Depravity has Radically Corrupted Human Reason

I. Why study the ethical condition of the unbeliever’s mind?

A. The doctrine of original sin concerns man’s apostasy from God. In Eden, Adam and Eve tested God, rebelling against His command. As a result of the fall of our first parents, sin (radical depravity), and death became universal for the human race

(Rom. 5:12).

B. When man broke away from God ethically, he also broke away intellectually.Man’s intellectual rebellion is expressed in his attempt to interpret everything inwhich he comes into contact without reference to God.[i][1]

C. Grover Gunn gives us an analogy that is extremely helpful in understanding the the unbeliever’s intellectual rebellion. Gunn compares the natural man’s reasoning processes to a pair of “faulty scales.”[ii][2]

1. In this analogy the “scales” are analogous to one’s world view. All information that a person encounters is interpreted by means of his world view. (The scales are utilized to validate everything except one thing – they cannot weigh themselves! World view cannot validate itself.)

2. God has given to every man “weights” that are accurately stamped. They are stamped internally by reason of the fact that all men bear the image of God. Every person has an innate knowledge that he is made in the image of an almighty Creator. By reason of that image, every man also has the law of God written upon his heart (Rom 2:14, 15).

3. The God-given “weights” are also stamped externally. The whole creation that surrounds man gives inescapable daily evidence of the power, wisdom and majesty of it Creator.[iii][3]

4. In order to avoid the indelible stamp that God has put upon these “weights,” the natural man constructs a fantasy view of reality that flows from his own mind. He assumes that the true and living God has not revealed Himself in Scripture.

5. As a consequence, the unbeliever’s scales do not “weigh” accurately. Due to the rebellious assumption that the God of Scripture does not exist, every conceivable area of life is interpreted in an erroneous manner. (“Issues that should carry great weight have no weight at all on the scales of unbelief.”)[iv][4]

6. In essence, the unbeliever is “pressing a depraved thumb upon the scales.” The God-given weights are rendered inaccurate by that constant act of tampering. The unbeliever cannot get an accurate reading upon his scales because he has set aside the authoritative claims of God, Christ and Scripture.[v][5]

7. When the revelation of God is evaluated on the world’s scales, the result is rejection and skepticism. As a result, measuring reality is a task that is absolutely impossible for the world’s autonomous scales.

8. Because the apologist is armed with an understanding of the unbeliever’s reasoning processes, he will not suggest for a moment that the unbeliever’s scales are in working order. Rather, his argument will at many junctures will confront the unbeliever’s world view – “Hey, get your thumb off of those scales! You’re cheating!”[vi][6]

II. Romans 1:18-23 is the Scriptural record of the universal corruption of humanreason. The Romans passage documents man’s intellectual war upon the moralimage of God.

A. Romans 1:18 – The wrath of God – God’s wrath is His holy aversion to all that is evil. God’s holiness and love are expressed in righteous indignation against evil.

Revealed – A continued outpouring, “dynamically, effectively operative in the world of men… proceeding from heaven” Murray, p. 35. Present tense, ongoing disposition; settled indignation.

Against ungodliness – (Ungodliness is disregard directed against God Himself) and unrighteousness (disregard for God’s laws); the latter flows from the former.

Suppression – To Suppress is to hinder or hold down as a captive what is true (Psalm 14:1). They continue to try to convince themselves that the God of the Bible does not exist. Though they studiously suppress the knowledge of God, all men are theists in their hearts.

B. Romans 1:19 – Natural revelation – What they do know – the knowledge of God that is “in them” – subjective (the image of God in them) and “unto them” –objective (the wonders of nature), Psalm 19:1,2 “The heavens…”

C. Romans 1:20 – They are without excuse because they know:

The facts of creation – They have observed the external creation.

God’s eternal power – They have been witness to God’s unfailing omnipotence in sustaining the world. They have beheld God’s invisible attributes (wisdom, omniscience, etc.) and God’s eternal power. They know (internally) because they have reflected upon the creation.

The divine nature (the Godhead) – The divine nature is seen in God’s unchanging, everlasting deliverance – His providential dealings through the ages – His consistency in upholding the world.

