Cosmology Creation/evolution Politics Science

Big scientific lies that have been told

Adolf Hitler wrote in his book Mein Kampf:

Die breite Masse eines Volkes … einer großen Lüge leichter zum Opfer fällt als einer kleinen.

which translated means “The broad mass of a people … will more easily fall victim to a big lie than to a small one.”

Reading this I was contemplating how in our global society now what potential exists to propagate big lies for some endgame, whatever that may be. Hitler had his propaganda ministry, and used it to manipulate the masses. His big lie was that the white Germanic Aryan race was the master race and by selective breeding, and eliminating the weak, he would assist evolution along to ultimately produce ‘superhumans.’

There was a German expression, which translated as “life not worthy of life.” So like you might get rid of unwanted cats his regime ‘put down’ at least 250,000 white Aryan Germans because they had some mental or physical disability. Not to mention the 6 million Jews, and about as many Gypsies, Poles, and others deemed unfit. Hitler was just applying Darwinian principles. He was a follower of the bogus science of goo-to-you evolution as well as other pseudosciences, the occult and eastern mysticism.

BB evolution
Pagan religion of evolutionism

Hitler hated true Christianity but fell for the pagan religion of evolutionism. But it was all one big lie. Evolution is still one big lie and it is still taught in schools and universities as if it is a fact. But the very principle that it relies on has no physical laboratory evidence. I am not saying that there is no circumstantial evidence for it—there is, the fossils in rock layers. But I am saying the very principle of the addition of ‘zillions’ of bits of new information to all plant and animal genomes as they become more fit within their existing habitats on Earth today. If evolution is so ubiquitous then the evidence—laboratory evidence—for new structures, novel features, in plant and animal genomes should abound.

It all started with the alleged formation of hydrogen gas in the alleged big bang from which all elements arose through the alleged formation of stars which allegedly exploded building the heavier elements, which are needed for organic life, and then eventually our solar system formed and from the planet, after billions of years, life arose in some primeval ocean or somewhere deep in the rocks. This life was initially single-celled, but over time as the story goes, it grew more complex and eventually man evolved, allegedly.

A single-celled organism has much less information in its DNA than does a human. If the complex evolved from the less complex, information had to have been added. Prof. Richard Dawkins was asked to give one such example.

He was asked1

“Can you give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome?”

He couldn’t, and hasn’t because evolution does not happen. Information comes from an intelligent mind, not by random processes. When DNA is copied, information is overwhelmingly lost, not added. (My meaning is that all mutations are at least slightly deleterious when they occur. I don’t mean to imply that mutations have a high frequency of occurrence.)

You can’t do experiments, or even observe what happened, in the past.  Prof. Richard Dawkins later said (unrelated to the previous interview):2

“Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it has not been observed while it’s happening.”

Which, on the surface, makes no sense at all. But he was talking about circumstantial evidence—the fossils—when you put them into your story of millions of years of slow gradual changes and you sort them according to your belief system, they become evidence—circumstantial evidence—for change over time. Of course, this is never observed in the lab. And before all you evolution adherents jump on me, I am talking about new, novel structures in an organism which never existed in the organisms that existed before it. So to say evolution has been observed, in the true sense of what evolutionists mean by evolution (not natural selection of pre-existing genetic information) and what is usually understood by the word observed (see it while it is happening), would be a lie, a very big lie.

There was a time in the old Soviet Union (Russia), under Stalin’s communist rule, that the Central Committee of the Communist party decreed that the laws of nature (physics, chemistry), history and the humanities must conform to communist ideology.

In the late 1940s, some areas of physics, especially quantum mechanics but also special and general relativity, were also criticized on grounds of “idealism”. Soviet physicists, such as K. V. Nikolskij and D. Blokhintzev, developed a version of the statistical interpretation of quantum mechanics, which was seen as more adhering to the principles of dialectical materialism.

Stalin thought he could change the laws of nature to suit his own ends, and now the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) have acted on what they believe to be true, but in fact is a lie, and have declared a change in the laws of nature, to re-define marriage according to their communist ideology! It seems that it has become as stalinistic as Stalin was.

But again we see that this decision is based on unstable ground—actually, no ground at all. This is because mankind cannot change the laws of nature, which are the creation of the eternal self-existent One. He said He created male and female, in His own image. He also created a woman out of the rib of the first man, Adam, for the man, to be his helper and co-equal mate (hence the choice of the rib). Marriage by definition of the word used for 6000 years, was and has always been, between one man and one woman, and for life. God said so. To say anything else–is a big lie.

Now I have entitled this article “Scientific lies that have been told” and this SCOTUS decision is based on a lie. The homosexual lobby group says that they are born that way, and that they have no choice. This is really a side issue, and has nothing to do with redefining “marriage.” But the scientific lie is the claim that homosexuals are physically different (brain chemistry or something). I exclude genuine hermaphrodism, which in humans is a genetic abnormality, due to DNA damage not added information.

