About Jay Seegert:
Well, good morning, or afternoon, or evening or whatever time it is that you’re watching this video—Jay Seegert, with The Starting Point Project, honored to be part of The Berean Call Conference 2021. (Although I did hear that my selection was due to a clerical error, but that’s okay!)
I have a very interesting talk for you: Must Christianity Bow to Settled Science? This is a custom talk. I’ve never given it before. I just slapped it together…I mean, I carefully crafted it just for this conference. So, I’m actually looking forward to hearing it myself! We’ll gather a lot of good information, and it just touches a lot of areas of life that we’ll get to in a second.
Some of you are familiar with me and my background, others not so much, so I’m going to go over that very briefly here. I was raised in a Christian home, and you can see very clearly that this is a Christian home. I went to public schools all the way through high school. When I graduated, I went to a Christian college, John Brown University in Arkansas, to study Mechanical Engineering. I did get a degree there, but then I became more interested in physics. They didn’t have a Physics major there, so I left, came back to Wisconsin, where I’m from, and went to the University of Wisconsin, Whitewater, to get a degree in Physics.
That’s where my world changed quite a bit. Going from a small Christian college, where my Engineering professors opened up every class in prayer, to a State university, where my Physics professors did not open up in prayer. They were all evolutionists, some of them were atheists, and they were telling me, in essence, that everything I believed was wrong. And that made me feel very uncomfortable to be surrounded by these Ph.D. scientists who I assumed had a lot of evidence for what they believed, but I realized for the first time in my entire life that even though I knew what I believed, I didn’t know why.
So, God put it on my heart at that point in my life to start looking into these things, so I have been researching and speaking now for 35 years on these topics, and about 15 years ago founded The Starting Point Project, a ministry in which I travel around the country and around the world giving a defense of the Christian worldview.
Along the way, I was also invited to be on the Board of Directors of Logos Research Associates. It’s the world’s largest consortium of scientists who are Christians. The Founding Member, Dr. John Sandford, is from Cornell University. He’s famous for having invented something called the Gene Gun. It inserts genes into the DNA‚ worldwide famous for that—a very smart guy but also very godly and very humble.
Then there’s Dr. John Baumgardner—he’s a Ph.D. geophysicist. He’s built the world’s best 3-D computer simulation of plate tectonics. He’s off-the-chart brilliant. There’s myself, and there’s actually another guy—we just don’t have his picture updated here yet, but out of all five board members, if they were here right now, they would be the first to admit…I am the tallest! Trust me on that one. I’m just honored to be part of this group. They are doing cutting-edge research, and then I get to translate it into English.
Now, this particular talk, Must Christianity Bow to Settled Science? We hear about “settled science” all the time. This is a huge, huge topic. It covers many different areas. I can’t really do it justice. In fact, I had over 600 slides put together for this talk, but I’ve got it down to 597 (actually, much less than that), but we’re just going to be scratching the surface along the way.
What I want to do is describe our current situation, share some general principles about science in general that will be very helpful, and then cover a few specifics at the end.
Today our world is truly upside down. Things have always been slowly getting worse, especially morally, but I think the wheels are starting to fall off, and there are so many issues that we’re dealing with now. It’s not that any one of these individually is too hard to tackle. It’s just the sheer volume! There are so many of them, and here’s a very, very important point: These issues are not wrong because they are problematic. They are problematic because they are wrong, meaning they go against God’s created order.
Now, very specifically, the last one on here, “Climate Change”—we’ll be touching on that a little bit later. It’s not appropriate to say that climate change is right or wrong. Climate change is just climate change, and we’ll get to that. What I mean is, our definition of what it is and our response to it.
And our response to all of these issues and others are all driven by our “starting point.” (Shameless self-promotion here.) The Starting Point Project—that’s what our ministry is about is our starting point—what we believe to begin with: that God exists and the Bible is His Word. We use that foundation, that starting point, to determine what should our view be on all of these issues or any other given issue.
Some of those issues directly relate to the idea of settled science. I’m not going to be going through all of these in detail and “settling them once and for all.” It doesn’t work that way, and we don’t have time, but we’re going to be touching on these things in general.
And, very briefly, the idea of cancel culture and censorship—it happens all the time: “The time for debate is over. It’s been settled. It’s time now for action! No more talking about this. We are here to tell you what to do.” And you get cancelled if you try to fight back against that, or you get censored—they won’t even hear your voice.
An interesting quote from Richard Feynman, an American Theoretical Physicist, he said, “I would rather have questions that can’t be answered than answers that can’t be questioned.” And I would agree with that! I’m very comfortable with not having answers to everything. It’s called “being human.” But I’m very uncomfortable when someone says, “You can’t question this answer.” That should raise a huge red flag!
And the we have George Orwell, famous English novelist: he said, “The more society drift from the truth, the more they will hate those who speak it.” I think that’s very true, especially when we get away from biblical truths. When you try to bring those up, you’re going to get canceled. We’re seeing more and more and more in society.
John:15:18: “If the world hate you, you know that it hated Me before it hated you.” Jesus said, “They hated me first.” And you think about it—Jesus was perfect! He did everything right. And they hated Him, and they killed Him! What chance do we possibly have of making everyone like us? Zero!
And that’s not our goal. God doesn’t say, “Go out and make sure everyone’s happy with you.” Go out and preach the gospel —and do it graciously—and expect to be hated, because they hated Jesus first.
Quote from an unknown author: “It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they’ve been fooled.” That’s been my experience. It’s not too hard to fool people; not too hard to fool me. But to try to convince someone that what they’re viewing actually isn’t true? That’s a lot harder sell to convince them of those things!
The common statement, “Yeah, you’re right, and a-a-l-l-l the scientists are wrong!” That’s a very intimidating statement, and most people don’t know how to respond to something like that. So I’m going to give you some general information, some principles about science, that should help you in your response when these types of things come up.