Clearly seen – God’s attributes are seen (understood) upon reflection and by observation (limited knowledge and awareness of the Creator). This knowledge is sufficient to condemn him, but not to save him. Psalm 97:6 – “The heavens declare the righteousness…”

III. The unbeliever’s mind is fixed upon a lie.

 A. Though the whole cosmos points inescapable to the truth of the Creator, theunbeliever prefers the lie. (Although he tries, man can’t escape from himself, for he is the crown of God’s creation – Ps 8; 19; 139.)[vii][7]

1. He exchanges the truth for a lie (Rom. 1:25). The opposite of truth is rebellion, lies, foolishness (Prov. 1:7; Jer. 22:11-14; Matt. 12:30). He worships the creature instead of the Creator – this is idolatry.

2. He has foolishly decided in his heart that the God of the Bible does not exist (Rom. 3:10-12).

a.) His heart, the inner control center, is against God (Rom. 5:10).

b.) Out of the heart are the issues of life (Prov. 4:23).

c.) The heart is the location of human character (Luke 6:45).

d.) The heart is the aspect of man that concerns God the most (1 Sam. 16:7).

e.) The heart is the seat of man’s spiritual faculty (Prov. 3:5), man’s moral faculty (Mark 7:20-23), man’s intellectual faculty (Heb. 4:12) and man’s emotional faculty (Prov. 15:13).

3. The unbeliever seeks to wipe out God and be his own god.

a.) Genesis 3:1-7 – Satan told Eve a lie -- she would be “like God” knowing perfect holiness. Adam and Eve sought to interpret the universe without God – Jer. 8:9.

b.) Lost men are usurpers of God’s place; they are acting autonomously.

B. The unbeliever’s conscience accuses him (Romans 2:15).

1. The Law is written upon man’s heart (his moral conscience).

2. Men know it is wrong to steal, kill and lie, but they reject the God who put this moral standard in their heart – they cannot give an account for the morals they believe to be true.

3. John Calvin said that there is an inescapable sense of Deity in the heart of every person.

IV. The unbeliever suppresses the truth of God.

 A. In order to embrace the lie, the unbeliever unrighteously suppresses God’s truth.He “holds down” the truth of God, not wishing to retain the knowledge of God in his thoughts.

1. Though he possesses the truth of God, he suppresses the truth about God, thus

he sins against knowledge. (The unbeliever has no sentiment to live for the glory of God.)[viii][8]

2. Although the unbeliever represents himself as a “truth seeker,” as “neutral”

and as “objective,” the Scriptures declare the natural man to be in rebellion against

the God of truth. The seat of all sin lies in this aforementioned suppression.

The denial of God’s truth is an expression of man’s arrogant claim to be

autonomous. At the heart of the denial is man’s wicked attempt to erase the

very essence of the Creator-creature distinction which alone can give meaning

to existence.[ix][9]

3. The unbeliever resembles the tenant farmers in Jesus’ parable (Matt. 21:33-44).

The farmers had a livelihood because of the mercy of the landowner, but they

refused to honor Him.

4. The natural man has “an ax to grind,” or vested interest in suppressing the

revelation of God. If he can expunge the knowledge of the Creator from his

thoughts, then he will not have to think about God as his Lawgiver and Judge

either.

B. In his suppression, the unbeliever makes self the ultimate reference point. The

natural man wants to be his own absolute authority. The Scriptures affirm that

autonomy belongs to God alone.

1. The unbeliever attributes autonomy to self – he tries to make his mind the

determiner of reality. Man desires a “god” who will leave the autonomy of his

mind in tact.

2. The Bible states that man cannot know God, the created world or self apart from

the revelation of God. Therefore when man makes self the ultimate reference

point, he places himself in a position to not understand truth. God regards man’s

speculations as futility, darkness and utter foolishness (Rom. 1:21-23; Eph. 4:17-

19).[x][10]

3. Reasoning begins either with self or with God. The Bible is the infallible

starting point. Submission to God only occurs when men believe, submit to and

obey God’s Word. Submission to the truth of God is submission to God.

C. The non-Christian’s philosophy or world view, is based upon his allegiance to

independence.

