One of the things that makes living a moral life – keeping the 10 commandments – discouraging and disheartening these days is the fact that people all around us are NOT keeping them. If you’ve been around kids you know how kids invariably look at other kids as the measure of what should and shouldn’t be okay. When exasperated children say, “But all the other kids are doing it!” parents offer the knee-jerk response: “If all the other kids jumped off a cliff, would you do that, too?” And that’s a valid point, of course. But your kid isn’t asking to jump off a cliff; he’s asking to stay out late or he’s asking to go to a concert or something else that he simply doesn’t view as tantamount to leaping off a cliff to his certain death. What that child sees is a fun thing that the other kids are doing that he can’t do, and as a child who has himself been confronted with “the cliff” question, I can tell you that it might end the argument but it hardly ends a kid’s angst.
It would be a very different world if someone received heavenly electroshocks from God every single time they violated the 10 commandments. But that isn’t the way it happens. David and later Jeremiah famously asked the question we’ve all likely asked at one time or another: “Why do the wicked prosper?”
It’s not merely that so many people break God’s laws all around us and seem to get away with it and even seem to get rewarded for it that creates discouragement, however. It’s also that there is an entire worldview that explains this apparent state in terms of a presentation that God’s laws aren’t really even “laws” at all but merely intolerant edicts written by intolerant, superstitious and frankly bigoted human beings who invented God as a means to control and dominate people. Sometimes it very much seems like the whole world system has been designed to confuse and discourage God’s people into wondering why we bother to follow God’s commands. In place of God today we are instead being offered a Darwinian system of evolution that is being held up as “science” and therefore beyond question.
We’ve all heard about the Ten Commandments in the Bible. And it occurred to me that it would be interesting to explore them from the viewpoint of Darwinian evolution – consistently applied – and see how the results strike your moral intuitions. I submit to you that sometimes the best way to finally put your trust on God’s system is to consider the results of man’s systems and see their end. That’s ultimately how David began to receive his answer to his question of why the wicked prosper: in verse 17 of Psalm 73 David said, “then I understood their final destiny.” We need to be able to do that with Darwinism.
When Jesus Christ and His Word are your source for ideas, you simply do not need to be afraid of the competition. The best antidote to all the lies that surround us is the truth. And so I would like to take some time to survey the truth: the truth about science and where it came from; the truth about some very interesting issues in which science is surprisingly ignorant; the truth about a giant flaw in Darwin’s presentation; and finally an examination of what Darwinian “ethics” would look like to show you its end. And what I want you to see is that God’s law makes absolute sense in light of its vicious Darwinian competition.
So I begin with the origin of science: how did we get science? Should we view it as incompatible with Christianity? Well, it turns out that we got science from Christianity. Here’s an interesting fact I link to in my notes: The scientific method itself and the founder of virtually every single branch of modern science was discovered by a publicly confessed Christian. Dr. Rodney Stark, a sociologist, “researched the leading scientists from 1543 [– the beginning of the scientific revolution –] to 1680 and found that of the top 52 scientists, one was a skeptic, one was a pantheist and 50 were Christians, 30 of whom could be characterized as devout because of their zeal.” We find that science arose only once in human history – and it arose in Europe under the civilization then called “Christendom.” Christianity provided the worldview foundations necessary and essential for the birth of science: The earth was not the illusion of Eastern religion and philosophy, but a physical, tangible place. And the material world was not the corrupt and lower realm of Greek religion and philosophy, but God created it and called it “good.” And God endowed the capstone of His creation, man – as the bearer of His divine image – with the reason, the curiosity, and the desire to know the truth. And God – who designed an orderly and law-abiding universe and earth for man – made man the caretaker of His creation. And thus the great astronomer Johannes Kepler described his project as “thinking God’s thoughts after Him.” And that is frankly why 106 of the first 108 colleges in America were founded as religious Christian institutions. My point is this: is Christianity at war with the essence of science? NO! Atheism is at war with the essence of science. It is simply a demonstrable lie that legitimate science is at odds with Christianity; and this lie should not trouble you no matter how often you hear the lie or who repeats it.
