W W W W  World Wide Web Witness Inc.  Home Page   Contents Page for Volume  What is New

The Magazine Creation specialises in science and has many scientists actively associated with it, at Ph.D. level. Many of its articles are quite outstanding in depth and detail.

It is when it moves outside this realm, or parallel to it, that one finds sometimes more readily material for active review or correction.

Such a case occurs in the latest Edition, March-May 2002.

Entitled, "Moving Forward" the article seeks to update materials concerning evolution, from a scientific point of view, where more data or more precise working is useful.

However, when it comes to the Bible there is an error. It relates to I Timothy 6:20. The modern translation, the NKJV, renders this : "O Timothy! Guard what was committed in your trust, avoiding the profane and idle babblings and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge - by professing it some have strayed concerning the faith. Grace be with you. Amen. "

The term "knowledge" is of the simplest, a denominative of the simple Greek word, to know. As various famous Greek dictionaries point out, it can be used to refer to an enquiry (judicial), investigation, deeper knowledge, moral knowledge, acquaintance, and is most embracive. Of course, in our own language, it has likewise a very wide distribution of meanings, but the underlying fact is simple. It is mentally, morally, spiritually, intellectually in your purvey, has so reached you and is in the form adapted to your  mental operations and/or moral perceptions and spiritual discernment.

Another term used, that is somewhat parallel, is found in Colossians 2:8: it is jilosojia. It is of course the basis of our term philosophy. There is nothing difficult about that. It is literally, the love of wisdom. In Colossians Paul is warning about it, for the wisdom of this world as He declares in I Corinthians 1, is foolishness, whilst the wisdom of God, which appears to the hard-headed and often hard-nosed foolhardiness of this world to be foolishness, is wiser in its ways than the posturing pretension of the flesh, codified in theories and fantasies (cf. A Spiritual Potpourri Chs. 1-9, esp. 1-3). As God said in Isaiah 29:14ff.,

"Therefore, behold, I will again do a marvellous work among this people. A marvellous work and a wonder; for the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent men shall be hidden.
 

"Woe to those who seek deep to hide their counsel far form the LORD, and their works are in the dark: They say, 'Who sees us ?' and 'Who knows us ?'

"Surely you have things turned around!

"Shall the potter be esteemed as the clay; for shall the thing made say of him who made it, 'He does not make me' ? Or shall the thing formed say of him who formed it, 'He has no understanding ? ' "
 

These are not novel, strange or odd things, but basic to the Gospel as I Corinthians 1 makes most explicit.

In the Creation article named,  Dr Jonathan Sarfati makes a valid point to the extent that he is saying that 'science falsely so-called' as the Authorised Version in its much earlier form of English, in the 17th century, renders I Timothy 6:20, is not the word we might employ now to translate this term. Very well, but long usage has made many who know English well aware of this fact, and the citation in the AV, like many another, is available to those who understand the language in which it is expressed, as well as "thou" or other archaisms.

However, for those who may not know these things, and not all specialise in such knowledge, it may indeed be wise to add that the term 'science' now is often used with special intonations and meaning, and of a specialised procedure, and that this is not specifically and narrowlly the intent of the words as expressed in the Greek.

It is however going too far to add that the 'knowledge' of which Paul spoke "in this context refers to the élite esoteric 'knowledge' that was the key to the mystery religions, which later developed into the heresy of Gnosticism." Such an interpretation would require an act of inspiration quite apart from the Greek text, and represents a philosophical and cultural guess. It cannot be permitted to confine the word of God.

To be sure, there is such a thing as gnosticism, and it would represent what became precisely one of those lustrously dull substitutes for knowledge which had great appeal. It is not that the word of Sarfati here is misplaced as an EXAMPLE of gnwsis, the Greek term in view, here in the genitive case, with the prefix yeudwnumou, likewise in the genitive case. This word, incidentally,  gives us our 'pseudonym'.