1. Man’s commitment to independence from God rules out the possibility of

acquiring true knowledge. By seeking to live and think independently of God,

man has left the only source of certainty. The natural man wears a mask of total

certainty, but at the same time he is uncertain because he has abandoned the

source of true knowledge. (The cost of rendering God irrelevant is incalculable.

It thrusts man upon a shore-less sea of epistemological despair.)

2. In so doing, he opposes himself – he is left with only finite speculation and

probability.[xi][11] He is stuck with a world ruled by chance and contingency. A

universe based upon chance has no basis for meaning and rationality, thus no

certainty. The commitment to independence brings man to futility and

hopelessness.

3. The God of Scripture is ultimate reality and absolute truth. The choice to live

independently of Him is incalculably expensive. Non-Christian philosophy

based upon allegiance to independence claims to know truth, but offers nothing

but ruin and eternal death.

4. In their determination to be independent of God, unbelievers reject the claims of

Christ. The Apostle Paul refers to every man-generated philosophy as “empty

deception” (Col. 2:8).

 D. Scripture exposes the lie of independence.

1.  Romans 1:18-23 reveals that the opposite of truth is not ignorance, but

rebellion, folly, foolishness and preference for the lie. The Bible states that the

whole knowledge endeavor is a moral issue. God gives meaning to the facts of

His creation. The sinful mind rejects God’s authoritative interpretation of the

facts. (To assign a fact a different meaning than God does is sin. Sinners

readily redefine knowledge that God has already defined, eg.: death, galaxies,

morals, etc.)

2. The lie began when the human race fell away from God. When our first parents

sinned, they believed the lie that man can successfully be his own ultimate

reference point. The lie offered “freedom” – man could do whatever he deemed

right in his own eyes and succeed. Man could be the measure of all things and

the master of his own destiny without his world falling apart. The lie also

involved a philosophical commitment that pictured man as able to give facts

their original definition.

3. Reception of the lie corrupted man’s reason. The unbeliever by God’s common

grace is able to use his created abilities to make worthwhile contributions to

culture, research, education, the arts etc. But, his sinful mind rejects God’s

authoritative revelation. His radical sin bias (known as depravity) issues forth

in a comprehensive and antagonistic perversion of God’s general revelation

(God’s witness in the created universe). As long as the lie is in place, a man is

kept from knowing the true and living God.

4. Fallen man uses his intellect to judge God’s revelation as false. The sinner uses

the autonomy lie to set himself up as judge over what presents itself as divine

revelation. Fallen man does not wish to think about the source of his existence

(namely that he is upheld every moment by the thought and power of God). By

means of the lie, man seeks to produce an “intellectual” buffer between himself

and God. (Through the philosophy the lie provides, man seeks to distance

himself from accountability to God – he wants estrangement from his Creator

who makes claims upon him.)

5. “[A]ll humans are born under the dominion of sin, with an overwhelming

inclination to measure life in the scales provided by Satan. The basic measure of

Satan’s scales is the false gospel, ‘you can do what is right in your own eyes, and

you will not be judged with death; you will succeed in life’” (Grover Gunn on

Genesis 3).

6. Fallen man distorts the truth to fit his desires. He does not conform his desires to

the truth. Fallen men adopt a belief system that permits sinful expression. This

could be referred to as “L.C.D. religion.” (LCD because the lowest common

denominator in this “equation” is a man’s lusts, desires and passions – these

determine what he will believe – he gravitates to a belief system that allows him

to keep his sin.)

In other words, the unbeliever selects a belief system that does not demand

repentance from sin. By contrast, the Word of God declares that true repentance

(which God requires of man) involves forsaking the sins which are antagonistic to

the truth of God.

7. (Only by the miracle of the new birth is a man enabled to repent – only then does

he possess the inclination to do God’s will and forsake evil.) The sinful

suppression of truth only ends when a man repents from self as the ultimate

reference point. Os Guinness notes that impenitence is characterized by distorting

the truth so that it is conformed to one’s desires. By contrast, true repentance

submits to the truth of God and, in ongoing repentance, one’s desires are

continually conformed to God’s truth.[xii][12]

E. The lie is filled with internal inconsistencies.

1. The lie assumes that this space, mass, time continuum known as the universe is

self-sustaining. But the naturalistic world view cannot account for morals, the

laws of logic, the conditions of knowledge and uniformity in nature. (i.e., a

universe founded upon chaos offers no accounting for the above.)