There’s another myth that I would like to briefly examine; and that is the myth of science as some monolithic field that has answered all of the profoundly important questions. That is how it is frequently presented in the media; but when you listen to scientists themselves you get a very different story. I’ve recently began watching a Science Channel program called “Through the Wormhole.” And I’ve been shocked at just how little science genuinely knows when the scientists and not the news media discuss science.
For example, take black holes: We find that “black holes are places where the accepted laws of physics break down.” Dr. Gabor Kunstatter of the University of Winnipeg physics department, defines black holes as a “a tiny region of space where the known laws of physics break down.” It turns out that every system of physics known to man – Newtonian, Einsteinian, Quantum Mechanics, String Theory – all are falsified inside black holes. And by the way, this is kind of a big deal because there are something like 100 million black holes in our galaxy. It’s simply not true to claim that science accounts for all reality. It simply doesn’t.
Here’s another one that surprised me. If you try to reconcile Einstein’s relativity with Quantum Mechanics, a strange thing happens: you’re left with an equation that has no ‘t’ variable for time. Time gets cancelled out of any equation that tries to harmonize these two widely held theories. Since this runs counter to observable reality, most scientists rightly believe that quantum physics and relatively theory “don’t play well together.” In fact, they invalidate one another. It is rather astonishing that modern physics can’t account for something as basic to human existence as time. But some physicists are so determined to believe their theories that they literally argue that if their equations says time doesn’t exist, then time doesn’t exist. I laughed as a Rutgers University philosopher of physics named Tim Madulin explained that these guys are spending way too much time with numbers and not enough time with reality. But that’s what is going on far too often in what is passing for “science” today – especially evolutionary science.
How about this one: 95% of the universe that physicists depend on for their theories is MISSING. “An enormous chunk of the Universe seems to be invisible. We can’t see it, hear it, or detect it in any way… To crack the cosmic code that underlies our Universe, we have to understand energy in all its forms. But what if almost 95% of the Universe is made of a form of energy we can’t see and don’t understand?” The 95% of the universe that they can’t detect in any way is there because it HAS to be there for their theories to hold up.
Here’s another one – and it’s actually quite a doozy: the Big Bang. 99.9% of working scientists in relevant fields of astronomy accept the Big Bang. But taking what had to happen into account, what is the likelihood of a life-supporting universe coming into existence by chance? Think about it: there’s nothing, there’s nothing, there’s nothing. And then POOF! There’s everything. Just what are the odds of something like that just happening by chance? According to the great mathematician Roger Penrose, who calculated the odds of what had to happen for the Big Bang, the odds against such an occurrence happening by chance were on the order of 10^10^123 to 1. How big of a number against the Big Bang happening by chance is that? I’ll let well-known theoretical physicist Laura Mersini-Houghton – who is an atheist, by the way – tell you. From “Through the Wormhole”: “The seed of this idea was planted many years ago when she realized she had a problem with the Universe – a pretty big problem. According to her calculations, the Universe should not exist. “The chances to start the Universe with the high-energy Big Bang are one in 10 with another 10 zeros behind it and another 123 zeros behind it. So, pretty much, zero.” As a result of these odds, Mersini-Houghton wrote a paper proposing what she acknowledged to be a “highly speculative” theory denying Big Bang cosmology which might provide the materialists with a way to rescue their atheistic belief system.
The big problem with the Big Bang is that the Big Bang requires a Big Banger. All matter, all energy, all space and all time came into existence. You need somebody to make that “POOF” happen – someone who Himself is not limited by matter, energy, space or time. Only the Bible identifies Him: “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” We need that Guy. We need God.
The strongest argument against “science” disproving the existence of God is SCIENCE.
Let me leave you with one last example right out of the Bible: Jeremiah 33:22 records a statement by God that the stars in the sky are “countless.” That may not sound like that big of a deal, but consider: In 128BC Hipparchus claimed to have counted the stars, with their number being 1,026. That number stood as the official count of the stars of the sky for seventeen hundred years until 1600AD, when Kepler counted the stars and concluded that Hipparchus had double-counted some: and the updated number was 1,005 stars. Was God wrong? Well, with the aid of the Hubble telescope scientists now estimate that there are 70 sextillion – that’s a number followed by 21 zeroes – stars in over 1 billion galaxies. And that number actually exceeds the number of grains of sand on all the seashores on earth, to complete the proof of Jeremiah 33.
