Evolution is an extremely dangerous theory. It’s not only a theory, but a poor one that has dominated the mind of academia around the world. The basic premise of evolution is that things are getting better and better, and life is evolving into higher and higher forms. Evolution is a late child from the age of empiricism where man came to believe only what could be understood with the physical senses, under a microscope or through a telescope.
Christianity and Progress
It was Christianity, which western culture is assaulting, that launched the age of science. The brilliance of St. Thomas Aquinas brought out Scripture’s emphasis that matter is not evil and unleashed the floodgates of discovery from the Platonic dualism that dominated the middle ages. And the world has never been the same. The core of progress in the world today is western thought, and the core of western thought is Christianity. Only cultures shaped by the Judeo Christian value system lead to environments of freedom and possibility thinking.
For several centuries, science and theology were complimentary disciplines, discovery affirming the mysteries of a Creator, not competing with it. They were just two different ways in trying to understand truth, one through revelation and the other through empiricism. Somewhere in that process, modern man became arrogant with what little knowledge he has and relied on himself more than God. Today scientists are almost contradictions in terms, because when discovery leads to absolute truths and not endless relativism, they deny the absolutes. For example, Sir Karl Popper wrote that “in science we never have sufficient reason for the belief that we have attained the truth.” That’s because you’re looking for truth in one dimension. Even atheist Bertrand Russell talked about the unreliability of modern empiricism: “science is always tentative…and its method is one which is logically incapable of arriving at a legitimate and final demonstration.” With such a tenuous foundation in modern science, we will see how lives, politics, and cultures built upon evolution are unstable.
In spite of himself, Russell is right. Ultimate truth is anterior to man, contrary to the liberal philosophy that perception is reality or that reality is only a product of the mind. The purely scientific approach to truth is too narrow a quest for understanding that forfeits the logic of other disciplines, including theology. Physical and technical explanations are only one way of describing a phenomenon, and often an incomplete way. Science may be able to answer “how”, but it doesn’t answer “why.” Theology and logic are not incompatible. God is very logical, revelation another way of knowing something that is ahead of science. If God does exist, we are incapable of accurately studying Him apart from Him revealing Himself to us. There are assumptions in science, such as evolution, that will be disproven in the following decades and vindicating what Scripture has been saying. Revelation is not at odds with science, just ahead of it, as has been proven many times in history. The average scientist might be wise to explore other ways of knowing things such as revelation before it’s too late for his own existence. Christianity is the most pragmatic of the world’s religions, the most logical and the most historical. Christ is where history and theology intersect.
Man may know more than he has in the history of the world, but he knows just a fraction of all there is to know. To rely only on that small body of knowledge is unwise. Physicist Stephen Hawking made a startling statement that reflects the arrogance and ignorance of the modern era: “the scientific account is complete. Theology is unnecessary.” Ghost hunting programs and UFO documentaries testify to other dimensions of time and space we know little about and beg for an accounting from the modern logician. If would be interesting to place an atheist like Richard Dawkins in a haunted insane asylum for a night to see a brick hurled through the air, hear creepy voices, be pushed or slapped, view a full bodied apparition, catch a glimpse of a dark shadow as has been documented in these programs, and see his reaction. The spiritual realm is of such a fine grade and high frequency that it is scarcely detectable with human apparatus. If the spiritual realm exists, the question is where is found the most accurate and concentrated assessment of that realm? Nothing is these ghost hunting programs contradicts what Scripture says about the presence of evil or the nature of demons. (And by the way, these “ghost” encounters are never positive experiences).
After the industrial revolution, technology produced a prosperity and an arrogance to spiritual things, even questioning God’s existence, fueled by the liberal philosophers of Germany in the 19th and 20 centuries. These liberal thinkers made humanism and naturalism supreme. There was no need for God or moral law because nature encompass all of reality. Naturalism in science bled over into a deadly materialism in all aspects of culture, from narcissism and consumerism to poor public policy based on an atheistic view of the world. A culture that believes life is only here and has no transcendent meaning will eventually implode and consume itself, consumerism gone to seed.
What have humanism and naturalism really done for us? Economic, political, marital, financial problems are rife today. Man still hasn’t solved the basic problem of his mortality. Life is still a blip on the screen of eternity. Even if life was somehow lengthened indefinitely, who would want to live in an evil world forever where depravity is so prevalent?
