Has Satan Hijacked Science?
By John P. Pratt
Is Satan interested in science, or does he work full time enticing people to sin, attacking religion, and deceptively enslaving the unsuspecting? One reason I chose the field of science was to avoid anything that Satan might be interested in, and to build my house on the rock of irrefutable scientific evidence that was guaranteed to be true. Was that naive?
To what degree is Satan into science? Does he avoid it altogether because it is indeed built on truth, which he abhors? Or perhaps he is a dabbler, focusing on just one field, such as the origin of life? Or has he infiltrated the entire infrastructure of science, from foundation to pinnacle?
This article lays no claim to having cracked Satan's security system to expose any of his secret plans, past or future. Rather, it is an attempt to look at the obvious. The scriptures make it very clear just what the goals of both God and Satan are. Given those insights, what can we deduce about how Satan could use science to help fulfill his purposes?
The scriptures make many things clear about just what is really going on in life, and one needs to understand those basics in order to make sense of this unusual world. In a nutshell, a) there really is a God who created the heavens, the earth, and all life therein, b) mankind is the offspring of God, created in his image, c) we are here to be tested to see if we will love and obey our Heavenly Father, d) there really is a being named Satan, who commands myriads of evil spirits to tempt us to fail that test, e) everyone fails the test to some degree and needs to accept Jesus Christ, the son of God, as a Savior, in order to have sins blotted out and become pure enough to return to God, and f) we will be judged after death and rewarded according to how well we did. Satan's incentive includes the fact that his power grows as he entices others to do his bidding.
Now let's suppose that you were Satan. What would you do to get people to sin, that is, to disobey the commandments of God? Okay, sure, you would do the obvious of emphasizing immediate gratification of desires by using shortcut or cheating methods, rather than following God's slow but steady straight and narrow path to happiness. But what about science? Is there any way that you could use science to help meet that goal of enticing people to sin? Let's explore that possibility.
Satan's Perverted Science
For many reasons, it not only appears that Satan is interested in science, he may well be attempting to hijack all of science and attempt to force it to become the foundation of his new official state atheistic religion. Let's see why, by considering just what a powerful tool a perverted science could be for him to meet his goals. Let's look at some true fundamental scientific principles, and then see how Satan could pervert them into false traditions.
True Science Begins With Observation
What is science? Consider the follow very brief summary:
True Principle: Science is the systematic study of the observable.
In other words, all phenomena of nature which can be directly detected by the human senses can be included in the realm of science. When once sense fails, sometimes others can compensate. For example, air is invisible, but it can be felt and heard as wind. Moreover, there are many features of nature beyond human abilities to observe for which instruments can be invented to detect and measure. These would include the invisible forms of light, such as infrared, ultraviolet, radio waves, microwaves, x-rays, etc. Atoms are too small to see, but can be photographed with x-ray technology. Science also includes the realm of inventing models to explain observations, even though elements of those models cannot be observed, but only their effects. For example, atoms were proposed to exist by the ancient Greeks, but were not actually observed until the last century. Even smaller particles called quarks were postulated to exist in the last century but are not yet directly observable. Still they are part of science because their proposed existence helps explain what is observed.
Note also that science began with only what the human senses could detect. After many experiments were performed just using the human senses, instruments were invented to make more precise, accurate, unbiased, and repeatable observations. Just because a machine had not yet been invented to improve on the human senses did not invalidate the human observations. For example, people could look up and see the sun, moon and stars. When the telescope was invented to improve our abilities, it was a wonderful accomplishment indeed, but telescopes do not totally replace human observations. Scientific studies are still done watching meteor showers, which are often best accomplished with the unaided eye.
There are many areas where humans have senses for which machines are not readily available to duplicate. We have what is called the "mind's eye" where we can imagine things and dream. Some of our greatest inventors, such as Nikola Tesla, created their inventions totally in their mind before committing them to physical models. That fact that we do not yet have a camera to take snapshots of our imaginary creations does not mean that they do not exist. There are people who claim to see the human aura, see future occurrences, do remote viewing of current events at distant locations, go into the spirit world, visit the past, and move physical objects with their minds. All of these phenomena can be measured and studied and hence are part of science. If any of those claims were false, then science could do experiments to prove just that. But the fact that we have not yet invented a machine to measure some of them does not disqualify them in any way from being scientific.
Thus, true science includes a lot of turf. On the other hand, there are still many areas beyond science. There could be huge regions of our universe which we could not detect by our senses nor by instruments. There could be other dimensions, other worlds, and even other whole universes. Even observable things could be too big or too small to study. The mere fact that man is ignorant of them does not mean that they do not exist.