We don’t have to be afraid to debate the truth. We don’t have to be afraid of the facts. We don’t have to play games with the numbers and the evidence in order to support our faith. THAT’S WHAT THE OTHER SIDE HAS TO DO. Another way to put it is this: don’t let science or anything else tell you how to read your Bible. Because you are a LOT more warranted to let your Bible tell you how to read everything else.
So with that as a primer, let’s begin to contemplate Charles Darwin and his Darwinian evolution. There is one primary reason that Darwinism is accepted as a “valid scientific theory” and “Creationism” or even “Intelligent Design” is not so accepted: and that is that we’re told that Darwinism passes the bar of being “testable” or “falsifiable” but theories that depend on God in any way are NOT so testable or falsifiable. We’re told that we can’t put a Creator God under a microscope and observe Him creating. But let me show you how utterly fallacious that standard is by showing you Darwin’s “test” for his theory: “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”
Well, Darwin himself said the eye as a refutation of his theory gave him cold fits. He wrote in a letter: “I remember well the time when the thought of the eye made me cold all over, but I have got over this stage of the complaint, and now small trifling particulars of structure often make me very uncomfortable. The sight of a feather in a peacock’s tail, whenever I gaze at it, makes me sick!” A couple of things leap out of that: the first thing is that Darwin is clearly not an objective scientist who is willing to go wherever the evidence leads; he is passionately determined to get God out of the picture. It makes him literally “cold” and “sick” to see any evidence of a Designer, doesn’t it? With that said, let’s talk about Darwin’s own dilemma with the eye. The thing about an eye is that it doesn’t work unless all the components are properly in place. It’s not like you can grow an eyeball but not have any optical nerves and still see a little bit. You’ve either got the whole eye or you’ve got squat. I read Richard Dawkins’ The Blind Watchmaker during a period when I was genuinely doubting whether God really existed or not. And when I saw his account of how the eye developed a little tiny bit at a time, it was a laugher for me, even being the skeptic that I was. On his account, the first eye began to form from a photoreceptor cell on a depression in some early creature’s body – as though we all need to go home and check our belly buttons every day lest an eye is starting to grow out of it. And as Dawkins presented this bizarre story of how the eye formed by “numerous, successive, slight modifications,” his story just got worse and worse. It amounted to a fairy-tale for atheists. It had to happen this way to keep God out of the picture, so that’s clearly how it happened no matter how implausible or even ridiculous it sounds.
And it actually gets WORSE for Darwinists, because we now know that the cell is filled with incredible tiny machines that all have to be present in a cell in order for that cell to work. And scientists point out that it would take a good 50 times even the 4.6 billion of years earth has supposedly existed for random chance to manufacture just one useful protein for even the simplest bacteria cell. That’s not amoeba to man; “numerous, successive, slight modifications” can’t even get Darwinism to a bacteria cell! We now know a lot more about what the Bible describes: that we are truly “fearfully and wonderfully made” just as Psalm 139:14
But there is actually an even more glaring problem with Darwin’s “falsifiability” than most Christian thinkers have attacked. Let’s look at the Darwin’s falsifiability standard again: “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” That is a nearly impossible standard to defeat: we have to prove something is absolutely impossible. But let me try doing the same thing with my Creationist theory so you can see the bait-and-switch that’s going on here: “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not have possibly been formed by God, my Creation theory would absolutely break down.” My point is that Creationism and Intelligent Design have been ruled out without any consideration by the modern scientific establishment because they are “not falsifiable” when the Darwinism that they want to embrace is actually no more falsifiable than our Creation theories are. The only difference is that when atheists tell their stories about how time and chance and random mutation managed to pull off one impossible miracle after another, OUR STORIES MAKE A LOT MORE SENSE! You need to understand that there is a true spirit of delusion and hypocrisy at work in our world.
So science itself originated out of Christian thought on fundamentally Christian precepts of intelligence and design and the science that arose out of and because of Christianity clearly isn’t incompatible with Christianity; so science really truly doesn’t know that much about the ultimate nature of the universe and what it DOES know confirms rather than contradicts that our universe and life itself was the product of supernatural Intelligent Design; and so Darwinism amounts to an atheist polemic that has support merely because it illegitimately rules out its rivals on utterly fraudulent grounds. Are you with me so far?