That was a specialised development by no means limited to 'later' in its essence, though its inflictions were to become codified and substantial in efforts to subvert, or challenges to arrest Christianity. The Greeks were long specialists in this sort of thing^*1A. The early Greek philosophers were not always merely involved in ludicrous theorising about the source of all things (all atoms, all water, all air, all this and that of creation, as the basis, or all change, or no change, the latter with various interesting pseudo-religious activities), indeed just as ludicrous as those of the modern organic evolutionary gnosticism. Further, the Eleusinian Mysteries are said to have come from prehistoric times, and this partly from Cretan influence:  this also came to Greece, and this too was one of the features in the ancient world, special knowledge, mixtures of philosophy, hope and myth, religion and rites of various kinds, complex and strange.

'Elite esoteric knowledge' then is not limited to the gnostics, manifest in part of the first century AD, and falsely so-called knowledge cannot be limited to them, nor to them and mystery religions. These AND gnosticism, with some influence from the Parsees it is held by some, were long standing elements, and philosophy itself, from the Greeks, this too was long standing, long before Christ came. Indeed, there is a vast array of such falsely knowledgeable things from the follies of the early Greek exponents of naturalism, to the Platonic with its variable surveys of the scene, now touching the name God, now working in principles and ideas far below Him, and not even able to be assembly in a logical continuum^*1; as also to those of Aristotle later again. The Greek philosophers themselves reach back to around half a millenium before Christ.

Thus knowledge falsely so-called, the simple translation of I Tim. 6:20 cannot be limited to some setting of gnosticism, itself seemingly a synthesis of much of mystery and philosophy for hundreds of years before; but likewise it cannot be limited to mystery religion, which is merely one of the examples of the trend. It must include the whole array of what was in vogue, or held appeal, or stretched out arms from the past, contemporary trends and various systems eventually working to compete, in things large or small, with Christianity, with indeed, truth itself.

Nor is this all. The term cannot even be limited to this. There is the further question of the essences of all these things, the philosophic vagrancy, conceit and imaginative use of irrational and arbitrary self-will, and all the romantic unleashing of the human spirit without God, or with hand-made gods, into the whole scene and scenario of philosophy in its broadest sense.

(See Secular Myths, Sacred Truth Ch. 7.)
 

Nor is this itself, all. The term gnwsis is itself not limited to this interesting array of influences, notable facades and features of the past, with or without trends towards the future in gnosticism, in its more limited designation, before its extension into a broader definition in terms of essence. The term means 'knowledge' in the simplest sense, and ANY effort to delimit it to some imagined confines is out of bounds in interpretation. One can say, 'Well, you know, I think he was probably referring to this and that, and especially as these things were quickly to come into classical formulations of this kind and that, it is probably about such things that the apostle was speaking!' This is opinion. It is not ridiculous. It is however mere opinion.

If one is concerned not with opinion, larger or smaller in the scope imagined, and there are numerous options available, possibilities of thought, but with the word of God, it is "knowledge falsely so called" which is in view.

It is not more; it is not less. One cannot read Paul's mind, far less the Lord's. It is best to let Him say and then take what is said. The 'vain babblings' noted, these readily included mystery religion, mythology, philosophy of the more strenuously naturalistic kinds, the Platonic the Aristotelian, numerous famous names and features, emphases, religions, elements of religions, syntheses of religions, variations in religions, thoughts, surmises and in fact, just what it means today.

The term concerning knowledge, and its pseudonymic quality, its disastrous misappelation, it  is not restricted. It is as written, neither more nor less.