We have names for other disciplines beyond science. One important such field is that of religion. Many people claim to have talked with beings from other realms, called angels, who have been sent here specifically to tell us things that we could never discover using scientific methods because they are beyond the realm of the observable.
In fact, some men, such as Moses, have even claimed to have talked personally with the Creator of the heavens and the earth, who told them details of just how everything was created, which we could never have known otherwise. For example, Moses was told that man was created in the image of God. That is something totally beyond the capability of science to discover. The existence of heaven and hell are beyond the reach of present science, as is the existence of Satan. It would be foolhardy indeed to be so myopic as to believe that nothing exists beyond what we can detect with our senses and instruments.
In summary, science is the study of everything that can be observed, but true science makes no claim that it is the study of everything that exists.
False Science: Materialism
Many modern scientists have made one seemingly little addition to the above definition of true science. At first it might seem logical and innocent enough, but closer inspection shows that it totally fulfills many of Satan's goals so well, as to be the "smoking gun" that points to his involvement. That little principle can be summarized in one word: "materialism."
Materialism is a doctrine that has been introduced into science, declaring (without a shred of evidence) that nothing else exists beyond that which can be observed, either by humans or instruments. If that were true, then it would follow that science is the study of everything that exists.
False Principle: Nothing exists which cannot be observed.
Note that this is a patently absurd and unscientific statement! It is amazing that so many modern scientists have accepted some form of materialism without question. Why? Why would so many accept materialism as a true doctrine, when it flies in the face of true science? Real scientists seek to know how the universe actually is, rather than to declare beforehand that only certain kinds of events are allowed to exist, namely those in the tiny realm of what man can observe.
How foolish it is to assume that something doesn't exist because we cannot see it or measure it. Do you remember as a child being surprised to learn about the existence of air? What would you think of someone who didn't believe in air simply because it is invisible? Okay, so you can feel air when it moves, but what if you were the only one who could feel it, and everyone else thought you were crazy because they could not. What if you were gifted to discern auras around people, or to see the future, or do remote viewing, or have one of many other spiritual gifts? Would the inability of others to do likewise, or the fact that no instrument had yet been invented to measure what you sense, prove that your experience was all an illusion?
It should be obvious to all that it is absurd to think that something does not exist just because it cannot be detected by most people or by a machine.
In seeking an answer as to why otherwise intelligent scientists would agree to such a limiting principle, let us now consider the possibility that Satan is indeed involved. If Satan were promoting his own special form of science, would he not choose materialism as the foundation? Think of the huge rewards he would get just for adopting this one principle.
First, in one sweep of his hand, Satan can dispose of God, Satan himself, heaven, hell, the spirit world, all spiritual phenomena, including the human spirit, evil spirits, and also of all knowledge of the future. Having thus decreed God out of existence, the next crucial steps follow immediately: If there is no God, then there are no God-given commandments. If there are no commandments, there is no sin. If there is no sin, then there is no need for a Savior to atone for sin, no need to accept Jesus Christ. Also, there would be no afterlife in which we will be judged as to how well we followed God's laws and the example of our Redeemer. If that were the case, man might as well follow the so-called "law of the jungle," the "survival of the fittest."
One proponent of this doctrine of materialism more than two thousand years ago, who later admitted to having been taught directly by the devil, declared, "You cannot know of things which you do not see," and, "Man fares in this life according to the management of the creature; therefore every man prospers according to his genius, and every man conquers according to his strength; and whatsoever a man does is no sin."
Thus, atheism is not new, and it does not need to be the official religion of scientists. Very few scientists before the Twentieth Century were atheists, and the top scientists have been, and continue to be, predominantly Christian.  In fact, materialism, and its child atheism, have no place in true science at all.
Natural Law and the Scientific Method
Science has been successful because it is based on the observation that there seem to be "laws" in nature which energy and matter always obey.
Scientific Principle: Matter and energy are observed to follow strict laws.
Whether these laws are self-existent or whether they are laws that God wrote is a question beyond the realm of science. The important thing is that we can discover how the universe works by doing experiments to deduce just what these laws are.
The rock on which science is founded is called the "Scientific Method":
True science employs the "Scientific Method" of 1) observing, 2) proposing a theory to explain the observation, and then 3) predicting future observations using that theory.
If the future predictions fail, then the theory is either scrapped or modified until it is able to predict the outcome of an experiment accurately. This wonderful method has allowed us to put men on the moon and produce all the wonderful technology currently available. To me it is a way to discover the laws that God had given all matter to obey, without the experimenter needing to be a prophet or even spiritual in any way. But if someone prefers to believe the laws are somehow self-existent, that works just as well for the experiments.