With science, for a lot of people it’s just outside their reach. Either they’re not interested, or maybe they think they don’t have the aptitude for it, or they don’t have access to the actual data, or the equipment to do the experiments for themselves. So, they’re at the whim of the scientific “magisterium,” and bow to them, whatever they say. They’ve done the research. You just have to trust everything that they say, because they’re the experts!
But that’s okay, because scientists are unbiased, right? Hmmm. Maybe not so much. If you are a weather forecaster, you have one primary driving goal, and that is accuracy. If you are not accurate, everyone is going to know. And if you’re consistently inaccurate, you’re going to lose your job. It just doesn’t work. That’s a big driving factor.
With scientists, maybe not so much. I think most scientists are very intelligent and they have a high level of integrity. But that’s not necessarily the case all the time, because they can be driven by money, pressure by politics, peer pressure, prestige—all these things can influence what they say they are finding and their conclusions and their opinions.
While science should not be political, it very often is, and often when you see a really highly controversial scientific issue, you can trace it back to something political going on behind the scenes.
Now, the word, “science” means “knowledge” (I’m sure you knew that). What it does not mean is “wisdom.” There’s a big difference between knowledge and wisdom. Proverbs:9:10: “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.” A lot these scientists—they don’t fear God. A lot of them don’t even believe in God! So that is really going to color the conclusions that they come to. We need to keep that in mind.
Then you’re asked, “Well, which do you believe? Do you believe the Bible or do you believe science?” That’s an awkward question for Christians to address, because if you say, “Well, I believe the Bible,” you’re implying you don’t believe in science. And the skeptic’s going to say, “You know, I could have sworn I saw you on your cellphone earlier today—but, oh, that’s right! You don’t believe in science that made that cellphone.”
So, then you say, “Well, of course I believe in science.” But that implies you don’t believe the Bible. And if you don’t believe the Bible, you can’t be a Christian. Awkward question.
Now, there’s a hidden assumption in here. The assumption is that science has disproved the Bible. If that were true, then you can’t believe both. But that’s not true. Not only has science not disproved the Bible, the more we look at it, the more it confirms what we read in scripture. The truth is, most major areas of science today were founded by Bible-believing Christians. Science owes its origins to Christianity. And if you’d like a few examples, I brought a few along!
Antiseptic surgery, bacteriology, calculus, chemistry, computer science, electronics, electrodynamics, electromagnetics, fluid mechanics, galactic astronomy, gas dynamics, genetics, hydraulics, hydrostatics, oceanography, optical minerology, paleontology, pathology, physical astronomy, stratigraphy, thermodynamics, Thermokinetics, vertebra paleontology, the scientific method—all founded by Bible-believing Christians!
Anyone who says, “No real scientist believes the Bible,” they don’t only not understand science, they don’t even know history! This is where science came from, it was birthed out of the Christian community.
But the definition of science has been hijacked. A simple view of the definition originally would have been “discovering explanations for the natural world around us.” These scientists took for granted, “Yeah, God exists. That’s obvious that He must have created these things. It couldn’t happen by itself.” That was their starting point. And if God is a God of order, which the Bible tells us He is, they expected to see order in His creation, so they started doing their studying and they found regularities, they formulated different laws, and areas of disciplines of science. That’s where science came from and that’s it’s simple definition.
But it’s been hijacked and subtly changed. And watch this: now it is the discovering of natural explanations for the world around us. It’s only interested in natural answers, not supernatural. This was not a scientific conclusion that it needed to change. This was a philosophical decision that changed what science really means.
Here’s an interesting quote from Dr. Scott Todd, “Even if all the data pointed to an Intelligent Designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it’s not naturalistic.” It’s saying, “Even if all the data screams of God, of Creator, Designer, we’re just going to throw it out because that’s not a natural answer, and we’re only looking for natural answers.” So, they will never find evidence for God or design or creation. This doesn’t fit their new definition.
It would be like this: if I asked each one of you to write a 100-page paper on the origin of this laptop, but here’s the catch: nowhere in your paper can you ever refer to human beings, scientists, engineers, programmers—you can’t talk about any of that. Nothing purposeful. Well, you’d come up with a lot of crazy stories about how we got this laptop, but you couldn’t talk about those elements. And that’s what many of our science textbooks are filled with! Explanations, trying to explain the origin of the Universe, the origin of light, the origin of species, and other things—apart from purpose, apart from God, apart from design—you’re only looking for natural answers. So, we come up with some pretty strange ideas.
Here’s an interesting quote. It’s a little lengthy, but it’s important, and I want you to see what this scientist said about what science should be all about.
“Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is a key to understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.” (Materialism’ means the material world; only matter and energy—no god, no souls, no spirit—none of that, just matter and energy.) “It’s not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori (that means ‘ahead of time’—they’ve decided ahead of time) an adherence to material causes…no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”
They are going to work very hard to make sure God has nothing to do with anything that they’re doing in science. That was a philosophical decision. I actually appreciate his transparency, being honest about that.
But then you say, “Yeah, but science says…. And you’ve gotta do this, because science says.” Guess what science says. Science says nothing—absolutely nothing. Science doesn’t say anything. Scientists say things—a lot of stuff. And there’s a big difference between science and scientists’ opinions.
Then we could ask, “But what kind of science?” What do I mean by that? Well, there are two major categories of science: observational science and historical science. Observational science has to do with things that we typically do in a laboratory, like cell phones, fast computers, we cure diseases—it’s great stuff!
Creationists and evolutionists, scientists or Christians, scientists or not—they’re not debating observational science. We know how it works. The other type of science is called Historical Science, and this deals with events that happened in the unobserved past—like a supposed Big Bang 13.8-billion years ago. You know what? No one was around to see that happen. They can’t reproduce it in a laboratory, and you can’t test it directly.