The natural world is fascinating, worthy of study, and holding answers to many mysteries. But nature is not king, not holding the answers to it’s own meaning. Nature doesn’ have the capacity to correctly interpret it’s existence. And since when does an athiest scientist have a corner on research integrity? In fact, without a moral code, he may be likely to skew or misinterpret the data. If an evolutionist doesn’t believe in the immaterial side of man, why have integrity? If reality is only in the mind as Kant said, how can we trust our observations or any thought for that matter? Modern scientific theory is a contradiction. As Feynmann said, “science is uncertain.” They believe their own thoughts but don’t believe them!
God fearing men have been at the forefront of discovery precisely because of intellectual integrity, whether technological, political, military, literary, philosophical, social, or civil. As no man is self existent or self determining, a scientist is only as good as what he ascends to. Data, though appearing purely objective, are still subject to interpretation. There is no such thing is a purely pragmatic unbiased researcher. One either has a heart for truth or not, and data can be skewed in interpretative language to fit the researcher’s bias. Evolutionary explanations in all kinds of discoveries are riddled with this slant.
Evolutionary scientists are quick to emphasize that the Bible is a myth in spite of the fact that the resurrection of Christ is one the most relaible facts of history or that Scripture enjoys more attestation than any other ancient writings. Since when was faith and science at odds? All great discoveries began with a belief and a vision that something could be possible before it was a reality. Going to the moon began with a belief that it could be possible. The cure for polio began with a vision. God is the ultimate visionary as all belief is sourced in Him. Faith is not at odds with science, it’s just ahead of it. It is very feasible to have certainty based on subtlety. Possibility thinking always spurs innovation into areas where skeptics said it couldn’t be done. There are many discoveries have vindicated what Scripture has said all along.
People say “God is too simple of an explanation, a crutch for those who don’t want to think.” But science is simple. The most complicated theories have basic assumptions at their cores. And when scrutinized, issues of integrity have been raised in interpretation methods. Anybody can complicate something. There is no genius in that. Anybody can appear intellectual by hiding behind technical jargon. An example of this are recent protein samples taken from dinosaur bones that are said to have correlations to chicken proteins, thus the dinosaur -bird link. A closer look at the gathering methods revealed the unethical practice of using only those mass samples of protein that appeared similar to the chickens, ignoring the majority that weren’t, and skewing the interpretation.
The Fallacies of Evolution
The basic tenets of evolution were developed over 100 years ago, largely a result of the moral confusion set about by the liberal philosophers of Germany. Yet an enormous amount of discovery since then has contradicted these tenets making macro-evolution a philosophical impossibility. Though absolutes aren’t part of the evolutionist’s nomenclature, against common sense they hold absolutely to its basic foundations. Why haven’t the basic tenet’s of evolution been rescinded? For example, evolutionary biology has an incestuous relationship with geology as the geologic time table and is based on evolution. One of the laws of geology is “the present is the key to the past” meaning the slow processes we see happening today also happened over millions of years. Change is slow and life is an endless squirrel cage that just keeps going around and around.
The problem is that this law of uniformitarianism was formulated over 150 years ago and the discipline of geology is roughly 200 years old, hardly enough time to observe mass changes and catastrophic events. Furthermore the fossil record is loaded with catastrophic events that contradict uniformtarianism. The assumption behind the staggering ages in the geologic time table is that given enough time there will be change. That’s the only way evolution has a chance- just give species inordinate amounts for time for change and pushing the clock back. We’re told we don’t see macro-evolution today simply because we “haven’t given it enough time.” But what an untenable and unprovable premise. That is the verification of science? Psychologists say that time in itself doesn’t guarantee change even with people who have the conscious capacity for it, to say nothing about simpler life forms of amoebas, paramecium, amphibians, reptiles etc.
There are other reasons evolution is a poor theory.
1.) The condition of man. Evolution highlights man as the epitome of evolvement, which fuels humanism that man is the standard by which all things are measured. Yet Scripture says every human being is painfully depraved, even those who have had the healthiest of childhoods. There is something in the heart of man that loves darkness, creates confusion, and craves evil. The biblical assessment better fits reality as to why we have problems in the world today. Essentially, all problems in the world today whether economic, political, financial, relational, occupational are spiritual in nature. Man has a natural bent towards evil. This flies in the face of modern psychology’s “goodness of man” theory that doesn’t deal with sin.