It is of course true that Francis Bacon did a wonderful job in codifying some of the basic concepts of scientific method as it is now called, and that has come to represent a WAY of seeking knowledge, testing it and proceeding, whether in the more strictly limited application to material things, or in ways where it is to some extent applicable, outside them (cf. scientific method in both   indexes). This is misused in this sphere, just as it was in Aristotle's time when the methodology was less developed but by no means absence, and it occurs whether now or then,  when the musings are inserted into the discipline, and the irrationalities and arbitrary additions are made, with all the gluttony of prejudice, and worse if possible, all the subversive assurance of philosophy equally irrational, surreptitious and out of place. (Cf. Wake Up World! Your Creator is Coming Chs. 4-6, Stepping out for Christ Chs. 2, 7-10, A Spiritual Potpourri Chs. 1-9, SMR Chs.  1 - esp. pp. 140ff., and 127ff.,     2, 10, That Magnificent Rock Chs.  1,  8.)

These things have had their come-uppance diversely for long, have their intense homologies and their vast elements of concurrence.

The sense of the term of Paul, 'knowledge falsely so-called' is given by GOD, as he states in I Cor. 2:9ff. (cf. SMR Appendix D). Indeed, I Peter 1:10ff. (cf. II Peter 1) states this, that the prophets of old were ardently seeking to discern the manner of time and meaning of the predictions of the Messiah. In I Peter 1 it is this which is found, just as in I Cor. 2:9ff. there is to be found the declaration of the revealing both of the substance of the revelation and  the word in which it is to garbed, by St Paul, both from GOD. He has no surprises, needs no surmises and in Him are all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge (cf. Isaiah 46:10, 41, 48, Colossians 2:3, 2:9).

Other predictions concerning false 'knowledge' in particular, relate to "the latter times" (I Timothy 4:1ff.), and are fulfilled for one, in the Roman Catholicism where "abstaining from foods"  and "forbidding to marry" are evocative, provocative and famous errors demarcating a system which has long abused these things, tenaciously clings to them, and stands out more and more in the current cultural climate for so doing!

Many other things are predicted of this time, our own (Answers to Questions Ch. 5), and the formalism of religion associated with failure to realise the  power of God, is one of these. One of the fulfilments of that particular abuse of knowledge in the format of knowledgeable ignorance was of course, the immense and futile attack on the Bible from many philosophic sources in the last century (modernism, liberalism are tags q.v.), which have fallen into the proper exposure from the truth, which is always assured. It is as in Romans 1, and extended to its summit!^*2

One of its failures as the effort to limit the word of God to the contemporary thoughts of the writers. This notion at no time fitted the facts, and is derelict  of all support (cf. SMR Chs. 3, 8-10, Appendix D).

Vast indeed are the forms, formulae and formats of false knowledge, all ultimately arising from ignorance of God, in the last analysis, wilful (Romans 1, Ephesians 4). Large also has been the contribution from the particular form of naturalism and evolutionism, before Paul.
 
 

It is thus completely wrong to imagine that some sort of selection of mystery religion or the like, is the certain and sure, the specified and the delimited meaning of 'knowledge falsely so called'. Any such insistence would, in another sense to be sure, itself be knowledge falsely so-called. We do not know what Paul may have had in mind. He may have been in his own mind surveying the whole scene, including those elements before his time, which were very numerous indeed, of mystery and religion, philosophy and natural science when wedded to it, sometimes with vast scientific acumen, as well as considerable scientific flaws, because of the combinations of aspects, such as in the case of Aristotle. We do not know. It is not even very relevant.
 

It is what God had in mind which is relevant; and certainly, Paul would have some knowledge of this, but as the word of Peter shows, the knowledge is not necessarily total, for it is the mind of GOD which is being given, and the mind of the penman is not correlative, however intimate the knowledge of God. When God speaks, let all the earth be still! What God has in mind in this field is best found by seeing what here and elsewhere He has said in this field, that is in the Bible, and just some of this, we have found, including basic principles. Soon we shall uncover more of His communication on this topic.