2. Suppression by choice is unsuccessful. The natural man knows that punishment

awaits him for his sin, yet he pretends that he can’t find God for lack of data.

Greg Bahnsen offers the following insight from Scripture, “Being ‘without God in

the world,’ the natural man yet knows God, and, in spite of himself, to some extent

recognizes God. By virtue of their creation in God’s image, by virtue of the

ineradicable sense of deity within them and by virtue of God’s restraining general

grace, those who hate God, yet in a restricted sense know God, and do good.”

(One cannot disassociate who God is from what He has commanded and

commended as His system of truth and ethics.)

3. For fallen man, corrupted reason is never the tool of divine revelation. For the

unbeliever, reason is either slain on the altar of chance or reason is worshipped as

the final authority. (The unbeliever’s god is not rational, realistic or reasonable.)

The unbeliever claims that he lacks reliable proof that the God of the Bible exists.

BUT when asked to supply the categories of “proof” he would designate as

admissible, he is unable to describe those categories (See Proverbs 28:26).

4. A chance universe is the enemy of rationality. To say that rationality is based upon

irrationality is to “kill” facts as they are gathered. (Facts are “killed” because it

becomes impossible to give them meaning with any certainty.)

V. Suppressing the truth of God results in dire consequences.

A. There is nothing more destructive to the dignity and integrity of man than to know

the truth of God and to suppress it. The Apostle Paul pulls back the curtain and

shows us the moral turpitude ensues when it is no longer held back by the dam of

truth. (With the theological basis for morality set aside, nothing remains to keep the

floodgates of immorality closed.)

B. It is not enough to know that men suppress the truth of God. We must know the evil

consequences of suppression. This is not just an intellectual rejection of God’s truth.

What is involved is nothing less than the rebellion of the whole man.[xiii][13] (Mind,

emotion and will are all united in the refusal to give God the glory He is due. Men

refused to honor Him or give thanks.)

C. The dire consequences of man’s suppression are catalogued in Romans chapter one:

1. INTELLECTUAL FUTILITY – All thinking that sets aside the claims of God

always ends in futility. (They make nonsense out of logic.)

2. SPIRITUAL DARKNESS – When the Creator-creature distinction is denied, the

mind is flooded with soul-damning myths. (The areas of life dominated by the

myth run the gamut, the range of subjects is endless: origin, destiny, purpose,

knowledge, ownership, being, death, reason, morality, hope, reality etc.) 

3. INCREDIBLE FOLLY AND STUPIDITY – The more man claimed to be eminent

in philosophy, the more foolish he became. Nothing less than vanity can be

expected when men exchange the truth of God for a lie.

4. FALSE RELIGION – False religion is evidenced in the proliferation of idolatry in

all its forms and manifestations. Men worshipped and served the creature and the

creation. This universal idolatry includes egocentrism, humanism, hedonism,

skepticism, materialism, intellectualism, and vain philosophy.

5. GROSS IMMORALITY – The unbridled expression of lust is one of the degrading

effects of man’s mutiny against God. Immorality is the rebellion of mind, spirit,

and body. The lust of the flesh replaces the love of the creature for the Creator.

6. SOCIAL DEPRAVITY – Suppression of God’s truth is highly destructive to social

standards and structures. Social depravity disrupts the essential order that is

necessary to maintain the decency and dignity of civilized society.[xiv][14]

Endnotes:

[i][1] James F. Stitzinger, Apologetics and Evangelism, (The Master’s Seminary, Sun Valley, CA, 1999).

[ii][2] Grover Gunn, A Comparison of Apologetic Methods,(http://capo.org/cpc/apolo22.htm), pp. 3, 4.

[iii][3] Ibid., pp. 5-7.

[iv][4] Ibid., p. 13.

[v][5] Ibid., p. 14.

[vi][6] Ibid., p. 15.

