic speculations. There may come a time in your field of scientific inquiry when God becomes unavoidable. It happened in the first century, when Jesus rose again from the dead. The skeptics who witnessed it firsthand had resisted it stubbornly, knowing it couldn’t have happened, until all doubt was removed. Then they became believers, not by rejecting, but by following the science. What else could they have concluded? When it happens to you, don’t cling to your anti-supernatural bias against your “lying eyes.” That is certainly false science.
Historically, science has been variously defined. Watts Logic, 1725, says “the word science is usually applied to a whole body of regular or methodical observations.” Oxford English Dictionary claims science has been defined as “knowledge acquired by study,” and “mastery of any department of learning” as early as the year 1290. Modern definitions include references to the “scientific method” which is also not universally defined the same way. Although there is no consensus on a definition of the English word it is clear we are all talking about the same thing. The word science has been generally used, from the thirteenth century to the present, to mean knowledge derived by rigorous observation, the rigor being the modern scientific method if you will, or the methodical investigations of the ancients. This definition maintains the important distinction of science from authoritative declarations, religious dogma and superficially obvious conclusions, and matches the historical concept from the ancient Greeks to our modern deep post-Darwinian skepticism.
So what is Paul warning us about, this science falsely so called? To hear modern “biblicists” tell it, he had no inkling of the modern term. And Gnosticism wasn’t developed yet. So they assume he only meant the “absurdities of so-called knowledge” (NET), or “arguments of what is falsely called knowledge” (NASB). But why would someone call his ideas knowledge unless by using the word knowledge he gives his ideas some authority? People in Paul’s day were arguing absurdities and calling these platitudes knowledge, and by calling them knowledge they present their claims as authoritative axioms, and unassailable facts. So people in Paul’s generation were naming their philosophical blather knowledge, as if the word had such credit associated with it that it would deceive people into believing their claims? You mean, by calling nonsense knowledge people can be fooled? Well blow me down! That’s exactly what people are doing today, but they don’t use the term knowledge. They say science. People claim to use the scientific method to justify their ideas even when their ideas are wrong. And why wouldn’t they? Call it science and people believe it. Use words like “clinical studies” and you can sell powdered bean sprouts to old people who want to feel young again.
Well, it’s not really a mystery that Paul knew what is happening in our day. The same thing was happening in his day. New Bibles missed the point but the KJV nailed it. The Oxford English Dictionary under the term “scientific” says “the ultimate source of the word is to be sought in Aristotelian expressions … where it is said that unless certain essential conditions are fulfilled, a syllogism will not be demonstrative, ‘for it will not produce knowledge’ ” rendered in the Latin by Boethius as “non enim faciet scientiam.” So to be clear, the word science, from the Latin word for the Greek “gnosis” was used to denote a distinct kind of knowledge that could be demonstrated by certain essential conditions (methodical rigor), at least since the fourth century before Christ! And Aristotle rejected calling something science that didn’t meet the rigorous conditions. In other words, the term in Paul’s day in this context implied knowledge derived from rigorous observation, just like in Jerome’s day (who translated it scientiae), and just like in the KJV’s day (Dan. 1:4), and just like in our day. Greek and Latin granted a special weight to the word science, even though depending on context, the word could also mean general knowledge. But English distinguishes common knowledge from rigorous knowledge and calls the latter science. Translating it anything except science in English in such a context is likely an error. In the old Bible the warning is exactly on point.
Modern versions completely obscure the direct and vital warning about deceivers calling stuff science that is not really science. Nobody today labels their godless philosophical theorizing knowledge to draw students away from the faith. But they are quick to label any notion however irrational and immoral science if it furthers their objective. They label biological evolution science, they label multiple parallel universe theories science, they label government assertions about the effectiveness of masks science, they label origin of life speculations science, they label Freudian dream interpretations science, they label the search for the gay gene science, they even label gender mutilating surgery science. True science exists and deserves its influence, but this junk is not science.
Paul warned us. Don’t allow modern versions to cut the legs off the scripture’s timely denunciation of the misuse of the term science, just because pastors have been educated out of believing what the old Bible said. Modern Bible teachers are often too cowed by intellectual brain-thumpers armed with scorn and condescension to proclaim God’s word to a world bullied into doubt about what it has always known intuitively. God is, and he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. Every child’s intuition and every scientific fact so far discovered point to that conclusion. So not everything called science is science. You’ve been warned.