HOME
Science: The Abomination That Makes Desolate [1]
When humans dug up soil in the valleys of Ethiopia and pulled out the remains of an ape and declared it the genesis of man and exhibited it as the headline statement against God, the transgression of mankind through science crossed the redline the Prophet Daniel spoke of [2]
About a decade ago in California I met Alem, an acquaintance of mine - an Ethiopian by birth, to discuss the property of a material he was researching that the company he worked for intended to sell to the company I worked for. He explained to me the scientific wonders the material would do to the product I was working on at the time. I noticed he was holding a book in his hand. After the official work was over, he told me about the book in his hand. He said it was a mystery book, which he enjoyed, written by a woman and that it touched upon divine matters mockingly. I asked him what his interest was in a book that made a mockery of the Devine. He told me that he did not believe in God and that for him Christianity was absurd. He said science answered all his questions about the world, his environment, the universe and about matters pertinent to life and that, for all his questions, he considered answers from circles outside of science redundant. I inquired to know how science answered all his questions. He plunged to the "depths" of science and I listened to him attentively. For the graduate level scientific training that he had his explanations left with much to be desired.

After I left Alem I pondered: does science answer questions? Does it answer any questions? Has it ever answered any question at all? Although my training in science started since I was a child, I sought out to discover it again, this time not as a pawn on the science chase board but as a chase player watching the steps and the strategy of the other player. I pursued the trails of science from the sea of its rise to the pit of its setting. I perceived that there was nothing really that science answered and could easily see that there will be nothing that it will answer either. Here then is the story of science.       

What is Science?

Science is a Latin word for knowledge. It encompasses the subjects given at school, including the natural sciences such as physics, biology, chemistry etc. and the social sciences such as sociology, philosophy, political science etc. It also includes such disciplines as archeology, anthropology, geology and more. There are many definitions given to science from science quarters who preach it. Some define science as an intellectual activity carried on by humans to understand how the natural world works and how it came to be that way. Some define it as humanity's vehicle for the pursuit of knowledge. Wikipedia has summarized a definition borrowed from science historian J. L Heilbron, which states that science is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and prediction about the said knowledge. As science stretched over the years its meaning also stretched.

Modern science was born in Western Europe on the heels of the Renaissance movement and amid aversion the movement brought along to Christian belief. It came alongside what the Europeans call the "reformation movement." For alleging to explain how nature works, science never once attributed "the laws of nature" to God, nor was it ever thankful to God for the pleasure enjoyed gleaning the mazes of the cosmos or of the wonders of life on earth, because it grew out of an inquest - a rebellious inquest for knowledge in an implied bid to proclaim God nonexistent. So, in its true sense, science can be defined as a religion of the West that boasts to provide to mankind knowledge - "superior knowledge that takes precedence over knowledge provided even by the Devine." As an outgrowth of the Renaissance movement, science, from its inception, was arrayed to set man against God, to impute that which is God's to man and to encourage man to claim godhood.  Its beginnings were such that the competing of man against God took a subtler venue in that, for example, if the earth pulled down a person who jumped up and Newton noticed, it did so by the law of Newton and not by the law of God. If Isaac Newton believed in God, then he was too flattered by the reputation he earned to discern the fermenting brew underneath that his name was contesting God's.  Science, being sweet for a human taste and tempting to look at, bewitched the entire world as the West carried it around to serve itself. By it, the seduction of mankind has been too great. Very few looked down upon it as there were none who did not look upon it when they saw it, including those who were earnestly in the service of God.   
       
Man's Beginnings
 
The Lord God created the heavens and the sky proclaims His glory daily. In the night a multitude of stars parade across the canopy. They profess, "In us too is imparted life". Twinkling they declare the honor of God without uttering a vowel.  The sun rises from the east and irradiates upon the night in the west and the night yields to it gracefully - an endless art, a lively spectacle displayed without a bleep. Without making a noise the firmament unfolds metaphors. The enormity of large and the minuteness of small being both boundless, they retreat deliberately endlessly from the mind that craves to locate them.

Amid this splendid scatter of wonders God created man, a tiny being in the face of the giant heavens, and bestowed upon him a sense of perception for the enjoyment of the glory the firmament displays. The gift of imagining the glory the heavens display is no less pleasant than the gift of taste for discerning the sweetness of honey or the sourness of lemon. God spoke to man in metaphors, in patterns, by the pulses of the cosmos, by the cycle of seasons, by feelings, by language and by many other ways. The Lord God gave man everything for a possession and every pleasure from it and every right on it with one obligation. God commanded man not to eat from one tree - from the tempting tree of knowledge, for this tree bears the craving to contest God and eating from its fruit would lead to death. This metaphor God indeed spoke to man.

