Are you sure? Sure, I'm sure!
Previous articleBack to Table of ContentsNext article


Topic: Science

The Immorality of Theory As Fact

by Darrel Cline

I once read an article in U.S. News in which the claim was made that animals which live in the red zone in the former Soviet Union have evolved more in the few years since the nuclear reactor blew up there than they had in the last 10 million years. This is a classic example of so-called science. This claim is just another one of zillions that have been made in which theory is stated as fact. This is lousy science, controlled by an unsupportable theory.

Why is it bad science? Because science is supposed to deal with the observable and the repeatable. There is no paper trail backwards to 10 million years ago. There is no archaeological trail backwards to 10 million years ago. No one in this generation can say anything about what happened 10 million years ago. Many pontificate, but no one has any credible link to any kind of observable trail that leads backwards beyond about 4,000 B.C.

Second, it is poor science because evolution is not a theory about mutated genes that remain in the same species. Evolution is a theory about crossovers from one species to another--from primordial slime to apes to men. No biblical scholar denies that radiation causes genes to mutate; few even would deny that mutant genes can be passed on from one generation to another. But that is a far cry from evolution between species.

Third, it is poor science because it hasn't been long enough since the meltdown in the forests of the former Soviet Union for the observable and repeatable to have run their course. Those observing the present evidence of what is happening to animals who are living in a high radiation environment have no idea of what the consequences are going to be to those mutated genetic freaks in 100 years. Until the evidence reveals the mutations have been beneficial and progressive, theorists have no right to set forth their material as facts.

What difference does it make?

Only this: the biblical record says unabashedly and dogmatically that God exists and everyone who has ever lived will have his day before Him. If evolutionary theorists are correct, biblicists will simply live their meaningless lives morally and die and never know that they were wrong (evolution says knowledge dies with the body). That's not a problem. But if the Bible is correct, evolutionists are going to die and discover they were significantly wrong and their immoral lives will be held up to the scrutiny of an omniscient God who reads the thoughts and intents of the heart.

But someone will say, "Whoa, are you saying all evolutionists are immoral?" Yes. Jesus said the greatest commandment was to love God with all your heart, mind, soul, and strength. You can't do that if you spend all your life denying Him and ignoring Him. Evolution encourages immorality by subsidizing a rationale for it. Homosexuality is a sin in the Bible, but evolution says it is a genetic variation. Drunkenness is also a sin; but evolution simply says some people are genetically programmed to an lower alcohol tolerance. God will have the last word on this.

(return to the top of the article)

Previous articleBack to Table of ContentsNext article
This is article #142.
If you wish, you may contact Darrel as darrelcline at this site.