If the claim were true it would have scientific support, but like goo-to-you evolution, the evidence is more in words than substantive facts. Besides one person having once been a committed homosexual living the lifestyle and changing back to a normal heterosexual (subject to biology) would disprove the claim. I know such a man, David, who in his younger days thought he was a woman in a man’s body and had gender-reassignment surgery, lived as a woman for a decade, with male partners, but now he is restored to being a normal non-homosexual male (of course, limited by the fact still that he had had the surgery). But he no longer feels like a woman, attracted to men.

You see, we are not just a bag of chemicals, with the freedom to do as we please. There are absolute truths and just to dress up a lie as a ‘scientific truth’  does not make it any truer.

And another of the big lies of the decade is the so-called man-made global warming. There has been some global warming, if we can believe the data is trustworthy.  But to rush to judgement that the world is going to Hell fast because of the carbon dioxide emission of humans on Earth seems to be more motivated by politics—leftist communist politics—than by real science. The science is there and it says the earth has not warmed in last 16 or 17 years. See Figure 2 here which is my analysis of global surface temperature data.

Prior to the indicated warming period of a few decades there was a few decades of global cooling, yet this was during the period of rapid industrialisation in the post World War II period. Carbon dioxide production was exponentially increasing, yet global temperatures consistently fell. It is then a scientific fact that there was an anti-correlation in that period. You could have argued (erroneously) that mankind’s carbon dioxide emissions were causing global cooling. To say that global warming (if it any longer exists) is due to man’s activities is another big scientific lie.H2 left long enough

What is the biggest scientific lie today, one that is so entrenched, that if you don’t believe it, you are called a ‘Nutter,’ someone living in the past?  Of course, it is evolution, but here I mean in a cosmic sense. The Universe made itself out of nothing—according to Lawrence Krauss—with no Creator, and hydrogen gas resulted, which, when left long enough, assembled itself into human beings, some 13.78 billion years after the initial big bang.

That is total fiction.


  1. Documentary video “Frog to a Prince” (excerpt). The question discussed in Was Dawkins stumped?
  2. Bill Moyers interviews Richard Dawkins, Now, 3 December 2004, PBS network.

By John Gideon Hartnett

Dr John G. Hartnett is an Australian physicist and cosmologist, and a Christian with a biblical creationist worldview. He received a B.Sc. (Hons) and Ph.D. (with distinction) in Physics from The University of Western Australia, W.A., Australia. He was an Australian Research Council (ARC) Discovery Outstanding Researcher Award (DORA) fellow at the University of Adelaide, with rank of Associate Professor. Now he is retired. He has published more than 200 papers in scientific journals, book chapters and conference proceedings.

4 replies on “Big scientific lies that have been told”

John, your comment, “When DNA is copied, information is overwhelmingly lost, not added” isn’t altogether correct, IMHO. The amazing thing is that DNA is copied and preserved so overwhelmingly well, that we essentially DON’T change randomly into other sorts of creatures, but when the copying process encounters a mutation or corruption, then the corruption either completely halts the copying and the organism is overwhelmed and dies, or the mutation is preserved and the organisation is less fit, unhealthy and diseased, as are all subsequent organisms derived from that parent…but in NO CASE, does the copying of DNA ever produce new, novel, functions or organic capabilities that never previously existed in the organism’s ancestors…because it just isn’t possible for the information set required for some novel function to be accidentally coded for, in part or whole, over any amount of time!

In so many ways, Hitler was innocent for implementing his plan to dominate the world…he was, after-all, sincerely implementing the same philosophy that America, Canada, Australia and the UK were also heading towards, namely the belief in evolution (microbes to man) and the superiority of white peoples. It’s just that Hitler went one step further and actively removed huge numbers of undesirables from the Germanic gene pool, although the USA were sterilising Afro-Americans and Australians were killing off its aborigines and treating them as less than dogs. So in many respects, Hitler was no different to other ‘leading’ cultures of his day…it’s just that the other cultures that Hitler wanted to dominate didn’t like the idea that they were less evolved…so in some respects, WWII was a war of survival of the fittest and craftiest implementors of the greatest lie. We can see now the state of Australia, England, Germany, the USA and Canada with respect to their ongoing implementation of their hard won secular humanistic philosophy. We haven’t learnt much and are proceeding rapidly down the path of destruction and ultimate accountability to our Creator God.

Bless you in your ministry.


Mark, Actually I intended a different meaning to the word ‘overwhelmingly’. I meant not that much is lost but that it is always deleterious, even if only very slightly so. So the use of the word ‘overwhelmingly’ was not meant to imply DNA is rapidly corrupted but that it is never seen to improve the organism. I agree with your subsequent points. I would add though all mutations are at least slightly deleterious and decrease the overall fitness of the organism. It may not be first apparent but as John Sanford has demonstrated eventually the genome hits error catastrophe as a conclusion.


it has always been the case that emotional charged defended lies will always seem like truth but are not. Proverbs 14: 15 states’ there is a way that seems right to a man but in the end it leads to death.’ In each of these above mentioned big lies the result is always death. those who defend these lies don’t want anyone knowing the truth but there is no way that truth can be hidden for long. When Jesus spoke that the truth will set you free I know from experience that once you know God’s truth there is no turning back to what man says about anything.


Comments are closed.