2.) If things are evolving into better and higher life forms, and things are getting better and better, then why death? Why even have the concept? Where does it come from? Again the biblical explanation that creation was originally good but has been twisted with a curse better fits the reality as to why we have problems.
3.) What is the dynamic in evolution that is continually able to over come the 2nd law of thermodynamics, which says that things left to their own devices go from a state of order to disorder. A bicycle left in the rain will rust. What is the power in evolutionary chance that is able to over come that and create established templates in highly sophisticated organisms? Equal organisms cannot beget greater beings. Primitive doesn’t have the ability to randomly unfold the sophisticated. Where’s the vision, the template ahead of time?
4.) Evolution cannot adequately explain the miracle of conception, of eggs and sperm, comprised of proteins and cells, that come together as something microscopic to grow into sophisticated creatures. As one philosopher rightly observed, “male and female, their inclination to each other and the use of their several organs-do not these things prove an artificer? …If not, let them explain to us what the power is that brings about each of these things, and how it is possible that chance should produce things so wonderful and so skillfully designed.”
5.) Archaeologists around the world are in agreement that about 5,000 years ago there exploded around the world very sophisticated and advanced civilizations. There are no traces of development, no transitions into higher life forms, no experimental tools, just boom there they are with instant intelligence. Kind of like the anthropologists version of the Cambrian explosion of the fossil record. No missing links or transitional life forms.
Arrogance of the Contemporary
There is an arrogance of contemporariness today that says the latest generation must be the best and most advanced. It’s an arrogant by product of evolution and liberal disrespect for anything old- whether with the elderly and euthanasia, or in books and ancient writings. But in spite of this, there is a trend to formalism, sentimentalism and a reclaiming of the wisdom of the ages. There is a sweeping interest in the lifestyles of ancient and foreign cultures on the Discovery channel, History channel, and the Travel channel, primarily because the deterioration of family values in the western world. As the emphasis on materialism generates more technology and prosperity, it is leaving isolation and independence in its wake, creating a vacuum of fascination for people in simpler times. For example, the stone age was a time when the tasks were simple and clear cut, where men had to be men and used all of their physical and mental prowess for the hunt to supply food for the family. There was no gender blending between the sexes, the people were resourceful to survive and the harsh elements forced a unity and security with others. As achievement only has meaning in the context of relationship, the clan gave identity to accomplishment. Whether it was sharing in the exploits of the hunt or war, the clan is an idea that is lost by a technologically advanced world.
In the wake of empitness created by atheistic evolution, there is a trend toward uncovering the wisdom of the ages in old writings, especially the Scriptures. In studying ancient writings or even those of several hundred years ago, there is evidence that the average of mind of today is weaker than that of yesteryear, due primarily to the quality of things being read. People may say they read all the time. But books don’t guarantee mind renewal because not all books are created equal. Mysteries and romance novels are not real reading. They’re written within the narrow paradigm of modern times. C.S. Lewis advocated reading an old book for every new one, because old books tend to correct the errors of the modern era.
Technology in itself doesn’t necessarily expand thought and may actually weaken the mind, contributing to the arrogance of contemporariness. There have been no great advances in philosophy in the last 100 years and pragmatism may be the only philosophy that America has expounded to the world. Yet with the moral bankruptcy taking place, the breakup of the home and family, this is a philosophy of life that isn’t working. Pragmatism without the checks of values and ethics is destructive. A reading program beginning with Scripture expands the mind into other dimensions. Where truth is not taught, there is no real thought. And truth eventually works.
6.) Evolution doesn’t explain the presence of moral law, which like physical law, has consequences when broken. Just because moral law is unseen doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. This is where material evolutionists get hung up, the spiritual/physical interface. As when one breaks the law of gravity and falls hard to the earth, when moral laws are broken people hit hard. I’ve never seen a clump of gravity in a test tube but I ‘ve seen it’s effects. Likewise, a moral, though unseen is not some stodgy, religious, Victorian era concept we have to redefine or rethink as liberals believe. A moral is simply a law of reality that facilitates smooth relationships in a society that has guided the human tradition. It’s common sense and the solutions are obvious. People do well when they stay within certain boundaries, but suffer when they don’t. There is no need to creatively ride the line, look for loopholes and see what we can get away with in terms of liberal social experiments. Families are disrupted when immorality or infidelity occurs. The guilt is not easily shaken for woman who get an abortions. Children suffer when gay marriage is made the norm. People get fired when they steal from an employer. We proceed in a confused manner by believing the cultural lies about evolution and the non-existence of moral law, yet get stung when the consequences prove to be real.