Now mankind lived in the east and the serpent came and enticed the woman to eat from the tree of knowledge. Tempted by the serpent's explanation of the knowledge tree, the woman ate the fruit from the tree and made the man eat it, too. As a result of this, mankind was banished from life in the garden and was driven to death. Man regretted of his transgressions and showed great remorse. God saw that man was sorrowful and with compassion and mercy came down to earth after many days and was born from the Blessed Virgin Mary in a manger and was crucified for mankind. He rose up from the dead on the third day and regained life for man who was dead of the serpent's counsel.    

God's metaphors are timeless.  They live today as they were told yesterday.  A metaphor that it is, the tree of knowledge, which is science, is today brought to every door and its fruits served to mankind in many packages and in a range of doses. Today's human mind is intoxicated by it. Those who took a good dose of it have opened up their mouths against the most High and have vied to change His laws to their whims. Powerful nations swear by science in these times and they exert their powers to carry it around, to enforce it and to envelop the weak with it. He who has not taken a cup of it is made unable to make ends meet.  

God declared it an abomination. In His metaphor He articulated it clearly: He called it knowledge. The Europeans called it science, which means knowledge and the name did not come by accident to them, for God's metaphor implied it. They read what was written as favor and time was generously bestowed upon them, yet they did not understand. While doing the work of knowledge they didn't give it any other name, for it was not up to them to name it.

Since the beginnings of man, God has marked science as an abomination. Through the years God's prophets spoke of it as the enemy of mankind. Daniel the prophet spoke of it as the abomination that makes desolate. Our Lord the Christ warned that when the abomination that makes desolate appears in the holy place, it is a sign that His second coming is near.

How is science an abomination and how does it make desolate? Many may ask. In fact, for the scientist who is very much a pawn on the science chase board, or for the ordinary person who thinks to be living a decent life, science can appear a friend of man rather than an enemy. A person would be tempted to think that science helped men live longer by curing diseases and by providing medicine.  A person would also think that science enabled men to live in warm homes, to fly through the air, to travel faster on shore and on sea, to speak to each other from great distances, to produce more food and many more.  

 In today's world there is a great deal of human misjudgment in assigning outcomes to causes. Science is like an organized thievery - its principal job has always been to claim the works of creation as its own for the deliberated purpose of depriving thankfulness to God. Men don't get it. Ethiopians, for example, knew medicine for diseases including for cancer through which they attributed the cure to God with thankfulness. Perhaps there were many in the west, too, who knew medicine whose jobs were snatched by science to be a part of the organized science statement against God. As always, science had nothing to do with the works of Orville Wright and Wilbur Wright when they flew the first airplanes, for the brothers were simple bicycle retailers with very little to no understanding of science. However, science has collected their work and has organized the application of it to the distance of destruction. Like a thief, science collects what is not its own and organizes it and makes statements. The statements are often proud and lifted up. They are abominable to God and they cause desolation.

Colossal Abominations

Unawares that physics now holds the earth to be a center of the universe, the late Harvard "paleontologist" Stephen Jay Gould, in his book "the evolution of life on earth," boastfully quoted Sigmund Freud, who, to add his discussion of the "unconscious mind" to the list in the "revolution of science," remarked that science has knocked human arrogance (implying belief in God) off one pedestal after another: He said, "Copernicus moved our home from center to periphery; Darwin then relegated us to decent from an animal world."  

Great talks against God often emerged from little England. England gave birth to those who made lofty statements about the earth, life, the universe and everything in it. It gave birth to those who wrote a genesis of their own to contest God's. Now the English claim creating the universe and, implicitly as a result, man himself. 

Evolution

            The English Charles Darwin wrote a book titled "on the origin of species" stating that living organisms originated from other forms of living organisms through a slow and protracted physical modification called evolution.  Stemming from his assertion, science currently maintains that all living organism originated from one small organism that happened to acquire life by accident 3.5 billion years ago.