[vii][7] Philip Edgcumbe Hughes, “Crucial Biblical Passages for Christian Apologetics” Jerusalem and Athens,

E. R. Geehan, Ed. (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 1971), pp. 134-136. 

[viii][8] Greg L. Bahnsen, Always Ready, (Atlanta: American Vision, 1996), p. 42.

[ix][9] Philip Edgcumbe Hughes, Jerusalem and Athens, p. 136.

[x][10] James F. Stitzinger, Apologetics and Evangelism.

[xi][11]Greg L. Bahnsen, Always Ready, p. 105.

[xii][12] Os Guinness, Time for Truth, from Christian Book Summaries, vol. 1 no. 15 (Apr. 2000), pp. 6, 7.

[xiii][13] Hughes, Biblical Passages, p. 136.

[xiv][14] Ibid., p. 137.

Dialogue on Pseudo-Science versus Empirical Science

The following is a letter received by Frontline Ministries containing several questions regarding Jay Wegter’s essay, “Paganism tries to make ‘Pseudo-Science’ its Universal Truth.” Jay’s response follows. This is an example of how the presuppositional method of apologetics can be used. It is offered here for whatever benefit you, the reader, may find. – Frontline Ministries Dear Frontline Ministries, My comments and questions refer to the essay by Jay Wegter entitled “Paganism tries to make ‘Pseudo-Science’ its Universal Truth.” The essay, as I study science, was certainly thought provoking. The assumptions you state are mostly true and have to be assumed otherwise you end up being Descarte with nothing but yourself, which is as you can see not helpful or useful at all. My first point is that science works, as you can see all around you and in front of you right now, so maybe these assumptions it uses are necessary or at least helpful. You say yourself that "God is transcendent. He is not a part of the universe" so surely in studying the universe, excluding God is not so much an atheist plot but rather a way to simplify things. Secondly, throughout the essay you say that scientists are making a mistake in excluding the supernatural. What parts of science would benefit from the inclusion of the supernatural? (please note this is a sincere question rather than an argumentative challenge) Since the evidence doesn't change but is only added to, what theories would change do you think? gravity, quantum mechanics, evolution? Planets would still orbit the sun, particles will still break through impossible barriers, fossil records will still exist. Thirdly, what action would like to see happen? What should change? Also which supernatural view would you use, Hindu, Buddhist, Christian, etc.? Qualification of this choice would have to be made to every scientist in the world. Otherwise science would suffer the same division as religious practise which would help no one, in fact people would suffer from the lack of cooperation in fields such as medicine. Thanks for you time, hope these questions aren't too unintelligent. Mr. ***** United Kingdom Dear Mr. ***** Thanks for your thoughtful questions; they deserve a reply. As I seek to answer your questions, you’ll find that my response will reiterate two themes: 1.)There is a world of difference between pseudo-science and empirical science. I will continue to draw a line of demarcation between pseudo-science and empirical science. From now on in my reply, pseudo-science will be designated PS, and empirical science will be designated ES. 2.) As a Christian and a student of science, my final authority for interpretation of facts is the infallible Word of God, the Holy Bible. In reply to your first question, “Are not the assumptions science makes useful or helpful?” My answer is absolutely yes. But I would go much further and state unequivocally that “doing science” would be impossible without these assumptions. My article was not intended to undermine the assumptions necessary to practice ES – just the opposite. Good science would be impossible if uniformity in nature did not exist and if chaos reigned in its place or order and predictability. Uniformity in nature is essential if an experiment is to be repeatable. The scientific method would be impossible without uniformity of nature (the longest ongoing experiment in human history with recorded results is farming – approximately 3000 years of accurately kept records). In exposing the false assumptions of PS, it is my intention to ask questions that uncover the initial “faith commitments” of PS. (PS is also known as philosophic naturalism – for the sake of space, I’ll designate it PN.) When one investigates the core assumptions of PS and philosophic naturalism (PN), it becomes clear quite quickly that PS and PN are posing as science, but actually constitute a belief system or philosophy. Consider the pre-commitments of PS and PN: · Matter is eternal. · The universe is ultimate. · Chance is ultimate. · The nature of reality is material. · Science is the only objectivity. · Nature is self-explanatory (no explanation is needed beyond the natural order). · Nature is all there is and all there will ever be. · Facts are not created by an Almighty God (therefore facts do not reveal a Personal Creator). · The world is governed solely by uniformly operating laws. · There is no plan and no determinism outside the