Evolution and Social Chaos
It’s this sixth reason that evolution is so deadly in a culture. Evolutionary thought that dominates a nation produces a chronic, low grade dysthymia and hopelessness that life has any meaning beyond this cursed world. If we’re just overgrown blobs of biology from a cosmic accident that took place in some prebiotic soup, then man has no immaterial side, no spirit, no soul, is not transcendent. If the earth is 4.5 billion years old, then life is meaningless, we don’t matter really. (Even though secular psychologists tell us man is built for transcendence and significance- how’s that for a contradiction? The term “psychology” comes from the Greek word meaning the “study of the soul”).
If there is only material existence, then life is about being a narcissist and getting all the pleasure possible without regard for honor, respect, decency, morals, integrity, and trust which give meaning to relationships. If life is only here and now, then people believe that there is no such thing as a moral, and will steal, kill, or take revenge at their own impulse. Evolution is a contradiction to civil law and the order of government.Mass murderer Jeffrey Dahmer gave a compelling interview in prison and was asked why he killed all those boys. He took a moment to think and his answer points to the system wide prevalence of evolution: “I reasoned that if evolution is true and there is no God to be accountable to, what’s the point in modifying my behavior?” He wasn’t stupid, he just believed what pervaded the culture. Good law breeds healthy culture, poor policy destroys. Evolution as the only theory taught in schools breeds hopelessness and violence in a society and may be contributing to the rash of school violence among young people. If we insist on taking prayer out of schools, God off of coins, and the 10 Commandments out of public places, then what else should we expect?
It’s this sixth fatal flaw that bleeds over into politics and corrupts a society with poor public policy. In many respects, evolution caused World War II and caused the death of millions of people. Adolph Hitler took one of the tenets of evolution, the survival of the fittest, and applied them to people. He reasoned that if the animals that remain are the superior ones who killed competitors, then maybe there is a master race of people also. He somehow he rationalize it must be the Caucasian, Aryan race that was strongest and any other was inferior and should be killed. There is even propaganda footage of Nazi scientists taking measurements of cranial features of young people who might be fit for the army. Hitler may not have believed evolution deep down but since it was cultural, he used it to advance his political agenda and lust for power. All it did was lead to disaster for himself and millions of others. Evolution perpetuates the lie of racism and partiality.
In fact, WWII created a vacuum for another type of atheistic materialism to advance called Communism. Russia took over many eastern European countries that kept millions of people locked into a hopeless lifestyle for five more decades. In many respects, evolution creates a culture of death. With Communism and Nazi Germany, the 20th century can be characterized as the tragic by-product of evolutionary thought in politics. Germany is an irony because it was the seat of the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century! But Satan has his counterfeits and inspired the liberal philosophers who created doubts as to the veracity of Scripture, theology, and moral law. The people believed them at great cost. If atheists claim there are dangers of the alignment of church and state, the dangers are greater with atheism and state.
Progressive: The Political Equivalent of Evolution
The political equivalent of evolution is the term “progressive” where liberals think life is constantly improving, getting better and if it feels good it must be right. It’s closely related to the arrogance of contemporariness that says we’re the best generation that ever lived and we must be doing something right, so lets keep going forward, whatever forward means. Progressive, liberal, evolutionist, free thinker, and naturalist are closely related terms that discount the importance of the spiritual realm, ethics, morals, right and wrong. Even Emerson, who was considered something of a liberal in the 1800’s, believed in the spiritual realm and wrote, “law is the last issue of spirit.”
Evolutionary thought permeates political philosophy. A liberal tactic is to front load the charge of being unintellectual onto one who doesn’t believe in evolution. In politics those who believe in absolutes are usually conservatives, whose philosophy of government is anchored in the wisdom of the ages. Actor Matt Damon tried this on Sarah Palin in 2008: “There’s a good chance that if McCain gets elected, he may not survive his 1st term, which means Sarah Palin could be president. A self proclaimed hockey mom for president? I really need to know if she thinks the dinosaurs were here 4,000 years ago. I really do if she’s going to have the nuclear codes.” A pretty slick charge tying creationism with committing intellectual suicide, and evolution being the real “science.” With the fallacies of evolution, who is committing intellectual suicide? If natural man is in spiritual rebellion to the ways of God, how can the intellect be unaffected? (See other post refuting the charge of Christians committing intellectual suicide).