But the same thing is true of the six-day Creation account. None of us were around to see that happen. We certainly can’t reproduce that in a laboratory, and we can’t test it directly.
So, both of these views, Big Bang and Evolution, or Six-day Creation—they fall in the category that’s known as “Historical Science.” Now, there’s actually nothing wrong with historical science. It’s different. It involves a lot of guesses and assumptions as to what happened in the past when we weren’t there to see it. And different scientists have different guesses and assumptions based on their starting point.
Another myth about science: we all know that science is black and white. It is what it is. Scientists go into a laboratory, and they just follow wherever the evidence leads, right? “Follow the science.” We hear that more and more with COVID: “Follow the science. It is what it is. There’s nothing you can do about it.”
And then, science can be used as a club, unfortunately, in many ways. I’m going to go through each of these really, really quickly:
—Overly technical. Sometimes when someone’s trying to convince you of something, they say, “So, techinically….” You don’t really understand what they’re talking about, because it’s so highly technical. And they do that on purpose. In reality, anything, no matter how technical it is, you should be able to explain it in a generally simple way so people get the gist of it. We’re not going to have all the details, necessarily, but they’ll have the gist of what you’re referring to. But a lot of people focus and stay away from that.
—We have “elephant hurling:” “Well, this particular thing is a fact because it’s supported by evidence from every area of science, and all the scientists believe it…” Large statements hurled at you, lacking specifics.
—Then we have “appeal to authority.” “Well, so-and-so said this, and he’s, like, one of the world’s leading authorities, so it’s got to be right.” They’re probably really smart, but that doesn’t mean that everything they say is correct.
—“Shaming”—“Well, if you don’t believe this about COVID or about climate change, or whatever, then you don’t care about people! You want people to die!” The “shaming” effect. We’re seeing that more and more.
—“Eliminate discussion”—You just shut it down. Someone starts bringing up some good points, you don’t allow there to be any discussion. “It’s time for action now!”
—And then, “Consensus science”—Well, it’s got to be true, because a majority of scientists believe it.” Guess what? Even secular scientists hate this! A true scientist would say, “Consensus science is not science.” We don’t determine if something is true based on how many people believe it. All it takes is one discovery to overrule the majority. Throughout history, a lot of times major changes have come about by one person discovering something. They don’t do consensus science.
—And then “Academic censorship”— “Well, you guys aren’t real scientists, because you’re not publishing in our journals.”
“Why can’t we publish in your journals?”
“Because you’re not real scientists.”
“Why are we not real scientists?”
“Because you’re not publishing in our journals.”
“Why can’t we publish in your journals?”
“Because you’re not real scientists.”
And that happens, and it goes ‘round and ‘round. There’s a lot to it. I could share a lot more, but I’ve got to keep moving.
—“The doggie had tofu.” That’s where someone says something, and you’re like, “What?? That doesn’t make any sense.” So, just one really quick example [shows photo] this is my daughter’s dog, Cooper—yes, he’s cute. Yes, he knows it.
—This claim has actually been made: “Creation theory’s not science because it’s not testable.” And then they’ll turn around and say, “We’ve tested creation theory and proven it to be false.” Wait a minute! You can’t have it both ways. Either it’s not testable, and therefore, you’re saying it’s not science; or it is testable, and you say you’ve tested it. But you can’t have both. But they will make that claim, which makes you kind of tilt your head.
—And then, lastly, misleading headline; this is big—very common. I’ve often seen an article that says, “New bone uncovered that proves Darwinian Evolution.” It “proves that we evolved from apelike creatures.”
Well, that’s a fascinating claim. But you start reading the article, and you get a lot about history, and this happened, and that happened twenty years ago, and five years ago, and then, recently, “These people who came from this university…” and on and on and on, and you eventually find, well, they dug up a bone. “Here’s how much it weighed, and how long it was, here’s a picture of it,” whatever. And then they say they think that this is evidence that we evolved from apelike creatures. And then, toward the end, some of the leading experts remain very skeptical. They don’t think this is evidence at all. And then the article ends.
And you’re wondering, “Wait a minute! The headline said that this is proof of Darwinian evolution, and there’s nothing in the article that backs it up. In fact, they’re even admitting, ‘Ahh, it’s still skeptical, we don’t really know.’”
It doesn’t matter. People see the headlines. That’s all they need to read: “Oh, they found more proof of evolution. Those Christians, they keep fighting science.” And even the people who do read the article, they might not make it all the through, or even if they have gone through it, they forget to relate it back to the headline—it doesn’t match. So that’s what misleading headlines are all about.
And science is never truly settled. Now, if you want to know which has greater mass density: lead or cotton, you could go into the laboratory, and you could do the experiment. You could do it over and over and over and get the same result. Other people can come in and do the experiment over and over. They’re going to get the same result. So, in a sense, this could be deemed settled.
Now, who, do we discover, next year, or a hundred years from now, that would overturn this? Yeah, it’s possible but very unlikely. We can’t even imagine that. What would that change have to be?
So, I’m okay with saying something like “This is settled science.” But these aren’t the things that we’re discussing. We’re talking about the origin of the Universe, the origin of life, COVID, climate change, and all those things—that’s a different type of science. A lot of that is actually historical science and very colorful. And just so I don’t keep you hanging, it’s lead. Lead is more dense. And now you’re wondering how dense I am [laughs].
All right, real quickly, we’re going to look at a few times when science was wrong! Guess what? Science was never wrong, because science doesn’t say anything. This was a time when scientists’ conclusions were wrong. There’s lots of examples we could give. One is a geocentric system. The leaders, the intelligentsia of the world, were convinced that all the planets revolved around the earth, starting with Aristotle and Ptolemy—for about 1200 years that was believed until Copernicus came along and confirmed by Galileo, that no, the planets are actually revolving around the sun.