Fig.1  Science's Phylogenic Tree (the recent DNA mapping is more complex)

This organism then evolved into other forms of organisms which, through time, evolved into the different forms of living things that we see today. Science alleges that the unity and diversity of life is established by evolution and it is usually demonstrated by a model diagram called the phylogenetic tree of life. Science asserts that humans evolved from upright walking apes whose ancestors lived six million years ago.

Science further holds that the evolving of an organism from one form or shape or characteristic trait to another takes place through a process of nonrandom filtering called natural selection as well as through random gene aberrations called mutation.

Science states that individuals within a population of an organism or an animal group are not identical. They vary. It also states that some variants within that population are better than others for survival. It further states that these traits that vary are heritable.  For example, the population of the animal antelope varies for running speed. Some antelopes are faster than others. The faster antelopes are more likely to escape the pursuit of a predator. Since speed is hereditary, the surviving antelopes in the antelope generation will be the faster ones who inherited their ancestors' traits
Natural Selection

Fig 2 Antelope population distribution by running speed

 Also, if we make an example of the cheetah, we will see that the cheetah population also varies for pursuing speed. Some cheetahs are faster than other cheetahs. Now the cheetah hunts the antelope and speed is an important trait to catch the prey for food. If we grant speed is hereditary (although the likely scenario is that cheetahs acquire cheetah speed and all offspring do not necessarily acquire specific parental speed), the surviving cheetahs in the cheetah generation will be the faster ones. 

Fig 3 Cheetah population distribution by pursuing speed

At the end of the selection game faster cheetahs are left with faster antelopes for prey. The distribution moved to the right but it also narrowed. The distribution also became peaked, meaning it grew vertically. No evolution or even a curser to it occurred. This is compounded by the fact that many other predators prey on the antelope and pursuit speed across these predators vary greatly, giving the fastest of them the chances of survival if that be the case. This is further compounded by the fact that speed varies within the population of the offspring of one antelope. It doesn't necessarily distribute to the right. Now all traits remained within the first distribution. The end has become like the beginning. Also, predator-to-prey balance is maintained by having more prey for a predator. Evolution by natural selection would then be disruptive to predator-prey balance unless it happens concurrently to both predator and prey and also in the same proportion. If it is proposed that evolution by natural selection is concurrent and proportional to both predator and prey, then this proposition will have suggested the compound process involved structure and coordinated organization, which will render the core tenet of evolution barren. 
              
 Here are some more of science's loftiest instances of evolution by natural selection
 
The Peppered Moth

Science claims that up until the industrial revolution, peppered moths were whitish in color with black spots. During the industrial revolution London became full of soot and trees were stained black by the pollution. The birds began to eat the light colored moths because they could spot then easily on the darkened trees. In a few months time, dark moths started appearing and lighter moths became rare. After the trees were cleaned by Londoners, lighter moths reappeared.

 The above instance, if true, is normal. The peppered moth remained peppered moth. The question is, where does this phenomenon point to the peppered moth's tendency to become slightly-not-peppered-moth?  

The Peacock

Female peacocks choose mates with brighter feathers. Science claims not all males have bright feathers and large tails, and claims that this was especially true a few thousand years ago. And because females kept choosing the bright feathered males as partners, the offspring became more of bright feathered peacocks.  

Whether there were more males who did not have bright feathers few thousand years ago is not verifiable. Even if that is granted, peacocks remained peacocks; the story has no profit to evolution.

The Dog

 In his book, "the greatest show on earth," Mr. Dawkins of Oxford added an experiment on foxes behaving like dogs when domesticated to the "wonders of evolution"  He also narrated his own tale saying that some wolves by chance changed their flight distance and  semi-domesticated themselves from which dogs were tamed. He claimed that the interbreeding of all different kinds of dogs is evidence of evolution by artificial selection. He says artificial selection is an experiment of natural selection. If so, for being an expedited experiment, the interbreeding of dogs did not yield offspring that are not dogs. Did they?  For referring Africans his "ancestors" (in evolution language this is a covert insult) in his dog evolution tale, it is surprising Mr. Dawkins did not use the interbreeding of some Europeans to some Africans in lieu of dogs to demonstrate evolution. Maybe, next time, if there is next time, he will. 

 The disciples of science speak with lofty pride and write tales of overwhelming arrogance and boast of being capable of re-engineering life. Some of them comment that if they were the designers of the heart they would do a better arrangement of the tubes than the way they are now. Their rage is dreadful and their talks are invective and the implications are frightening to all mankind. 