The warning, in I Timothy 6:20,  therefore far surpasses what Sarfati is pleased to surmise, and is not by any Greek dictionary known to this author, even capable of such a limitation or delimitation. ANY knowledge which is characterisable as vain babbling and categorisable in terms of Biblical principles, precepts, perspectives and declarations as 'knowledge falsely so-called' is what is to be understood. The context does not state any limit, nor does it imply it, as to types of such a phenomenon.

The whole naturalistic delusion, partly related to and including organic evolution of our present day, had abundantly been delved into by the early Greek philosophers, of much fame and large name. Associations of this style of thing with an element of religion were also known. Thus organic evolution can most assuredly be referred to, as incorporated in this exclusion by Paul. Not only is one not permitted to add to the word of God, as Romanism does, without sanction (Proverbs 30:6) in inventing new doctrine, but the same is true of limiting what is written to some notion.

The misuse of truth by arbitrary irrationalism, naturalism and undisciplined, unverified and systematically impossible devices is to be found in organic evolution and allied philosophical pursuits; and it is quite as apparent now, with just the same flair for passion and the avoidance of evidence, and reason, as then.  It is not just what was done by the time of Paul, and what often and notoriously had been done before it; though it covers all of this, far beyond mystery religion in multiple domains, long traversed by the itching feet of man.

The methods in ancient times, and recent,  were and are in much not dissimilar, indeed in all the respects just characterised, the ancient naturalistic and later famed Greek philosophers had a fascinating homology with the present in this sphere, relating to God and creation, man and meaning. It was not always in one place, but now here, now there it came, from the East, from the West, from Persia, from Greece, from Crete perhaps and so on.

The mere fact  that modern scientific method is far more codified than in the day of Aristotle, for example, or that the magical methods of its ilk are a little  more plausibly presented now, sometimes,  does nothing whatever to remove the fact that the common elements in the ancient and modern methods of seeking to do without God, and to make a reason and ground for things in what they do not do, but are supposed to do, and to invent them with no reason: this is just the same now as then^*3. There are even varieties and emphases within this, as in gradualism and punctuated equilibrium now, as there were in some measure of parallel, in the vast philosophic delusions of Parmenides and Heracleitus then.

Our science falsely so called, that delusive, self-willed, arbitrary, propagandising, pseudo-religious (sometimes), philosophical fiction of today, often taught in universities, is merely a somewhat more specialised example of knowledge falsely so called. Its vain babbling has elements in common with that which preceded Paul, which are truly amazing and amusing. As the French have, the more it changes, the more it is the same.

Past all this, when GOD says a thing, the interpretation is not to be imagined, but found from the words, the context and the entire Biblical context. Paul in Romans 1 shows the whole old trend, thinking themselves wise, they neglect God, and turning from Him, they become "vain in their imaginations". The NKJV has

• "because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their  foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image" ...

• Indeed, in Romans 1, Paul proceeds in v. 25, to declare of the fallen state of man, and this  in the name of the eternal God before whom all things are known, and who speaks with His omniscience: "who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator who is blessed forever. Amen" (bold added).

THIS Biblically is knowledge falsely so-called in its genesis, and its genome, if you will. So far from being able to be LIMITED as Sarfati proceeds to do, though doubtless with good intention, the phrase is expressly NOT limited. It is categorised in these embracive, and all-inclusive terms. That is the context of the declarations of God, both through Paul and others in the Bible.

It is therefore quite wrong to imagine that it is to "read into Scripture that which appears to support a particular viewpoint" to see the adequate coverage of organic evolution as one of the just, contextual and scripturally definable features of Paul's exhortation. The coverage is generic; the type of thing had already occurred lavishly, in many cases and with intriguing but gross variations. To seek to exclude this is itself to "read into Scripture that which appears to support a particular viewpoint." This fault, excluded by Sarfati, is itself the one found in his own approach here. The word of God is NOT limited to a particular viewpoint, but to what it actually says. Its application is as wide as the topic, unless otherwise constrained by the text itself.