universe. · Morality is relative because it is merely the product of social Darwinism. · The mind of man is autonomous. · If there is a God, He can’t be known personally. · If there is a God who has given authoritative divine revelation, it has been falsified by man. Because PN and PS begin all investigation, all fact gathering, and all interpretation of data with the above pre-commitments governing their findings, it totally conditions their conclusions. So badly did evolutionary researchers wish to find a “missing link” that filled in the yawning gaps in the fossil record, they abandoned empirical science when presented with spurious data. What they regarded to be evidence of a 500,000 year old ape man (Piltdown Man), proved to be a fraud. A jawbone and skull fragment had been filed down, and chemically aged to deceive the public (this hoax stood for 40 years until it was exposed in 1953). Nebraska Man was a similar fraud. The single tooth upon which the fictitious Nebraska Man was fabricated proved to be a pig’s tooth, yet the evolutionary “authorities” cited Nebraska Man as “proof” of evolution at the famous Scopes trial. God’s Word utterly refutes each of the bulleted assumptions made by PN and PS listed above. God states in His Word that suppression of His truth and rejection of His answers constitutes moral rebellion. God has given us every reason to believe that His character is trustworthy. It is man’s sinful use of God-given intellect that causes him to expunge the knowledge of God from his mind. God’s ultimate testament to His truthfulness is the sending of His only begotten Son, the Lord Jesus Christ. Scripture says that Christ came to tell us who God is, “No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, ‘He has explained Him” (Jn 1:18). Christ Jesus is God’s authoritative “mouthpiece” who gives absolute answers to every ultimate question. Apart from His authoritative revelation of truth, man can only drift on a shore-less sea of relativity. He can only retreat into speculation which leads to absurdity, pessimism, and futility. The Scriptures make it clear that Christ is the source of certainty in our knowledge of God, the universe, and ourselves. Apart from His infallible Word, man can only speculate regarding the following ultimate questions: Where did man come from? What is the value of a human being? What is the source of man’s dignity? Does man have an eternal soul? Why is mankind here? Why is there evil? What is the origin of evil and suffering? Why is morality universal? Where did the laws of logic come from? What is the meaning of life? Is there life after death? Can God be known? What is the future of the human race? Who put the information in the nucleus of cells? Jesus Christ answers the above questions with absolute authority. In so doing He declares to us the nature of reality. Christ proclaims that God is ultimate reality. Man only can know ultimate, or absolute truth when, “Thinking God’s thoughts after Him.” We do this by reading, believing, and practicing the truth of God’s Word, the Bible. When good science is doing its best work (empirical research and discoveries that accord with the scientific method), then the scientist is literally “thinking God’s thoughts after Him.” It was the famous scientist Johann Kepler that first uttered the above quote! Kepler was one of many Bible-believing scientists whose research paved the way for modern science. Scientists such as Newton, Boyle, Bacon, Faraday, Agassiz, Morse, Pasteur, Sedgwick, Linneaus and von Braun all believed in a personal, almighty, transcendent Creator God who not only designed all life, but also put the laws of nature into operation to conserve what He made from chaos. Because these scientists believed the Bible, they understood that an all-wise God put laws into operation which could be investigated. Thus they had courage to invest in the labor of countless hours of research – knowing that “to think God’s thoughts after Him,” would be to discover the reasonable laws set in motion by a reasonable God. By contrast, PN and PS reject God’s revelation. Instead they are looking solely through the lens of human reason, “[they] suppress the truth [of God] in unrighteousness” (Rom 1:18b). Scripture states that God will judge those who spurn His infallible Word and turn to speculation – “[God’s] eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen [through the creation], being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God, or give thanks; but they became foolish in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened” (Rom 1:20-21). Perhaps the most visible media spokesman for evolution (and PN and PS) at the end of the 20thCentury was Carl Sagan. He was in the habit of saying on T.V. (on every program), “The universe is all there is and all there will ever be” (such a “religious,” non-scientific pre-commitment colored all of his conclusions.) Consider what God’s Word says about persons who turn away from God’s answers concerning worldview. According to the New Testament, Carl willfully suppressed what he knew about the God of the Bible, and instead turned