With all of that as our backdrop, let us now ponder the implications of Darwinian morality. As a young man with a mangled faith, wondering if God truly existed and cared about how I lived, I realized something: if evolution is true and there is no God, then there is no such thing as human morality, either. And I literally not only could but frankly ought to have been utterly amoral if that was the case. As soon as that thought occurred to me, however, it frightened me far more than it reassured me. Because I had not been raised to be amoral. Everything I had been taught in my entire life up to that point had directed me to believing in right and wrong. And it was a dark thought indeed that there was no God and morality flowed from Darwinism. Because Darwinian morality is as vicious as it is violent.
Let’s start with the fact that evolutionists claim that their system of Darwinism is simply the way the world works. Assume that’s true for a moment. And then look at the world around you. Because like it or not, Darwinism entails social Darwinism. What is true for nature must be true for the individual and society. If nature progresses by competition for survival, and the victory of the strong over the weak, then all progress must come the same way. If life is an unceasing struggle for existence, and its outcome is the survival of the fittest, as Darwin claimed, then that is how we ought to function as individuals and as a society.
Modern Darwinists want to use their system to violently club God to death, then drop that club and say, “Now that Darwinism has killed God and religion, let’s not live as if our system that says life is a struggle for existence in which only the fittest survive and the weak are a threat to the rest of the herd is actually true.” Like so many other elements of Darwinian thought, there is a massive self-contradiction.
Richard Dawkins has laid war and death on the back of religion, but he refuses to accept the far greater holocaust of death on the back of his atheism. When we rightly point out that atheistic communism was responsible for the murder of more than 110 million people during peacetime alone, Dawkins claims that communism and atheism have nothing to do with each other. But as I showed last week, that simply is false: atheism was at the very core of Marxism. If you look up “state atheism,” you find that it is virtually identical with communism. And it is no coincidence that not only did Karl Marx identify with Charles Darwin as strongly supporting his theory of class struggle and write that Darwinism was “the basis in natural history for our views,” but Nazism was also little more than applied Darwinism – with the rationale of both creating a master race and exterminating the Jews being profoundly Darwinian. Hitler even made his own people the victims of his Darwinism, stating, “If the German Volk is not strong enough and is not sufficiently prepared to offer its own blood for its existence, it should cease to exist and be destroyed by a stronger power.” That is profoundly Darwinian. Now intellectual frauds like Richard Dawkins are trying to go back and rewrite history to expunge the incredibly tragic results of Darwinism being applied to the actual world and society.
And the horror that results in society is equally true of the individual who lives by Darwinism.
Why do we as individuals rape, murder and sleep around? Because “rape is (in the vernacular of evolutionary biology) an adaptation, a trait encoded by genes that confers an advantage on anyone who possesses them. Back in the late Pleistocene epoch 100,000 years ago, men who carried rape genes had a reproductive and evolutionary edge over men who did not: they sired children not only with willing mates, but also with unwilling ones, allowing them to leave more offspring (also carrying rape genes) who were similarly more likely to survive and reproduce, unto the nth generation. That would be us. And that is why we carry rape genes today. The family trees of prehistoric men lacking rape genes petered out.” Darwinism is “a scientific idea that, if true, consigns traditions of self-restraint, loyalty, the very basis of family life, to the shredder.” Now go ye and do likewise. Unless something inside of you screams “NO! I will NOT live in accordance with that terrible, wicked, demonic theory of Darwinian evolution!”
I like to watch nature programs on TV, although it is often hard – because the stories end so bleakly. In one episode, I watched a dominant female baboon whose had baby died because she couldn’t produce milk snatch the baby of a healthy mother. And of course that baby died because the dominant baboon female couldn’t produce any milk but wouldn’t return it to its mother. In another program, I watched a lion cub get trampled by buffalo when the herd suddenly changed direction; its pelvis was crushed and it was dragging itself around by its front lets with its hind legs useless. What happened? Was there a lion welfare program? No. The mother and its siblings and the pride abandoned it after a few days, and it surely died horribly. Because in nature the weak, the sick and the injured are a liability and even a threat to the rest of society and they should die so the strong can live. That’s the way the world often is in the aftermath of the Fall.