The leading experts were wrong for over a thousand years!
And we had bloodletting. I’ve covered this in some previous conferences with The Berean Call. Doctors used to drain blood out of people when they got sick. “Well, bad blood; you’ve to get rid of that blood. That’s why they’re sick.” That’s largely how George Washington died. He got pneumonia. He went to the doctor. “You’ve got bad blood. I’ll drain some blood.” He gets sicker. “Wow, he’s really sick. We need some more blood.” He gets even sicker. Like, “Wow, this guy’s really sick.” They ended up draining about a gallon of blood out of him, and he died.
If they would have read the Bible, they would’ve never done that. “The life of the flesh is in the blood.” We know better today. But the leading experts were doing this for years.
Then, washing your hands—this is fascinating if haven’t heard this before. A Honduran medical doctor, Ignaz Semmelweis—in his day, the mortality rate for European women who were going to the hospital to give birth was 25-30 percent. What does that mean? It means that 25-30 percent of women going to the hospital to give birth died. That’s tragic! It’s unbelievable.
Well, Semmelweis noticed something. Many doctors were going into a room to perform an autopsy. Then they’d walk across the hall to deliver a baby with nothing happening in between! We cringe at that. Like, “Oh, my word! How could that possibly be?”
So, he stared washing his hands with water and chlorine. His own mortality rates for his patients dropped to 0.85. That’s a huge improvement! And the medical community just celebrated him—this was fantastic, right? No! They told him to “stop it with all that handwashing nonsense. This is crazy! Washing your hands isn’t going to change any of that!”
In fact, they interned him in a mental hospital, and he was severely beaten while trying to escape, and he died two weeks later! We know today, yeah—you need to wash your hands because of all these germs. But the leading experts were wrong, and made fun of someone who spoke up.
Also, the plates of the earth—from the inception of science and for many years to follow, the leading experts said the plates of the earth were static—they did not move. And that idea that they moved was mocked for over a hundred years. In 1859 (this is the year that Darwin wrote The Origin of Species. That same year, Antonio Snider-Pellegrini was a Christian geographer who proposed the idea that plates, yeah, were together, but they were torn apart during the Genesis flood. That was his thought.
Again, this was mocked for over a hundred years. The world’s leading scientists said, “Oh, that’s just crazy—the plates of the earth have moved.” Well, guess what? Now, 1960s forward, they’re all convinced: the plates have moved. But they put their twist on it: “Yes, they were together, and they moved, but they just moved apart; they drifted for millions and millions and millions of years, just small amounts at a time.”
There’s no physical mechanism that could do that. It doesn’t make any sense. But they don’t want it to match up with the biblical narrative, and if you read 2 Peter 3 sometime, which you should, it tells us that the main reason that the skeptics of our day are doubting the return of Christ is because of two things: they’re rejecting the Genesis creation account, and they’re rejecting the Genesis flood. (I’ve given whole talks on that; I’ve got to keep moving.)
So, we know that the plates were together in the past, and they certainly are apart today, and the catastrophic Genesis flood is the only thing that could really account for this.
Mercury: It’s the only metal that’s in liquid state at room temperature. Doctors used to use this in medicine. We know better today. You don’t want to do that! We try to get mercury out of everything. It’s very lethal. But leading experts were using it for a long time.
And the idea of “Junk DNA.” When scientists were originally studying DNA, it seemed like only 2 percent did anything. It coded to make proteins that carry out all the functions in your body. The rest, 98 percent—junk. It’s not doing anything. “Proof of evolution” because God would not design you and your DNA that’s most of it junk. Well, they studied it further, and they found out that the 98 percent they were calling “junk” is more complex than the 2 percent that makes proteins! Its instructions, telling the 2 percent what to do, it’s blowing them away how incredibly complex the whole system is.
Here’s an interesting quote from an evolutionist: “The failure to recognize the implications of the non-coding DNA will go down as the biggest mistake in the history of molecular biology.” He said, “Big mistake to call that noncoding section that we didn’t understand—to call that ‘junk.’” Biggest mistake in the history of molecular biology for leading experts who were wrong, and way wrong.
Now, where I live, here in Wisconsin, we have something called frozen custard—if you’re not familiar with that, it’s like really good ice cream on steroids! And you might want to try it out, because this is what we’re going to be eating in heaven for eternity [laughs]. In our area, we have a lot of stores that have a “flavor of the day.” You can always get chocolate and vanilla, but they’ll have a flavor of the day like mint chocolate chip or rocky road, or whatever.
Well, I think they ought to have a “flavor of the day” in society. There’s an issue that’s always being pushed more than others. And many years ago, you probably remember the AIDS epidemic. It was just huge! It’s all we heard about for a long time.
And then they were discussing Global Warming—not the discussion that we’re having today, but it was also global warming, but it was the first version.
Then, we were hearing all about gay marriage and trying to legalize that in our country. It was just front and foremost on all the news broadcasts.
And then Trump comes along, and all the attention’s on Trump. Independent of what you think of him, the media was on him all the time—that was the number-one issue.
Transgenderism—it’s been around for a while, but they decided at some point to bring that to the forefront with everything about that issue.
Then we have racism. That came up, and everything was racism. Racism is a real issue, but they decided that’s going to be the number 1 issue.
Then COVID. It kind of took us by surprise, and they had to jump on that, and then they really took advantage of that, and that’s all you’ve heard, I’m sure, and we’re all kind of sick of hearing about COVID-19.
What’s next? We don’t really know! It’s possible that COVID could come back in a different strain, and they will decide that’s going to be number one, and they’re going to push that harder than ever. Maybe.