to speculation (see Romans 1:18-23). Romans chapter one says that suppression of the truth of the One true God of the Bible not only exposes a person to the judgment of God, but also leads to foolishness. As an example of the futility in Sagan’s thinking; consider the following. Sagan constantly lobbied for millions of dollars to be spent for SETI (search for extraterrestrial intelligence). Carl was asked, “What would you do if you did make contact with an E.T.?” His reply reveals the foolishness inherent in the suppression of God’s truth. Sagan answered that he would ask the E.T., “Who are we? Where did we come from?” It’s sad but fascinating that Sagan would credit an E.T. with providing answers to ultimate questions with certainty, but would reject the God of the Bible who has already answered the ultimate questions with certainty. Sagan’s push for SETI, and the justification of such a project brings to light the pre-commitments of PS and PN. By proposing that the nature of reality is material, PN collides with what God says in His Word about reality. Philosophic naturalism cannot explain how inanimate matter and random chance molecular collisions can produce personhood. Even by the scientific principles of first cause, and adequate cause, the big bang and the chemist’s elemental table provide a woefully inadequate first cause of human personhood. Francis Crick, one of two evolutionists who discovered DNA, saw that the staggering amount of information in the nucleus of a cell could not be attributed to chance. Crick’s has been quoted as suggesting that the DNA came from an E.T. The bankruptcy of evolution to explain the miracle of human life constantly emerges when ultimate questions are asked. Shifting the source of life to another part of the universe in no way solves the problems inherent in mechanistic evolution. Sagan knew that his naturalism was a poverty stricken system that could only define human life in mechanistic terms. But, if life is nothing more than tiny electrical impulses bridging the synapses of neurons, then what is the point of moral purity? What is the source of human dignity? If evil will never be punished and righteousness never rewarded, then why not live for self? That is precisely the question. History tells us that PN has produced deadly fruit. Stalin, Hitler, and Pol Pot all expressed overflowing gratitude for the theory of Darwinian evolution. Why? Because they recognized that they had a “scientific” (pseudo-science) basis for oppression and the elimination of those “unfit” to live in their societies. Humanism is the bedfellow of naturalism. Humanism has declared itself to be a religion. Humanism rests upon the pillars of philosophic naturalism, geological Uniformitarianism, and Darwinian evolution. That is why this author refers to the above as pseudo-science – it is a religious philosophy masquerading as science. Your second question, Isn’t excluding God when studying the universe a way of simplifying things? I appreciate your tact here. But the prevailing view that has captured the sciences since the end of the 19th Century would be the presuppositions of the Enlightenment thinkers. These men wanted to free academia from the constraints of religion. Their tool of choice to separate religion from academia was philosophic naturalism (see the bulleted assumptions for insights into their worldview). Therefore my question is, “Whose presuppositions will one use when studying the universe?” If it is Sagan’s presuppositions, then the conclusions of one’s research will always exhibit naturalistic pre-commitments. The facts won’t be God’s facts. They will be man’s facts – interpreted in such a way that the conclusions circulate back to the pre-commitments and pose as scientific conclusions (i.e. a particular fossil is 30 million years old, why? because the rock is 30 million years old, why? because we know that the theory of evolution must be true , why? because the only alternative is a personal, almighty Creator, and we already ruled Him out when we made our pre-commitments -- again, speculation and futility). Because of Sagan’s core assumptions, he expected to find E.T.’s. He assumed that the almighty Creator God of the Bible was a myth. He was a “consistent” philosophic naturalist. His pre-commitments totally governed how he gathered data, and how he interpreted data. It is naïve to assume that the realm of evolutionary science is a “philosophy-free” zone. To my list of Bible-believing scientists, I could add 60 more individuals who believed in a personal, almighty transcendent Creator. These men did their research with the glory of God in mind. Scripture states that creation is constantly declaring the glory of God (Ps 19:1-6). If one starts with naturalistic core assumptions when doing scientific research, it will radically color every conclusion. Naturalism is a philosophy which makes God superfluous, and man supreme. My question is, “Is it possible to consistently do good science without presupposing the God of the Bible?” I believe that the answer is “no.” For when God is abandoned, one is left with a worldview that is innately