Among sciences tales, none plays the game of "close your eyes so I can fool you" a lot more bluntly than the tale of how birds got wings. Science has a circular logic for this. It says some reptiles must have had some form of wings and these wings developed into bird wings when gliding reptiles attempted to fly. When asked why reptiles developed wings if they did, science says, it must have been needed for some flight. It is not the sloppiness of the current science disciples that is on question, but rather the resolve by so many people in the service of science for so long to go around searching explanations for falsehood in order to trample the truth.  

If reptiles developed wings by a desire to fly, then this assertion furnishes that the process had a forward looking element in it. In other words, from this proposition, it follows that physical modifications are triggered for futuristic realities. It also provides that perception for the projection of flight in air existed together with an aspiration for an unknown and an untested world for a projected possibility of activity outside the bounds of known practice. If life on earth was accidental; why is it maintained by patterns afterwards? Developing wings for the purpose of flight is not consistent with science's declaration of life on earth as accidental.  How does purpose follow accident? Or was the accident pregnant with purpose in which case it is not accident. It doesn't make sense. 

If evolution by natural selection was the survival pathway, why is death of old age unchangeable when evading it has been both the grandest known desire and effort of every organism since creation?  If flight which was unknown could be attained, survival, which is known, should have been achieved. Science's response is predictable here. It would sure suggest reproduction as a form of evasion from death. But reproduction is an arrangement and it requires more than two arrangements that require a code of communication, which is a third arrangement, the totality of which is independent of the organism seeking to survive death of old age. Besides, reproduction happens at early age and it will have to predict death of old age or sickness to be a response. If it can predict then it has purpose.       

 The earlier claim of science in evolution was one hailing need based evolution, bluntly stating that an organism demand's a trait or a physical tool and acquires it. For example, it was taught in schools that the giraffe acquired long neck because of the desire and effort of its ancestors to browse leaves on tall trees. In espousing parental striving as a curser to physical modification, science faced difficulty "explaining" many questions the claim triggered. It then modified the claim to gradual generational shift to long-necked giraffe population claiming that giraffes with longer neck were well adapted to browsing on the higher branches of trees to obtain food beyond the reach of short-necked giraffes which enabled them to survive during droughts. Then, science maintained, the long-necked giraffes left offspring inheriting their bodily peculiarities which resulted in the present stature of giraffes. This gradual shift was applied to apes which science claims gradually evolved into humans. As a token of its seal of stamp in its statement against God, science's bearer chose one of the most hallowed places on earth in the service of God, Ethiopia, and pulled out a fossil trace of an ape from the valleys and declared it to be the genesis of man and exhibited it, and named it after his own name: Luci for Lucifer [3].  
        
Science stretched to excessive lengths of explanations for such notions which were dubbed by many a science-disciple, "overwhelming evidence for evolution." Newspapers made headlines, a flood of books were written, school curricula drafted and enforced for it, expression of faith in God or any indication of it in textbooks banished from public schools, multitudes, nations, governments and even clergymen, bishops and popes hyped up for it and against God, all sold to it saying, "Oh great science, you opened up our eyes, now we know;" yet, in all the over-funded and overworked excavation and fossil search spanning the earth, there was found not even a semblance of a short-necked giraffe. The tall tale fooled many and remained a tale. 

Fig 4. World population trend calculated from existing UN data
(The model shows humans did not exist in science's "evolution" timeframe)

Science saw that the fiction of evolution by natural selection is not a much sellable enterprise and sought another trick to deceive mankind. It produced a new canard in mutation. Mutation, defined by science itself as a sudden and spontaneous change in a cell, is generally a harmful hereditary aberration like pimples, heart disease, obesity etc. According to science, mutations are caused by radiation, viruses or errors. Mutations are generally degenerative and science, desperate to promote its fable of evolution, claims that some can be helpful. Mutation is actually the opposite of natural selection. Mutation   would more likely cause a speedy cheetah to lose its gift of pursuit speed, not gain more of it,  because, if the cheetah desires and works towards more speed and is aided by mutation in its offspring, mutation then would cease to be sudden and spontaneous contrary to what science claims it is.   Let us say that science was just only sloppy for the time being not getting it straight, but then we haven't seen in all history naturally lacking physical features being naturally compensated except, of course, when it is divinely ordained. We haven't seen snakes growing limbs or wings despite science's claim stating they are more than hundred million years old.