I think if it’s not COVID, it’s going to be Climate Change. Yes, they’ve been talking about climate change for quite a while, but I think we’re going to decide “this is what we want.” This is going to be the issue that we were going to use to accomplish our goals. Don’t know for sure, but we watch for that, and they’re going to double down on it harder than ever.
So, let’s talk a little bit about COVID and climate change years. Starting off looking at COVID: “Follow the science.” This is phrase that came up kind of connected with COVID, meaning, They’ve done the research, they know what’s right, follow the science.” If you don’t do what we’re telling you to do, you are not following the science, and you are a science-denier—probably one of those Christians who just believes their Bible,” right?
That’s what we’re pretty much hearing.
Well, this is an interesting article. This came out a few months ago: WebMd—very reputable, talking about the year of COVID. They said this: “Everything we thought we knew was wrong.” They didn’t say, “Well, we got a few of the things wrong,” but they’re saying, their article, “Everything we thought we knew was wrong.”
Now they’re telling us they were wrong about the science! So that probably means they were wrong about all the things they were telling us that we should do. They’ve even admitted a lot of that. “Yeah, what we did really wasn’t accurate.”
That reminded me of a cover story from Time magazine a few years ago talking about dinosaurs. The title was The Truth about Dinosaurs. “So, what are they going to do?”
“Well, they’re going to tell us the truth about dinosaurs!”
There was a subtitle on this cover that I thought, I don’t think they thought this through, or they wouldn’t put it on there. This is what it said: “Surprise! Just about everything you believed was wrong.”
Well, wait a minute! Where did we learn most of what we know about dinosaurs? From them. From their magazines! And the documentaries, and the school systems, and the universities. But now they’re telling us that all that information is wrong! Well, that means they were wrong when they told us! Well, if they’re admitting they were wrong before when they told us, why should we trust them now, you know?
Again, I don’t think they thought that through very far.
COVID also, again, with the treatments. What do they want us to do? What is the right thing to do? Well, the CDC, the Center for Disease Control, a governmental agency funded by your tax dollars and mine, said this. They were talking about Hydroxychloroquine, which is something that is a drug developed in the 1940s to treat malaria. And a lot of doctors were using this with great success. Very few side effects, if any at all. It was working really well.
This is what the CDC said: “They claimed a study had been conducted in which there were 96-thousand COVID patients from 671 hospitals on five continents who had all been treated with Hydroxychloroquine. Then they published their findings in the Lancer, the world’s leading medical journal, in which they said, claiming that “Hydroxychloroquine did not help, per COVID 19, and it might even cause death in patients.” Wow! That’s bad stuff!
You don’t want to use that! Thank you for doing that work and letting us know!
What’s the problem with this? Well, doctors were saying, “Well, that’s strange. I don’t remember seeing that study. Could you tell me a little bit more about it?” It turns out the study was never done. It was a lie! So they had to pull it off their website and the claim. It doesn’t matter. The damage was done. It’s gone. People have read that this stuff is really bad. Stay away from it. It accomplished what they wanted to accomplish, even though there was nothing to back it up.
I’m not trying to give you medical advice as to what you should do. I’m just showing you what is actually happened within the realm of science.
So, “follow the science,” right? Because they’re telling us. It’s probably more like “Follow the money.” It’s always very interesting when you trace these things back, hydroxychloroquine is dirt cheap! A simple solution. But vaccines and all that? There’s a lot of money to be made, and I refuse to go that route and share my personal opinions on that, but it’s kind of interesting.
So, getting more directly to the idea of climate change: Climate change is related to a number of other things. There’s the Great Reset, Green New Deal, Environmentalism—they’re kind of all interwoven here. If you’re not familiar with the Great Reset: “The pandemic represents a rare but narrow window of opportunity to reflect, reimagine, and reset our world.” This is a World Economic Forum. “Reset.” That means primarily economically, equity. And they have a lot of strange and not-good ideas on how they’re going to accomplish that. So, they’re… “let’s take advantage of this pandemic to reset, and make things work the way we want them to work.”
Headlines: “Thousands of health professionals call on world leaders to prioritize a greener future post-pandemic.” Things have really gone bad, and we need to have a greener future. That will solve things, or whatever, so they’re pushing world leaders toward this, and that’s what we’re hearing about, and it’s going to get stronger and stronger as time goes forward.
So, what is that Green New Deal? This data comes from Prager U, where they do, I think, a great job of summarizing different issues. This is all about [how] the government should “prohibit the use of fossil fuels and switch through mandates, forcing the use of 100 percent renewable energy.”
Well, today in the United States, 80 percent of our energy usage comes from fossil fuels: oil, coal, and natural gas. Only 3.4 percent comes from wind and solar, which they’re trying to develop. What’s wrong with wind and solar? Well, it’s unreliable, because it only works when the wind blows and the sun shines.
You’re probably all familiar with what happened earlier this year in Texas, where these windfarms froze, great power outages. It was really mayhem for a while because, again, they don’t work when the wind doesn’t blow, or they freeze up, and all these things—they’re certainly not perfected at all, and we have close to “maxed out” on their efficiency. What does that mean? It had to do with physics. You can only get so efficient with converting solar to energy or wind to energy. We’re pretty close to what those maximums are, so we really can’t expect to see much improvement there.
So, we’ve got to get that energy into batteries then, and we could use it that way. Well, Tesla has built the world’s largest battery factory. It would take that factory 500 years to provide enough electricity to run the United States for one day! This is not practical. The solution is not practical.
Plus, you’d have to do a lot more mining to pull out the nonrenewable resources to make the solar panels and the wind farms, which are not renewable. And then, to make the batteries as well, and you’d need fossil fuels to run the factories to make these things!