Now to be sure, it would be wrong to assert that the model presented in scripture is LIMITED to, or that the word 'science' is limited to what that term now means. It is however equally wrong, and grossly intrusive, to exclude it. It is this error which Sarfati seems to be moving to commit. To exclude a particular aspect of what in fact IS WRITTEN, in terms of the connotation of the actual terms used is not in fact exegesis but a negative form of eisegesis and unacceptable for those who INSIST that whatever it says is what it to be taken, not philosophical assumptions concerning the mind of Paul, or any other delimitation for what has the authorship of GOD; and this, it is merely a fortiori.

As noted above, there were abundant examples of idiotic naturalism, filled with the same sort of lustful excess and glorious disregard of facts as is the case with such modern examples as to be found in organic evolution. No exclusion can be served on the God of prophecy as to HIS MIND and what HE had in it when He inspired Paul (I Corinthians 2:9-13). There is however no guesswork when, knowing that God knows all in advance (Isaiah 46:10), and has even predicted the thrust of things, we simply take the words given to mean what they say, not adding, not diminishing. In this way, we exclude the exclusion to which Sarfati seems to move.

Certainly the Greek covers the modern and the ancient, with their enormous amount in common, of knowledge falsely so-called (the term God used). To limit it to one's thoughts about what Paul may or may not have thought is both irrelevant and in the end, irreverent, no doubt by simple oversight. It is not however an oversight that Biblical exegesis can afford to make.

Not merely is such a thing an imposition on the text, and on other scriptures which define in such a way as to be MOST inclusive in the field of false knowledge, but it is to ignore the fact that many of the precise features of naturalism and organic evolution had already been found, were known currently and anciently, both. Aristotle for example had a sort of end or aim, in things, so that they went to a given standard or design, and that was that; but they WENT there. This too had an element of (preliminary on the way there to a specific demarcated end, only) evolution, and hence erred; though it was one profoundly wiser than the current flush of delusive organic evolution.

The philosophies could be, or not be associated with what in the case for example of Aristotle were matters with vast similarities to modern scientific method, but some divergences to be sure, were in pathological type, significantly similar to those now. In either case, there was a conformity in flagrantly febrile imagination undisciplined by anything visible or invisible.

To seek to exclude them or make it appear that it is not REALLY this that is in view, is as bad as to designate them as if this was all that was meant. It is ALL covered by what is WRITTEN, and to seek to limit God's intention to some one feature, of the MANY of antiquity, or for that matter, to exclude some developments in certain respects of some of the logical inanities practised by the ancients in many cases, with parallelism of stringent character to much of present method AT THIS LEVEL in much of commonly accepted 'science' is virtual harassment of the text.

Let us now however be clear on another point. Sarfati's work in science has impressed this author, and the intention of that author in speaking on this topic may have been exceedingly pure; one is delighted that such an author exercises his prominent gifts in the area of his expertise. It is however sadly necessary to point out, to show the full wonder of the word of God, and the necessary grandeur of its conceptions as seen from within it, and confirmed in what had preceded this part of it, that the word of warning in this case is quite wrong. It vastly exceeds the case that is just, and more than merely truncates it.

Organic evolution as currently practised whether in lecture pulpits or other propagandising programming foci on TV or books, when atheistic is hugely analogous to ancient follies, which were very diverse in this respect. Even when it is theistic, or polytheistic, it is just the same, a combination of the 'divine' as in Aristotle, and the natural, in various evocative and anti-verified manners, associated with adventurism in spiritual things, and creation from one's own mind, of various 'powers' and so forth. This gnosticism, in its own way, proceeded to do, especially with people like Philo (q.v.).

In other words, 'knowledge falsely so-called' (as in Jeremiah 2:27 - "saying to a tree, 'You are my father,' and to a stone, 'You gave birth to me' ") is precisely that. It is an intemperate, irrational, ungodly, turned from God, or god-inventive complex of features, found in various syntheses for thousands of years, and long before Christ. It is virulent, delusive and has modern developments so akin to the ancient ones, that there is no difference even in kind, merely in vocabulary and some elements of cultural and ideational background. Like them, in background, it is anti-evidential, irrational and equipped with diverse surmises (cf. *3).