Now let us weigh science's accidental life and mutation assertions by the gift of commonsense. If we allow science to have its conjecture of the first life being accidental (notwithstanding science has no clue what life really is), now the chance of obtaining life from inanimate matter or from nothing by accident is very minimal to nothing. If we set that aside considering it as just one miraculous accident, we see that every single phenomenon after it is as astonishing as life itself is. Organisms reproduce - they replicate, which is another miracle; organisms grow, still another miracle; fishes have gills that allow them to live in water, still another miracle, and birds have wings that enables them to fly in air, yet another miracle. Once can be an accident, how can billions of intricate astonishments be generated just by accident? How can billions and billions of accidents rain one after another to assemble in a maze of spectacular scene? It doesn't make sense.

Expanding the Universe

Let's explain something mathematically. Let us say there are four apples on the table.

 Mr. "B" says the apples were always there.  Nothing was added or taken away from the table. 4+0-0 = 4. End of explanation. It is not unconvincing.
Ms. "C" says Mr. "A" brought all the apples and put them on the table. 1x 4 = 4. End of explanation. It is not unconvincing.
Mr. "D" says two people brought two apples each and put them on the table. 2x2 = 4.  End of explanation. It is not unconvincing.
Mrs. "E" says seven people brought one apple each and put them on the table. They ate three of the apples and now four apples remain. (7x1)-3 = 4. End of explanation. It is not unconvincing.

There are many ways to explain a phenomenon or a reality. Some are more convincing than others. There are millions of, maybe billions or perhaps infinite, ways to explain the phenomena unfolding in the sky that God stretched. What is certain is the heavens are there. Whether we explain them in the most splendid way or in most complex ways, the true story can be outside of human explanation, because there can be, and there are, many tempting explanations out there unuttered.  

Explanations, "elegant explanations" are all that science offers now. Most of the mathematics from classical mechanics to quantum mechanics to general relativity to string theory - we are bombarded by explanations. An explanation is then promoted as fact by a consensus of "credible scholars." The mathematics that accompanies the chosen explanation is dubbed the "model" then adopted as a "law of science."

For example science's law of gravity, as supposed by Mr. Newton, is written:
 
F= G m1 m2/ r2

Science knows that the above expression for explaining a phenomenon of nature can, for many, appear an honest law by which matter works; but also it knows it is a fallacious explanation that purports to be a law. Science teaches it anyway saying it works for most of the things we see as if there is partial truth. Nonetheless, the point here is that, as people do, numbers also lie. As words don't lie themselves until humans assemble them to make lies with them, so also science assembles numbers to tell colossal lies.  

Science speaks from England. The English now claims to have created the universe. How so? You ask. The English have built a speech generating device that enables neuron disease stricken Mr. Hawking to write onto a computer with small movements of his body from which a voice synthesizer speaks for him. An organized system tends to this man and what he says is trumpeted across the world and celebrated as the ultimate truth ever uttered regarding the universe. He says his laws have and will create the universe from nothing. Through him England is speaking and through England something else.

Science claims the universe started from a small dense state that started rapidly inflating 13.7 billion years ago. Science calls that rapid phenomenon the big bang. Since stars are observed to be receding farther away, science further claims that the universe is stretching in all directions. In fact, it is this expansion that led science to the big bang claim. Science does not say the stars are receding further away, but rather it is saying that the space between stars is stretching thereby making stars appear receding. So, it is space that is stretching because science does not want to state that the stars out in space are receding into something else since this presupposes that there is something outside of the universe. Science says there is nothing, not even space, outside the universe into which the universe is expanding.   How does space expand and expand into nothing? Science enters here into a logical prison where the only thing it does is spin in circular arguments or cast some kind of abracadabra. Does the universe expand into itself? How so?  If not, what is it expanding into? Science is trapped and lies bare for all to see. Science demands its adherents to imagine that there is nothing beyond the universe into which the universe expands and at the same time demands of them to imagine that the universe is expanding. Behold, science is but sophisticated soothsaying or astrology.  It infers on matters it doesn't know and prognosticates like the astrologer as if it does know.