Have you ever wondered why God allows animal suffering like that? Let me offer an answer: because God wants us to look at the animals and see that He created us different. We are NOT animals; we are made in the image of a rational, moral God. And we should not live or think like beings lacking the Imago Dei.
Now, in the time that I have left, let me finally get to the essence of the 10 Commandments. God told Israel in Exodus 20:2, “I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery .“ Allow me to restate that in a slightly different way: “I am the Lord your God, who brought you OUT” of that animal state of bondage. You will NOT live like animals in some Darwinian state; instead you will live like My people whom I created and whom I love and hold to a higher standard than any beast of the field.
Why is it that the first five commandments focus on man’s relationship to God? Today, our government schools are trying to abandon the commandments focusing on God but somehow keep the ethics of the last five. A US District Court Judge actually tried to cut the Ten Commandments down to six. One pastor recently preached on that and said, “The educators are attempting to enact the ethics of the second half of the Ten Commandments which have to do with not lying, stealing, etc. without taking heed to the first half! They are trying to teach young men and women how to love their neighbor without first training them to love God! All such attempts will fall short, because unless you first love God, and have God living in you, it is not possible to live out his character, which is what loving your neighbor is all about.”
In light of what you have just heard on Darwinism, let me sing the same song again: because we are NOT to live like animals; we are NOT to live like a bunch of creatures who invent our own meanings and values for ourselves; instead we ARE to live in the light of our relationship to our Creator from which our love for our neighbor flows. We are to live up to the image of God in us as humans. And frankly if we truly love the Lord our God with all of our heart, mind and strength, and if we truly have the love of God in Christ in our hearts, we cannot help but love our neighbors as we love ourselves. It flows out of us like water flows out of a spring.
There’s a powerful reason for this: it derives from the fact that community is central to the heart of the Trinity. There’s a theological term in Greek called “Perichoresis.” It means, “to dance around.” The divine dance within the Trinity. It derives from passages such as John 14:10, in which Jesus asked, “Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me?” The Father is in the Son and the Son is in the Father. The Father loves the Son and the Spirit, and the Son and the Spirit cooperate together to bring joy to the Father. You have every element within the Trinity that you need to have complete community. God did not have to invent community the way man invented the wheel; community was central to the heart of God.
You can’t give what you don’t have. If God were strictly one in the most rigorous sense, as Allah is in Islam, where would we get true, genuine community? When God created man in His own image, according to Genesis 1:27, how was it that Adam and Eve were relational and communal beings unless community were an essential part of the essence of the God who had created them? When you love your neighbor as you love yourself, as taught in both the Ten Commandments and by Jesus, what else are you doing but modeling the love that was essential to the “divine dance” of the Godhead before the Creation of the world?
You don’t get that from Darwinism. In fact, you don’t get anything good from Darwinism at all.
In allowing the demonic doctrine of Darwinism, God allowed a very stark contrast between His way and the way of fallen man. Joshua told the Israelites in Joshua 24:15, “choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve.” And like the Israelites of old, we too have a choice to make. The resurrected Jesus tells the Laodiceans in Rev 3:15-16, “I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! So, because you are lukewarm–neither hot nor cold–I am about to spit you out of my mouth.” We need to stop living with one foot in the “survival of the fittest” world of Darwin and the other foot in the “love your neighbor as yourself” world of Jesus and truly choose this day whom we will serve. There is a gigantic gulf between the “vicious animal” world of Darwinism and the “image of God” world of Christianity. There are two natures – the selfish animal nature of Darwinism and the selfless divine nature of God – that are profoundly and fundamentally opposed to one another. And they are at war within you.
The Ten Commandments as Jesus taught were not given to the descendants of animals, as Darwinism teaches; they were given to the children of God who love Him and want His love to flow through them to others.
Let’s pray that we may be radical followers of the Ten Commandments as they were taught in both the Old and New Testaments. It’s evolution vs. the Ten Commandments; it’s Darwin vs. Jesus. Who will be the true winner in your life?