Jane Goodall, celebrated primatologist who studied chimpanzees in Africa, took a stab at explaining our world through her study of chimps. She said her research “taught me that our aggressive tendencies have probably been inherited from an ancient primate some six million years ago.” Let me comment first that people call this science. This is one of the most unverifiable statements I have ever heard. “Probably inherited from an ancient primate some six millionyears ago”? With imprecise language such as “probably” and a random figure of “six million years ago”, Goodall is more speculative than accurate. Yet it’s the precision argument that compels people to reject Creationism, the contradiction best highlighted in President Obama’s statement: “I do not believe it is helpful to our students to cloud discussions of science with non-scientific theories like intelligent design that are not subject to experimental scrutiny.” Where is the ‘experimental scrutiny’ in Goodall’s conclusion that is often found in evolutionary theory? Scientists may be good at gathering data, but other disciplines are often better at interpreting it.
Goodall continues, “But we’ve also inherited love, compassion, and altruism- and we find these qualities in chimpanzees as well. So if we believe in a common ancestor, both of these types of these characteristics- the dark side of our nature and the noble side- we’ve probably brought them with us throughout our long evolutionary history.” “We’ve probably brought them with us throughout our long evolutionary history”? Again that is science? If a theory has to agree fully with the experiment as true scientists say, then how is this statement verifiable? I thought scientists won’t believe anything until it’s an established fact?
And look at the assumption- “if we believe in a common ancestor.” Why is this idea of ‘common descent’ hijacked by evolutionists? Why can’t these traits be instilled from a common Creator? The similar building blocks we see in different species, whether material in terms of proteins or immaterial like compassion, more easily point to a common Creator. And the dark traits in human nature are better explained by sin and evil. Evolutionists object that “this is unverifiable as well. You can’t study God in a test tube.” God may not be more verifiable in terms of a test tube, but he is more verifiable in terms of logic, which is a valid discipline. Circumstantial evidence for God, which is all around us in the irreducible complexity of creation, is often enough to settle cases in criminal law. If God is on the docket, His case should be a slam dunk.
Ms. Goodall then deduces her worldview of war and international politics from an evolutionary interpretations of chimps by saying: “Some people say, therefore, that violence and war are inevitable. I say rubbish.” (Reader’s Digest, September 2010, p 128-135). God Bless Ms. Goodall for her lifelong interest in chimps. But the liberal view that war is fantasy and based on a wrong assumption from evolution. “One human family” as the bumper sticker goes. A utopia in a soft peace loving world is unrealistic because it sidesteps the concept of evil and the sin nature that resides deep in the heart of man. Nobody likes war. But those with a Judeo-Christian worldview understand that evil waged in the cosmic realm by Satan, will occasionally be manifested in physical war on earth and people are caught in the crossfire (see post Satan: The Apex Predator on Earth). Even atheistic evolutionists have to admit evil exists. And if evil exists, so does good. Good is only captured in God. There is no such thing as a static moral nothingness.
Eternal diligence is price for freedom, and it’s peace through strength. Ironically, it was this soft, unrealistic view of the world that felled the Roman empire. With what Rome had going for it, it could have gone for another thousand years. But moral indulgence caused complacency.The complacency lead to social chaos. Not believing in the laws of the soul, the culture became rife with immorality and it crept into the military. The army for centuries was the pride of the empire. Nobody could touch it and was greatly feared. But increasingly, it was set on a shelf, left to glory in past battles won, and they didn’t believe in political evil anymore. And in the 4th century, the unthinkable happened- the barbarians, the Scythians to the north from Britain, a people they could routinely defeat, ran right through the capital and sacked Rome. This is similar to what is happening today. Dove based liberal organizations, though well intentioned, are naive as to how layered and deep evil is in human nature and that peace is only maintained through the constant preparation for war. The first signs of the barbaric lusting conquering the sophisticated occured on 9/11. This worldview from history is what organizations like Code Pink don’t understand.