If it is space that is expanding thereby causing stars to stay more and more apart, then space is being generated from within the universe. If the space is being generated from within and can further change the apartness of giant stars and moons, then what generates this space must have massive force. Science calls it dark energy and has no clue what it is. It only calls on its adherents to imagine again here and to have faith in this dark energy.  Science has a flood of speculations but not a shred of idea on what is taking place out there. How is space generated within space? How does the space between two stars change if the stars have not moved?  How does space stretch? If there is any magical way of telling a sane story about that, then how does space expand without conquering more space beyond it? If it inflates into nothing, is it how nothing becomes something? Students of science are required to imagine things or abstractions that do not exist and there is a handsome incentive for doing that. How much more abracadabra can science cast?  How much more of a soothsayer can it be?

Science generates mathematical models by which it claims entities of matter attract each other. It calls these models the laws of gravity. When that model failed to work for some cluster of stars, it invented an entity it named "dark matter" and required its adherents to imagine and have faith in the "dark matter" and to trust in its power to balance the error of science's model. Such is the religion called science.     

Science, clearly unable to understand the maze of the universe, throws vague and self contradictory inferences about it and without the slightest clue of what it is, concludes that "God is not necessary to create the universe."  The English Mr. Hawking wrote in his recent book that the universe can and will create itself because there is a law such as gravity (the law he refers to is the formula that he puts together). For that declaration all the captives of science hailed from far and near. Since the captives are held by a spell, they did not ask how science, with incomplete knowledge about the universe, concluded on who brought the universe to existence?  How does science infer that the laws of gravity creates the universe when it doesn't even know what gravity is. 

Despite its claim of being driven by evidence, science, in its most current form, is no more than a karmic religion or something like a psychic or an astrology enterprise. What is different about it is the magnitude of its destruction on earth, its vicious stalking and ferocious advance to devour Christianity with open mouth. Science has long been engaged in a sinister operation demanding all men, women and children to believe in what they haven't seen or heard  and in that which doesn't speak or hear and in that which has no compassion such as in dark energy, dark matter, a big bang, the evolving of apes to man; while urging all to deny that which they have seen, and that which has compassion, such as the birth of Christ in a manger from the Virgin, His walking on water, His changing of water into wine, His curing of the blind by a touch, His calming of the tempest of the sea, His bringing of the dead back to life, His act of feeding thousands with few loaves of bread and fish, His being crucified on the cross, His rising from the dead, His ascension to heaven - all happening before many witnesses. Today, governments, nations and multitudes are on science's side arming it with ammunitions, nurturing it, and offering child sacrifices to it [4].  It is injurious. It is evil. It is cruel.  
  
Science Makes Desolate

There have been many evil deeds; collective deeds of man, on earth after Adam and Hewan (Eve) were driven out of the Garden of Eden. Included in this list are the excessive indulgence of men in sin at the time of Noah, the idolatry of men in Abraham's time, the orgy in sin of Sodom and Gomorrah, the yoke of Egypt on Israel, the persecution of the Christ in the hands of the Jews and the subsequent tearing up, desecrating, violating, pillaging, apportioning and ravening acts of nations, pagans, cults and sects against Christianity.  However, the many collective transgressions of men after the resurrection of the Christ, including the dreadful Arabian conquests that ransacked Christendom, pale mere errors compared to the abomination that science is. 

Besides stealing men's breath of thankfulness to God from their hearts, from their mouths and from their instruments, science makes the womb barren, turns green paradise into desert, toasts springs of water into parched soil,  renders oceans lifeless, drives animals, birds and fishes into eternal extinction, speedily sucks the juice of the earth and leaves it scorched and bare, annihilates millions of men, women, children and cattle in minutes, makes the entire air on earth unbreathable, the entire water undrinkable. Science replaces compassion with greed, faithfulness with cleverness, morality with contempt and arrogant pride.  