The term, knowledge  falsely so called,  warns Timothy no more and no less than ourselves of its vitiating assault, like that of the Islamic fanatics on the Twin Towers in New York, on truth. Its method is analogous in the extreme, its results not different, its type presented clinically by Paul in Romans 1. It excludes nothing in the domain.

It is applicable wherever the TERMS USED FIT. Organic evolution is one precise fit, and to exclude it would be an insufferable assault on the word of God; just as to exclude anything else relevant, would be the samne! Alas, humanism can so secrete itself into the mind of man that without knowing it or realising it perhaps, someone can talk about what is in the mind of Paul as if this were a CRITERION to establish PRECISELY to what the words given by God the author, as Peter and Paul make so plain (II Peter 3:17, I Cor. 2:9-13, I Peter 1:10ff., II Peter 1:21ff., cf. Isaiah 8:20ff., 34:16ff.).

The domain of time  relevance of a principial statement of God to define a case, is all time. Since all time is before Him and known to Him, all time is the applicability of any statement He chooses to make about the perils of human spiritual devices, such as this. Limiting God is specifically condemned (cf. Psalm 78:41), and while one can make such an error inadvertently, unwise is anyone who persists in it; and inaccurate is any such assumption, added to scripture to contain its referents.

Further, there are many other avenues of just application, some of which we shall see.
 
 

What then, the author, GOD (I Cor. 2:9-13) MEANT to present in I Timothy 6:20 is precisely what He said, and what the entire local and total context of the Bible presents. It is not limited to exclude modern science falsely so-called, nor is its reference to it tenuous, but in kind, fundamental and precise. This is JUST one of the main thrusts of the meaning:

• arrogant, self-assertive, fundamentally ignorant, spiritually delusive, blind presentations that violate the laws of thought, the law of God and the requirements of the Lord in false imaginations and unverified claims, in confrontation with obvious reality (Romans 1:17ff.),

 
• in the face of the certain and only valid faith, that in the Lord and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ (cf. That Magnificent Rock Ch. 5, SMR Chs. 1, 3, 10, Repent or Perish Chs.   2 and  7, Spiritual Refreshings Ch. 16).

The spurious is one of the Bible's major occupations, in knowledge, to expose it, in all directions, in every kind.

"My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge," God says in Hosea 4:6.

How is this so ? "Because you have rejected knowledge..."

What will result ? this: "I also will reject you from being priest for Me:
Because you have forgotten the law of your God, I also will forget your children."

As then, so now. Our youth is appallingly harassed, systematically deluded and remorselessly deluded with knowledge falsely so-called, in psychology, sociology, biology, anthropology, religion and morals (cf. Youth in the High Seas, TMR Ch. 8, Ch. 7, Barbs, Arrows and Balms Appendix I).

Indeed, this pathological philosophical phenomenon is not merely extended to the acdemic; it moves to the political, and has long been sated there.

Thus as President Bush so provocatively joined in prayer, presidentially! with the Muslims (cf. The Kingdom of Heaven Ch. 7 and the list given^*4), so there is peril for that nation. The prohibitions on such synthesis in prayer are intense, immense, as are  the requirements concerning the sustained error of calling evil 'good': the paycheck is enormous, but negative (Isaiah 5). It is not prejudice but the pronouncement of God which is operative. The pronouncement that it is wrong to have pronouncements from God, is like that of God, in that it makes an absolute prohibition: DON'T DO THIS! It is unlike it in not having the logical situation of being alone valid, the rational one of being intensely verifiable and verified, and it is normally similarly defective, in this, that without even acknowledging the existence of absolute truth, it makes what is intended to be an absolutely true statement (cf. Barbs... 6 -7, Spiritual Refreshings Ch. 16).