Satan Avoids True Science
So what has all of this to do with Satan? The Scientific Method, used correctly, leads to the discovery of true principles. Satan is opposed to truth in all forms, and to true education and enlightenment. His goal is to keep people in ignorance, poverty, and slavery to his bidding. Knowing the truth can make people free, including free from much of Satan's bondage. Therefore, Satan avoids the scientific method whenever possible.
How can Satan get away with avoiding the Scientific Method, while purporting to do science? He does it by focusing on the past and on the future, which are both areas beyond direct observation of the present, the realm of science.
Satan can fabricate all sorts of complete nonsense about the origins of the universe, the solar system, the earth and all of the creatures that live on it. None of these theories can be tested, but that does not stop him from proclaiming them as absolute truth. There are some cases where theories can be tested, such as doing genetic experiments on fruit flies to test theories that mutations can lead to improvements in a species. When all of these experiments fail, rather than discarding the false theory, in accordance with the scientific method, the results are simply ignored and the theory is assumed true in spite of the negative evidence. Satan's theories of the origin of the earth and life are almost entirely based on unfounded speculation, that often contradict all of the actual evidence.
Another "smoking gun" that strongly points to Satan's involvement becomes obvious when materialists use force to teach speculation as truth. That is, they pass laws that require teaching that science is based on atheism, and that the existence of everything can be explained without God.
The big clue is that laws are passed actually forbidding the teaching in government-supported schools that most of the actual scientific evidence points to the creation of the universe and all life therein as designed by a Creator. They immediately divert attention from the truth by screaming that this scientific discovery is somehow "religion in disguise," and hence inappropriate in school.
But it is not religion at all. The existence of the Creator can be scientifically deduced in much the same way that invisible atoms were discovered. The fact that God chose to reveal himself to mankind right from the beginning (which is indeed religion) does not invalidate later scientific work that also strongly points to his existence.
The point here is that the big clue that Satan is involved is that laws are actually passed prohibiting teaching of true science and only allowing the teaching of speculation, which just happens to fulfill Satan's agenda. And of course all the arguments about separation of church and state evaporate when one realizes that atheism is a religion and hence has become a state enforced religion.
The reader may think that I'm speaking only about theories of the origin of plants, animals, and mankind. While that is the most obvious place where Satan's speculations have been very convincing, the problem is much more far reaching than that. Once the postulate of materialism is accepted as a requisite for acceptable science, then Satan is free to speculate about the entire past and future of everything in the observable universe.
Example from Astronomy
Consider the teachings of modern astronomy about just what stars are, where they came from and where they are going. That was the focus of my Ph.D. dissertation, so I'm more qualified to write on that subject than most others. Much of current belief about what stars are is well-founded on the scientific method. One can measure brightnesses, colors, and even the masses of stars and discover some important relationships between them. For example, the majority of stars follow the rule that if one arranges the stars in order of increasing mass, then the sequence (called the "Main Sequence") also increases in surface temperature and the color gradually shifts from red to blue and then ultra-violet. This is one of the most important "facts" (that is, "observations") of modern astronomy.
The problems begin to arise when scientists attempt to explain exactly how these stars got placed in this sequence, and exactly how things might change in the future. The problem is not that scientists try to explain the past and the future. After all, the objective of the scientific method is to be able to predict the outcome of future experiments. The problem occurs when a) science cannot perform the experiment to predict the future and b) it then declares with absolute certainty just what the past and future are, even those it has no solid basis of experiments to do so.
In this example from astronomy, we are told that stars formed themselves from gaseous clouds in the plane of the galaxy. We are told that the massive, hot bright blue beacons in the sky such as many of the stars in the constellation Orion, are the very youngest stars, and that they are rapidly burning themselves out, being some of the least permanent members of the galaxy. As for the future, we are told that the sun and most stars will someday exhaust their fuel and become cold, dark burned-out dwarf stars.
While this is the mainstream theory, taught as nearly absolute truth in beginning astronomy classes, there are other explanations of the same observed facts. One is that most stars are still gravitationally accumulating more and more matter from those gas and dust clouds in which they are now seen, and they are increasing in mass and getting hotter and bluer as they do so. If so, then the big, hot blue stars are some of the oldest patriarchs of the galaxy, rather than being "flash in-the-pan" youth.
What difference does it make? And would Satan care which is the predominant explanation? Here's why I think that he does care. Hopefully we have all seen a night sky filled with thousands of awe-inspiring stars. It can truly be a dazzling spectacle that can fill one with reverence for a great Creator. To me, the brightest stars are the bright, old governing stars of our galaxy that have accumulated greatness through the ages. When I look at the dazzling constellation of Orion, I see some great stars for which I feel awe and even reverence. Someday they may "die" in a great supernova explosion, and as one star passes away, so shall another accumulate its recycled remnants. Thus, there is no end to the works of God, neither to his words.