Evolution Contradicts Moral Law
See the connection between atheism, the lack of belief in moral law and chaos? A military is always sensitive to changes in the culture. In Rome homosexuality flourished, eventually weakening the empire. As one famous author observed, Rome didn’t fall from without, but from within. The barbaric assault without may have been the final straw on the camel’s back, but they sabotaged themselves with crippling immorality. Need a hard copy example? When Marcus Aurelius died, he regrettably left the throne to his son Commodus, whose exhibited signs of megalomania and neurological problems because of his sexual depravity. Commodus brought with him to the throne a seraglio of 300 boys in a continual cycle of moral degeneracy. His softness of mind never understood the need for war and he abandoned the military campaign with the barbarians to the north, a primitive people who eventually sacked the capital. His despair surfaced in spasmodic expressions of intimidation and violence on his own people and he left the empire in shambles. His shortsightedness is considered a major step downward in Rome’s collapse.
Liberal licentiousness started during the time of the Vietnam War. Until then, the U.S. military was looked upon with pristine respect. But the sexual revolution of the 1960’s was a time of confusion, a war being created in the hearts of young people from violating moral law. As guilt seeks release and expression because of the war of soul, the Vietnam War was a scapegoat that symbolized the inner war. Needing a peaceful environment to recover, for young people Vietnam represented more turbulence. The military was blamed and our servicemen who should have been heroes were despised! There may have been poor policy choices in administering the war, but the problem really wasn’t Vietnam. Just like in Rome, Vietnam was the first birth-pang of those involved in moral decadence turning on themselves and sabotaging their own, little understanding the connection between the spiritual and physical realms. Naturalists don’t think deeply enough into other disciplines to understand this. If we can rationalize there is no such thing as moral law from a position of evolution, we think we can live by any impulse without consequence.
The law in this case is found in I Peter chapter 1: “abstain from fleshly lusts which wage war against the soul.” According to this, immorality causes a war in the soul. A dark, lonely and profound emptiness occurs in a soul that commits immorality. Guilt can be rationalized away but the effects will be felt on some level- irritability, depression, anger, anxiety, passive aggressive tendencies and a variety of other pathologies. The chaos happens in hearts, a happens in homes. And what happens in enough homes, happens in nations.
The consequences of guilt and regret in violating moral law that began in the 1960’s are cause and effect. The disintegration of the family, the rise in feminism, commitment phobia and the increase of singleness, confusion and gender blending, divorce, legalization of abortion, the rise in mental illness, and increased isolation. All of these are rooted in this time period and are weakening this nation. How can one be a free thinker and fail to see this connection? Essentially all of our problems are spiritual in nature, and no Presidential administration can deal effectively with the economy or international tensions without a worldview that links the moral and physical realms. One man said, “integrity doesn’t make a leader but leadership is indispensable without it.”
If Hollywood prevails in it’s view of morality and family values in terms of public policy, this country is in trouble. Today our Roman army equivalent is “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”. If this policy is repealed it will have devastating effects on the military in terms of morale. There’s that immaterial term again, closely related to moral, which a materialistic, evolutionist doesn’t believe in. But morale is crucial for a healthy military as any common sense officer will tell you. The military is not for fraternizing and if homosexual behavior increases, one of the first effects will be that the armed forces won’t attract our best men.
Chuck Colson has called gay marriage the “Armageddon in the culture war.” Progressives believe one can redefine and tweak moral law that has governed the human tradition without consequence, just as we push the boundaries of technology for example. The liberal mind, fortified by evolution, don’t believe in boundaries which have been known to be healthy. If we’re just overgrown blobs of biology withno souls that are affected deeply by immorality, then why not gay marriage? Gay marriage is another liberal notion stemming from unbelief in the spiritual side of man. Progressives along with”free thinkers” say these are social experiments that need to be tried. I think I get the “free” part, but I’m not sure of the “thinking” part. These social experiments have been done before with less than stellar results. We’ve already highlighted Rome. But Dutch and Scandinavian countries have already legalized gay marriage and some studies are showing that the children of these families are prone to depression, show a hopelessness in relationship, aren’t procreating and aren’t innovative in the workplace. One cannot violate moral law without consequence.
The theory of evolution and progressivism carries over into the legal realm and interprets the Constitution as an “evolving” document. This novel idea is an assault on the absolutes derived from the timeless truths of Scripture and they believe the document needs to be changed to reflect the times, not anchor the times. It conforms to us, we don’t conform to it. Man is the paragon of life, there is nothing bigger we subordinate to. So we change the code to fit us, because in America if it’s in the majority it must be right! If liberal assaults can be codified into law, then guilt is assuaged that one is doing no wrong. This is the case of gay marriage in California where a cavalier judge, against the will of the people, has attempted to overturn Proposition 8. Guided by the sensuality that characterizes our subculture, liberal activist judges are legislating from the bench, with no regard for the bedrock of truth in the Constitution, moral law, or accountability of the branches of government. This judicial tyranny characterized the fall many a civilization including ancient Israel.