So, should we stop with looking into solar and wind? No, I’m not saying stop. I’m just saying while we are still trying to figure these out (which aren’t looking so good right now!), continue to do what we were doing. We’re not killing the world. We can’t destroy our economy while we’re waiting for these to get better, when there’s no reason to think that these things would really be the solution.
Another aspect here: “The world is overpopulated, because we’re just destroying the planet! There’s just too many of us.” Let’s take a look at it.
There’s just under 7.8 billion people on the planet today. This is a very powerful visual [on screen]: you could take every single person on the face of this planet—almost 7.8 billion people—move them to the state of Texas, and if you stood them side-by-side, they would take up .1 percent of the entire state of Texas. The rest of the planet would be empty! “Well, they can’t live there standing next to each other!”
I’m not trying to say they would have lived there ongoing. I’m just saying they would fit there. The rest of the planet would be empty. Is the world overcrowded? No, it is not! Are there too many people living in one area? Yeah, in China, India, or whatever. But there’s plenty of space on this planet. God created it. He knew how long we’d be around. He knew how many people would be here. He made it the right size.
Do we need to be concerned about any of this? Yeah, we should be aware, but it’s not overcrowded like they’re telling us. But could you really get this many people, the people we have today, in just 6,000 years?
I would ask this question: “Well, this is used to bash the Bible—the Bible’s ‘silly’ story about God creating everything in six days.”
We’re not going to go off on a tangent on the age of the earth right now. I have a whole series of thoughts on that, but it is clearly from us back to Christ about 2,000 years; from Christ back to Abraham, about another 2,000 years; from Abraham back to Adam and Eve—you look at the genealogies and the chronologies, and you get roughly another 2,000 years. That gives you about 6,000 years. You cannot take the biblical narrative and stretch it to 500,000 years, 2 million, 2 billion. It doesn’t work biblically, and I think the science backs this timeframe up. Anyway, that’s a different topic.
But could you get this many people in just that time period? Well, let’s start out with an original couple. [Indicating picture onscreen] It doesn’t look like they’re going to have any kids, so we’ll switch this couple here [showing another image], that’ll work a lot better. It would only take 32 doublings—go from 2 to 4, 4 to 8—32 doublings to give you 8.5 billion people. That’s more than we even need. Just 32 doublings! Well, to get 32 doublings in the 6,000 years, you only have to double it once every 187 years. Okay, is that do-able? What’s our current doubling rate? Forty to fifty years! That’s the current rate today. This is completely reasonable, to get that many people only in a short period of time. Not an issue whatsoever!
Let’s flip it around a little. How many people should be on the earth if we’ve been evolving from an apelike creature for 6 million years? This is what the secular scientists say. So, even Christians who believe in evolution think that this took 6 million years.
Well, let’s forget about the time period of populations from apes to man. Let’s just look at modern man. They tell us modern man has been around maybe 200,000 years. Let’s give them a break. We’ll be conservative. Let’s say we’ve been around just…just even 50,000 years. How many people should be on the planet if we’ve been populating the earth for 50,000 years. You can do the math very easily—and it would be this number here: This is a “1” with 100 zeros after it.
This portion up here [indicated], that would be 10 billion. That’s more than we actually have today, but you have to add all these other zeros on it to get to what it should be in just a 50,000-year period. And they’re talking about 6 million years from an apelike creature.
So how big is that number? Well, atoms are really small, and there are a lot of atoms even in a single grain of sand. There’s 20 million trillion atoms in a single grain of sand! Is this number as big as the population number I just showed you? No. This is way too small.
How about the number of atoms in the entire known universe? That would have to be huge! It’s not big enough. You’d need 100 million trillion universes and then add up all those atoms to reach this number that I just showed you. The numbers don’t line up.
But then, they say, “Oh, we’ve just grown so slowly that just now we have, like, 7.8 billion people after all that time.” That is completely unrealistic that that could even occur, but even if it did, where are all the bones and artifacts from all the trillions and trillions of people who have lived over time and died. It’s missing. We don’t have evidence of that many people being around.
Jacques Cousteau—many of you are familiar with him. I grew up watching him—fascinating undersea explorer. He was concerned about population growth, and this is what he said: “In order to stabilize population, we need to eliminate 350,000 people per day.”
What do you mean, “eliminate”? There are a lot of people, prominent people in prominent positions in the world today that are serious about eliminating people to get the population down. Some of them get really excited when there’s a pandemic that’s going to wipe people out, because, they say, that’s what we need. [That’s a whole other talk—very interesting.]
Is the world over-populated? No! Not even close. Again: are there areas where there are too many people mismanaged? Sure. We see that all the time. But the planet is just the size it needs to be for God’s purpose.
So, wrapping this up: climate change. Is climate change real? Yes, it’s real. The climate has always changed, it always will. Is it really bad? That’s up for debate. Are we the cause of it? That’s up for debate.
I will let you conclude whatever you want. We just don’t want to go overboard with these things. But let me give you a few pieces of information that will help you think through this: Climate change, again, is climate change. The climate has always changed, and it always will. I guarantee you, if somehow the climate stopped changing, alarms would be going off. And they’d say, “Oh, my word!” [They’d] panic because the climate had always changed, but now it’s not! “And we’re causing it to not change. We’ve got to do something!”
So whether it changes or it doesn’t, they’re going to say it’s bad and we’re at fault.
Here’s a quick climate overview—I had to shorten this up, I don’t have time to go through all this, but there is one question that everyone asks about the atmosphere, especially children. We’ve heard this question: Why is the sky blue? Oh, wait a minute—that’s not the question. Why is the sky blue? That’s the real question. I won’t go into all the details, but it has to do with how light gets scattered. The short wavelengths, which are blue, get scattered more and reach your eye. The longer wavelengths are the red end. You don’t see those as much. You primarily see blue. That’s why the sky is blue. This isn’t that important, but I made up this joke and I wanted to fit it in. (Sorry about that!)