To me, the more popular explanation is not inspiring at all, but rather depressing. The big bright stars are supposed to explode quickly before they have any lasting importance, and the rest of the whole universe just cools down to be a meaningless graveyard of burned-out star corpses. Without God, the universe would be a meaningless stage on which we act out meaningless lives, which ultimately end in futility.
Have We Been Deceived?
It appears that some of the huge recent successes of Satan to entice people to sin can be attributed directly to this false doctrine of materialism and atheism. Sin is so rampant today that the Lord has made it clear that the wicked will have to be entirely destroyed from the earth in preparation for his glorious Millennial reign, when truth and righteousness will finally prevail. But what has led to such gross wickedness? In many cases we now casually accept horrible crimes against humanity as standard practice, which is no longer shocking because it has become legal and commonplace. Let us now consider some sins which now appear more acceptable because we have been taught that we are mere animals in a godless world.
As we approach the Christmas season, we review the story of the birth of our Savior. When we get to the part about the horrible King Herod who had all of the infant boys of Bethlehem slain by the sword, we are shocked at this heinous crime which this monstrous man committed. There were probably about 100-200 infants slain. What could be worse than that?
Consider just how monstrous we have become. Some 40,000,000 unborn infants have been slain in what is arguably the most Christian country in the world since abortion was legalized in the United States. Many of those deaths come from horrible means of submitting the unborn to caustic solutions or ripping off arms and legs while the baby is still alive. People scream foul when we subject prisoners of war to embarrassment. What if we tore off limbs of terrorists? And yet we casually talk to a neighbor as she considers exercising her right to choose a horrible death for her baby. How is it possible that we have been so lulled to sleep that we don't tell her she will probably suffer the regrets of hell for such a foul deed? Have we anesthetized our consciences with false "scientific" reasoning?
Of course, abortion is only one of many problems that have probably been exacerbated by false science. Murders have become so common that most are no longer newsworthy. Many people do not consider adultery to be a sin and divorce is now merely another question of freedom of choice.
Similarly, the sin of fornication is now accepted as normal sexual maturing. "Living together" is seen by many as a logical preparation for marriage, perhaps even temple marriage. Do our youth know that adultery, incest, homosexuality, and bestiality were all punishable by death when the Ten Commandments were given? (Lev. 20:10-16).
We watch outright theft by hurricane victims looting unprotected stores, and hear them justify it as "survival of the fittest" and then hear the news commentator ask her viewers, "Wouldn't you do the same thing?" Do we nod in agreement or are we shocked at the suggestion? The prohibitions of the Ten Commandments against murder, stealing and adultery are not only now out of sight (thanks to our tacit acceptance of judicial rulings), but also apparently out of mind.
How is it that we have come to view these crimes as acceptable behavior? To me the answer is that materialism is one of the root causes of the problem. We have been told that it is not really a baby, but a mass of cells called a fetus that has no feeling and is not alive. All scientific evidence contradicts such an absurd claim, and yet we allow ourselves to accept it. We justify theft and murder with "law of the jungle" arguments, based on believing that there is no God who will judge us after this life on how well we obeyed his commandments. If Satan can dupe us into believing that his false science has proven there is no God, then he has made a huge victory toward justifying sin.
Science employs wonderful systematic methods of discovering the laws of what can be observed in nature. The seemingly innocuous extension proposed by some scientists that nothing else exists beyond what can be observed at first might appear logical and even a useful scientific principle.
Closer examination, however, shows that such a doctrine of materialism serves all of the purposes of Satan so perfectly that it would not be surprising if he turned out to be the inspiration behind it. It has led to atheism by removing God from the universe, along with his commandments, the entire spirit world and any after life, including future judgment of our actions.
Many of us have been led to replace God's law with the "law of the jungle," which condones horrible crimes as merely "survival of the fittest." It might now be a good time to re-evaluate just how many of our beliefs and actions might be based, even subconsciously, on erroneous teachings that have been nothing more than Satanic speculations masquerading as science.
- Pratt, John P., " What is Creation?," Meridian Magazine (6 Mar 2002).
- These are the words of Korihor , one of the anti-Christs described in the Book of Mormon (see Alma 30:15, 17, 53).
- Pratt, John P., " Scientists and Belief in God," Meridian Magazine (25 Oct 2000).
- Pratt, John P., " Did God Write the Laws of Physics?," Meridian Magazine (16 Apr 1999).
- For more on the scientific method, see Pratt, John P., "Strengths and Weaknesses of Science," Meridian Magazine (28 Dec 2000) and "Millennial Science," Charting a New Millennium, ed. Proctor, Maurine & Scot, (Salt Lake City: Aspen Books, 1998), pp. 367-85.