Here are few instances of desolations science has so far visited upon the earth and upon the children of God.
  •  God created earth with abundance of beauty and beneficial diversity of plants, animals, fish and birds - all of them useful for healthy living and for praising the Lord. Science drives about 9000 variants of these creations, each in millions, to extinction every year.
  •  Every 1.5 seconds, science causes a green rainforest the size of a football field to turn into a barren land. 
  •  Due mainly to science, about four earths are needed to meet the current luxurious consumption need of the West. After another one hundred years, yet another four earths will be needed to carry western way of life one more century from there.
  •  Science has poisoned and continues to poison the oceans with massive amounts of mercury, antibiotics, hormones, pesticides, fungicides, lead, nuclear waste in metal drums, petrochemicals, petroleum oil, plastics etc. Science also poisons the oceans by about one million tones of polluted air every hour devastating living matter in the oceans. For this reason, as well as for science's factory-fishing, all fish in the oceans will be wiped out in about thirty six years according to some estimates from science quarters.     
  •  A westerner pollutes the world two thousand eight hundred ten times the Ethiopian pollutes it because of science. This pollution has translated in the starvation and subsequently in the death of millions of the poor in countries bearing the yokes of the West.
  • On average the poisoning of the earth's air by science has turned every person to an equivalent of a smoker who smokes thirty cigarettes a day. The difference is that a smoker smokes tobacco on top of it but the regular earth dweller takes up pesticides, formaldehyde, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, radon, lead, cadmium, etc.
  •  The most devastating of the earth's desolation by science comes from genetic pollution. Genetic pollution is the transfer of gene from genetically modified organisms into God-created normal organisms. Genetically modified organisms are organisms that have been modified by the insertion of one or more genes unnaturally, by means of science (artificially). The inserted genes, which are called "transgenes," often come from a different type of animal or plant.  In some cases existing genes are tweaked to modify them. The supposed idea behind this is to imbibe the genetically modified organism with certain unnatural genetic traits to the liking of science. These genetically modified organisms then breed with natural organisms and pass the modified traits on to the offspring, which then will pollute the natural traits of these organisms creating a colossal self-replicating devastation to earth and its inhabitants. It is already happening. A study from Purdue University once reported to have  estimated that just 60 genetically engineered fish, which were larger and more likely to mate, and yet which had less viable offspring, released into a sea wild-population of 60,000  fish could lead to the extinction of the wild fish within 40  fish generations.   Biological pollution alone is capable of turning the earth barren. Erwin Chargaff of Columbia University, the forerunner towards the discovery of "DNA double helix"  once remarked, "I have the feeling that science has transgressed a barrier that should have remained inviolate . . . you cannot recall a new form of life . . . It will survive you and your children and your children's children. An irreversible attack on the biosphere is something so unheard of, so unthinkable to previous generations, that I could only wish that mine had not been guilty of it."
Conclusion

We have seen above, using available human population data documented over the years, that it is mathematically impossible for humans to have been in existence even many thousand years later than the timeframe science claims humans transitioned from ape to man.  We also saw that Science does not have any idea how the universe works or how it came about. In multiple areas, we saw humans laboring to comprehend what God has made around us and how it is and why it is the way it is, yet we saw that none were able to find out the mysteries of His work. Humans even devised generational ladders of science, one generation stepping upon the previous height, and sought out to find the mystery of God's work, yet they did not find it; although some pompously claim to know it, yet they have no clue about it. Many hailed theories of science had come and gone; the letters in the Book of Truth are still standing. Science can not replenish the waters, it can not provide the air, it can't provide the soil and the sun with which to grow food. God can. Under God Ethiopians ate; under science they are starving. Ethiopia is not the place in which to hoist anti-Christ banners nor is it a place in which to make statements contesting God's. Ethiopians should surrender their hearts to God; not to the degrading arrogance of science, for what is against God is against Ethiopia already. Education should be remodeled by the fear of God and every child should begin speech by thankfulness to God. In schools compassion should be taught, not greed; cleverness should yield to empathy. God gave us time, ample time, to enjoy the earth with thankfulness; what is this hurried greed and running around to make pleasure at the sorrow of the other? What is this philosophy of survival of the most robbing? Whose is it? Of course, it is his that knows he has but a short time [5]. Ethiopians should strive to restore the Government of the Lord and it will soon be time for the inhabitants of the earth to come and seek the Lord in Tsion. Ethiopia should stand to make an example of green, not pollution; of compassion, not greed; of kindness, not cleverness; of thankfulness, not arrogance. Then nations will beat their machineguns into plowshares and their bombs into construction tools. If Ethiopians do not see the signs and seek the Lord, it is possible that trouble will be seeking them.


Holiness to the Lord, who endlessly refreshes the air and replenishes the water, the food, the pleasure, the strength, the health, the breath, the sound, the sight and all the joy that He has bestowed on us!


Mulugeta
February 26, 2012


---------------------------

   1 Daniel 12:11
   2 Matthew 24:15, Mark 13:14
   3 Isaiah 14:12, Luke 10:18
  4 Almost every child's innocent and blank mind on earth is now being given up to science at schools
  5 Revelation 12:12