So we’ve got energy coming in from the sun. Some of it comes and gets absorbed by the earth, some of it goes back out into the atmosphere, some of it gets trapped in our atmosphere. This is the greenhouse effect. It’s a good thing. If we didn’t have that, it would be about zero degrees Fahrenheit all over the earth, and nobody wants that. Three huge questions when discussing climate change. (They’re so big that they don’t even fit on the screen here.)
Question number 1: Is the climate changing?
Question number 2: If it is changing, is it bad?
Question number 3: How much of the change, if any, is any is caused by human activity?
Very important questions.
Number 1: Is the climate changing?
Yes, we know it’s changing. Nobody’s denying that there’s some change going on. And we have a history of it: 950-1250 A.D.—we call this the Medieval Warm Period. It was warmer than today—maybe about 1 degree Celsius.
Then we went into a little Ice Age: 1300-1850. The temperatures were down about 2 degrees Celsius.
Then, the 20th and 21st Centuries, warming started again, coming out of that little Ice Age, which was good. No one wants to live in that little Ice Age. But then it stagnated for about the past twenty years, 2016-on. The temperatures declined slightly—maybe .2 percent celsius.
So, a very small amount the climate has changed.
Number 2: Is the climate changing bad?
Good question. Okay, we’ve got a guy here; he’s going to go outside, but it’s snowing out. He’s going to change. He puts on an undershirt. It’s a good change. That’ll help him. He puts on a T-shirt. That’ll also help him. That’s a good change. Then he puts on a long-sleeved sweatshirt. That should really help keep him warm. That’s good. Then you find out he’s not going outside for another five or ten minutes! Well, at this rate of change, he’s going to end up looking like the Michelin Man—he’ll fall down outside, maybe crack his head open, or he won’t be able to get up. He’ll freeze to death! This is terrible!
What did you do? You took some real change that you observed, and you extrapolated it into the future, and just assumed certain things were going to continue to happen, which then, yeah, could be deemed bad. But you don’t know that that’s going to continue. That’s just your estimated guess.
And you also try to guess about past—well, take ice cores. Drill down into the ice, pull a core out, and they’ll see the layers there, and they’ll count the layers, and they’ll assume that there’s one layer per year. So, if there are 500 layers down, we’ll see how much carbon dioxide is in that layer, and they’ll say, “This is what our atmosphere was like 500 years ago, or 1,000 years ago, or 30,000 years ago.”
What’s the problem with this? Assuming one layer per year. We know as a fact you can get multiple layers in one year! In a given winter, you can have slightly warmer periods where it’ll melt, and then another layer freezes. You can have multiple layers per year. So, it’s going to throw off their dating year.
Plus, the further you go down, the more squished the layers are. So they could be down at 30,000 layers—“30,000 years ago, this is what our atmosphere was like.” But then it doesn’t match up with something else, they’re off by about 50,000 years. So they say, “Well, let’s recount.” And then they recount—oh, they magically found 15,000 more layers! Well, you know there might be another layer here…and here…and here. You can’t tell, but they needed them.
So, anywhere, there’s a problem with ice-core dating.
There’s also a problem with the geologic column and the layers in the earth and radiometric dating. If these things give you bad or errant results, and you use that in a climate model, the climate model’s going to be off. And there are many problems with radiometric dating. I could give a series of talks on that. There are faulty assumptions that are used in these methods, and these methods often contradict each other.
So, again, if they’re telling you what the earth was like 100 million years ago, it wasn’t 100 million years ago, and they’re using that in a model, then the predictions about the future are going to be wrong.
And you may remember in the mid-1970s—what were we worried about? The Ice Age! There was a coming Ice Age, they told us. So, it was all about global cooling. Well, that didn’t pan out for them.
So then, they moved to Global Warming. Well, that wasn’t consistent enough, so now they’ve just shifted to Climate Change.
Anytime there’s a change, the change is going to be bad, and we’re the cause of it. That’s what you hear over and over and over again. So, that’s very clever though, because that works either way. It’s a great scheme for them to go with.
Forecasting models are only as good as their input. You may have seen this: “Garbage in/garbage out.” You put garbage into your system, you’re going to get garbage out. I did computer programming for twelve years and am very well that when you design a system, if your input is bad, you’re going to get bad output. Also, if the calculations in the middle aren’t right, you’re going to get wrong output, or you could even force help what you want by changing the middle calculations or the input. So you need to be very careful with this.
[Shows image] And here’s part of what’s wrong. This graph represents our atmosphere—what we’re breathing right now. I’d be surprised—most of what you’re breathing, 78 percent is nitrogen. Only 21 percent is oxygen. But we always think about, “no, we’re breathing in oxygen,” which you are, but just a smaller amount.
And then, only .9 percent is argon. That leaves .1 percent, a little sliver here—that’s what we call “trace gases,” and that’s where the greenhouse gases are.
So now, what we’re going to do, we’re going to look at these trace gases—move them up beside that little sliver—this graph now represents what’s inside that little sliver. What’s the majority component of that little sliver?
“That’s got to be the carbon dioxide.” Well, it’s terrible stuff, right?
No, it’s great stuff! Life wouldn’t be possible without it. Plants absorb all that, photosynthesis—it’s not carbon dioxide sitting here. The vast majority of what you see is actually water vapor. A smaller portion is the carbon dioxide. And guess what? A lot of climate models leave out water vapor. But that’s the largest greenhouse gas!
I saw an article in National Geographic. They talk about the greenhouse effect and greenhouse gases. They don’t even mention water vapor! Water is extremely complex. Water vapor and liquid water and the interaction of the two. You leave that out of your model, you’re not going to be accurate.