But let us return from that particular misuse of knowledge, to the more general type, and from that error of action, to the error of thought that is the preliminary dynamic when knowledge comes into view.

The errors of the present are in type found in the past; and the meaning of the text is not susceptible to any delimitation, but certainly must include the whole sphere of such operations before Paul, as those after him; for it is one type, of one definition, merely made more rambunctious in recent time, and it is in no small way, either more logical or more tolerable.

What then ? To add a negative to the word of God is still to add. This addition must be subtracted, and the full force of Paul's advice to Timothy and all its coverage, kept just as it is. Science of today tends to capitalise; but if its findings where its method is justly followed are more than in the past, its follies are neither different in kind nor diverse in conception.

They are remote from reality, from God, and its substitutions have just that vast, crass callowness of irrationality which was always the case, whether in naturalism itself, or pseudo-spiritual naturalisms; and all are common today, as before (cf. *3 below and list above). As to gnosticism, this was merely one more specialised prong. It is all covered. To limit what is written to some idea of some specialisation, or some example from the past, is merely to intrude. What is written is written, and this whether in Romans or Timothy, in Jeremiah, Hosea or Isaiah. In terms of spiritual pathology, there is no difference. The term 'science falsely so-called' is of course not a translation in contemporary English; but it so happens that the meaning of the text, taken from its entire biblical context, INCLUDES this sense.

The error is to exclude other examples. That said, let us allow the word of God to speak, and not adulterate it with prior concepts. It is as pure now as then, and the eternal God who knows the end from the beginning, has given in I Timothy 6:20 a category profound in the past, at that time, pointed in the future, at that time,  and one which continued to be pointed in all the false Aristotelian follies of Romanism (cf. SMR pp.1032ff. ), as in the various weird writhings, such as those of Nietzsche, which cost the world so much, Marx and Freud (cf. SMR pp. 611ff.).

It is such things as well, not instead of the more limited denotation of 'science' which are involved. It is these things which strip the world of its senses, and make wars like the World War II so much more understandable. The chief RACE in the imaginary evolution has to assert its SUPERMAN supremacy. So be it. It cost Europe, and the world. Such follies in science falsely so-called, in current terms ONE of the denotations in kind of the text, and in politics no less, in sociology and psychology (cf. SMR Ch. 4), these are one of the main forces destroying the world.

Keep away.

 Avoid both the minimisation of the word of God, the implantation of foolish philosophies in science and in religion, through philosophy and other dynamic inversion, including that of liberalism and its frank failure to understand that when God speaks, He knows the end from the beginning, often says so and challenges man to do likewise (Isaiah 41, 48); and since mere man cannot do this, to repent and believe in the only true God, and in Jesus Christ the only rationally attested and spiritually foretold Saviour of the world.
 
 

*1A Wake  Up World Ch.  6, pp. 130ff., Spiritual Refreshings ... Ch. 13, SMR p. 983, Predestination and Freewill  1.

*1 See SMR pp. 422L, 1005, and Lead Us not into Educational Temptation Ch. 2, at the outset and at this site.

*2
See for example:  SMR 68ff., 377-378, 1004-1007, 1180-1181, 1185-1186C.

*3
Some of the amazing fertility of imagination in this field, in recent times, may be seen for example in Spiritual Refreshings ... Ch. 13, Wake Up World ... Ch. 6, Ch. 5, Stepping out for Christ Ch. 10  and Scoop of the Universe  57.  See also Benevolent Brightness ... 68.
 

*4 For this phenomenon, consult: Lord of Life Chs.   3,  4,  5,
Red Alert... Chs.  2,  3,  5,   7,  8,  10,  13, 14, 15, 16, Sparkling Life ... Ch.   4;
The Impregnable Tower  6.

On the Islamic error: see More Marvels Ch. 4 and references therein.