We have demonstrated why evolution is so harmful personally, politically, socially, legally. It lends itself to a hopeless existentialism and despair that life has no real purpose, or origin, no destiny. Therefore, just live by what comes natural. Yet nature is not supreme. Where is the standard that judges nature? Nature doesn’t have the innate ability to interpret meaning or assign right and wrong. Suicidal thoughts may be natural for some, but that never prospered anyone, especially for those who believe life is only here and now. Cancer is natural, but nobody wants that for a lifestyle. Feces are natural yet we don’t eat these as a staple diet. We dont’ indulge in the arsenic in apple seeds even though these are natural. Mold is natural but is not good to breathe. No nature is not supreme. It is good, but skewed. Something anterior to nature created and superintends it.
Contrary to the endless cycles of life in evolution and it’s corollary in progressivism, the Scriptural worldview is different. The Bible says things are not progressing despite the illusion of progress. Though he has lengthened life a little bit, man hasn’t solved the basic problems of sin, death, mortality. The ancient Greeks had a word that the New Testament picks up on called “teleos”, which means things are progressing to a definitive end. We get the word “telescope” from it that zeroes in on something. Just as a man dies and his life comes to an end, so the world will as well. It’s the absolute of one point, the law of singularity. Man has been decreasing and deteriorating and will continue to do so until the Creator comes to cleanse the earth and install his reign of righteousness. Even the fossil record shows many catastrophic events such as a great flood that cleansed the earth in times past and contradicts squarely the law of uniformitarianism.
One man writes, “The dream of the optimist for a world becoming increasingly better scientifically, intellectually, morally, and religiously does not fit the pattern of God’s prophetic Word.” We may have even witnessed mini-judgments in the forms of disasters. We know God took homosexuality seriously because he destroyed two municipalities because of it (Sodom and Gomorrah).
Progressive liberalism is not a new phenomenon. Civilizations have been battling liberal deviations for thousands of years. It happened in Rome, from which we model some forms of our government. The departure from the universal truths of the Greek philosophers because of liberal thinkers felled the Roman empire into moral indulgence and social chaos.Moral relativism always has at it’s core the rationalization of sexual sin. Immorality is the substitute, the idol, the alternative for real purpose in life. The weakness towards pleasure is a short term sedative to deaden the pain of empy lives, with complicated, intellectual, and scientific arguments as cover sheets.
Progressivism is a well intended human attempt at optimism to override the horrors deep inside all of us. But it’s a false optimism. Constitutions that are shaped by the Judeo Christian value system are the fairest the world has ever known. It creates the right balance of law in the essentials and freedom in the non essentials. Political leaders shaped by Scripture gain discernment and common sense in dealing with whatever cultural issues are pending for the day. Good values have to be fought for in schools, government, textbooks, universities, and law if America wants to continue to be the greatest bastion of freedom the world has ever known. Truth is not just for believers. By definition, godly men have to be in leadership for there to be success. Liberals may come down on the separation of church and state clause in the Constitution. But it’s clear, there is no separation of Scripture and state. The greatness of this country is no accident. There is a clear cause and effect between our stature and the intentions of the founding fathers who put biblical truth into public policy. Unexamined randomness didn’t create this great nation, and misguided liberal experiments will not maintain it.
Essentially both worldviews of evolution or creation cannot be right. Each leads to a different destination. The 20th century has demonstrated the tragedies of evolutionary thought in politics. But evolution, with all of it’s inconsistencies, is not really about science at all. It’s a worldview of rebellion for those who don’t want God or his ways. Evolution contains pegs of though by which intelligensia can hide the true motives of the heart. It’s a cover sheet of scientific ramblings for those who want to maintain power and control in the system, to get paychecks and receive accolades on some new aspect to the theory. Yet intellectual integrity would seriously question the tenet’s of evolution. No matter the evidence one way or the other, belief in evolution or creation is really a heart issue not a science issue. The heart will gravitate to what it wants, whether good or evil. As Jesus said about some people with regard to evidence, “they won’t be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead” (Luke 16:31).
Copyright 2010 by Scott Chandler. All rights reserved.