And then we had President Obama back in 2013, he made this statement: “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: climate change is real, it’s manmade, and it’s dangerous!”
This is Consensus Science. It’s got to be true because “the majority of scientists believe this—97 percent!” Are you going to argue with 97 percent of the scientists?
Well, “consensus science” is bad, but where did that 97 percent come from?
This is really interesting: In 2009, a survey was given to 10,000 earth scientists. Two questions were asked: 1) Do you agree that global temperatures have generally risen since the pre-1800s (coming out of that little Ice Age)? 2) Do you think that human activity is a significant contributing factor?
Two simple, pretty straightforward questions. A little over 3 thousand people responded, so less than a third actually responded to question number one: 90 percent said yes, they think temperatures generally have risen (which I’m surprised it’s not higher. I believe that they’ve generally risen a little bit. Not a big deal.)
Second question: Eighty percent said yes, they think that human activity is a significant factor. They’re not saying it’s the end of the world; they’re saying it is a significant factor to be discussed.
Well, among those who were meteorologists, those specifically trained, a little more directly related to weather patterns and climate change and all that—only 64 percent said “yes, they think that human activity is a significant contributing factor.”
Sixty-four percent is a lot lower than the 97 percent that we were looking at.
And then, also, of the 77—77 out of 10,000 that were surveyed, 77 out of that, 75 of them said yes, they think human activity is a significant factor.
So 75 out of just the 77 is 97 percent. That’s where that number came from! You can see how deceptive this really is! You’re thinking “97 percent of anyone who’s a scientist agrees with this.” No, it’s not even close! This is to me very alarming when something like this goes off, because it’s not accurate at all. It is truly deceptive.
And then I want to end with this: a great summary of the whole climate change dilemma, again by Prager U, and their videos,—I think they do a really clear job of being succinct in summarizing what’s going on.
This comes from Richard Lindzen. He’s an M.I.T. atmospheric physicist. He’s one of the world’s leading climatologists. You know what that means? It means that this guy is right about everything he says!
No, I’m not saying that. He’s not saying that. But his background should give him a platform where he’s deserving of being heard, and we should probably take into account what is he saying?
This is what he said: “There are three groups of people dealing with this issue of climate change. Groups one and two consist of scientists. Group three are politicians, environmentalists, and the media.
Group 1: These are scientists who are part of the International Panel on Climate Change. And they believe that most recent global warming is due to man’s burning of fossil fuels—oil, coal, and natural gas. This is a group of individuals who have specifically gotten together to discuss climate change. They’re concerned about it, so this is not surprising that this is what their belief its.
Group 2: These are the scientists who don’t necessarily agree with that. They would be skeptical of some of those claims, and they’re called “climate deniers.” They don’t deny climate, but they’re skeptical of some of the conclusions that are being reached.
This group, a larger group, believe that there are many reasons the climate changes: sun, clouds, oceans, ….variations, etc., a lot of different reasons—and that none of those factors are clearly understood, and that there’s no evidence that C02 emissions are the dominant factor—that’s this second group of scientists.
Here are five points of agreement between these two groups—the smaller group that are big into climate change, and those who are a little bit skeptical.
Both groups of scientists are saying that, but here’s the real shocker—agreement between these two groups—the claim that burning of fossil fuels leads to catastrophe? Nobody in those groups—none of those scientists—are making that claim.
So, who do we hear those claims from? Well, that’s group 3: Politicians, environmentalists, and the media.
Politicians are largely driven by money and power.
The environmentalists are driven by money for their organizations and the confirmation of the religious-like beliefs that man is an evil disease destroying nature.
The media are often driven by ideology, money, and headlines.
It’s very common. Again, there are some legitimate people in all those groups, but a lot of people are driven by these other things. We need to keep that in mind when we listen to them
So, what about climate change? Then, yes, the climate changes. Is it bad? Is it manmade? You can decide whatever you want. I’m just giving you some more information to keep in mind as you’re trying to come to a conclusion.
So, wrapping this whole thing up about settled science, I just want to give you some takeaways, the first of which is:
So, for me, if someone starts talking about climate change, and they think the world is going to end, and all that, I’ll say, “Well, we can talk about that a second, but I’ve got a question: Where do you think the world came from to begin with. Like, how did it get here, and why is it here, and how do you think it’s ultimately going to end?”
If they don’t buy into a biblical narrative, that’s the real issue! If you can’t get beyond that, you’re never going to resolve these other things, because your starting point is off.
So, always get it back to that and to the gospel message, to share the gospel message with a lost and dying world. When you stand before God, He’s not going to say, “Did you convince someone about Climate Change or COVID?” All He’s going to ask is “Did you share the truth, the gospel message, with those that I have surrounded you by.” That’s our main responsibility. We can’t change the world. God’s not asking us to do that. But He does ask us to evangelize.
So, I hope you got a little bit out of this. I hope it’s a little bit helpful. If you have additional questions for me about this or anything else, you can always get ahold of me at The Starting Point Project.com, and we’ve got a lot of great videos, lots of DVDs that are also stream-able; we’ve got booklets. We’ve also got two other books coming out within a month or two, and then books after that. The main thing that I do is travel around and speak. We don’t charge anything for our engagements. We accept honorariums of whatever the host deems appropriate.
We do ask that travel expenses be covered, but there’s never a charge for the event. If you want me to speak at a conference or at your church or somewhere, just get ahold of us through thestartingpointproject.com.
Again, I appreciated being part of The Berean Call Conference 2021, and Tom McMahon, I hope you noticed. I didn’t get any shots at you this year! You got the year off. But be prepared for next time!
Again, it’s been my joy to be part of The Berean Call, an excellent ministry, solid on the truth of God’s Word. I hope you’re encouraged. I hope you enjoy the rest of the conference, and I hope to see you in person someday! God bless.