self-contradictory and self destructive – namely a universe that has uniformity in nature, but is based upon chance. The second law of thermodynamics refutes the idea that order can come from chance. God is the all-wise and all-powerful Designer and Fashioner of all life. Therefore, how can it be considered good science when the nearly infinite diversity of life on this planet is attributed not to the God of the Bible, but to the false gods of time, chance, and mutation? Evolution has never been witnessed. Scientists are hard-pressed to cite even one clear example of a favorable mutation. What parts of science would benefit from the inclusion of the supernatural? Evolutionists twist the definition of death, making it a cause of increasing complexity of life. Death, they say, drives natural selection. But empirical science tells us that natural selection (at best) can keep a gene pool strong; it cannot make anything new and more complex. God says that death has a moral cause. Man broke faith with God and death is the moral consequence. Without God’s definition of death, mankind cannot see the reason for God’s plan of salvation, forgiveness, and eternal life in Christ. PN and PS assume that death, decay, disease, and suffering are normal and have always been here; Jesus Christ through the Apostle Paul says the opposite. “Through one man sin came into the world, and death as the consequence of sin, and death spread to all men because all sinned” (Rom 5:12). Evolutionists appeal to the fossil record for evidence for the origin of life. The fossil record is the story of death by a global catastrophe. The fossil record is made up of billions of dead things preserved in water born sedimentary strata all over the earth. This doesn’t point to the present processes rainfall and erosion occurring today. The conditions necessary to form these fossils are not occurring today. The Word of God tells us that God judged the early earth because of man’s sin. The order in nature was temporarily destroyed by a water-born catastrophe of global proportions. If God’s Word is true, what kinds of evidence would we expect to find in the earth’s strata? Certainly there would be a testament to death by burial in water-born sediments. This is precisely what is seen in the fossil record. Consider also that the fossil record has systematic gaps between the kinds of animals. (gaps which are totally consistent with the science of taxonomy). If evolution were true, we wouldn’t see gaps between the kinds; we would see countless transitional forms between the kinds. We would have museums full of fossils that demonstrated one animal becoming another. The transitional forms are absent. The data in the fossil record points to the biblical fact that animals were formed by God complete, “[created] after their kind” (Gen 1:21). The fossil record is made up of billions of dead things preserved in water born sedimentary strata all over the earth. This doesn’t point to the present processes rainfall and erosion occurring today. The conditions necessary to form these fossils are not occurring today. In the fossil record, we see mass kills of animals buried before decay could dissolve their bodies (the Grand Canyon has a mass kill layer of Nautiloids that extends over one hundred miles – no present process could produce such an huge fossil bed). The earth’s crust reveals immense geological structures that could not be formed by today’s processes (the Sauk sandstone sequence is a continuous stratum of sandstone that extends from Nova Scotia to the Western North America. No process exists today which could generate a sedimentary layer like the Sauk. It is a sedimentary layer that was produced by a deluge.) The Word of God makes an indissoluble link between origin and destiny. Humans came from the hand of God and they must appear before God who is the Judge of all the earth. PN and PS are totally opposed to the entire concept of dealing with a God who judges and who is executing His perfect plan as moral Governor of the universe. In order to escape their moral accountability to their Creator, proponents of PN and PS postulate a universe that created itself and maintains itself. God regards this to be intellectual rebellion. The Bible is plain in its statements about the entrance of sin. When sin entered the human race, intellectual rebellion was its key manifestation that opened the door to all forms of immorality (see Romans chapters 1-3). What action would you like to see happen? As you probably have concluded, our website is our attempt by God’s help to be part of the solution. We firmly believe that history gives ample evidence that lies about origins lead to immorality and social decay. The reason is obvious – when the universe is made its own cause, then man is not accountable to a holy and righteous Creator who is both Savior and Judge. According to the Scriptures, man will not use his mind to love God and His truth UNTIL that person’s sins are forgiven. As long as sinful man lives as a “fugitive” under God’s moral government, it is impossible to honor God for His love and goodness – the unforgiven individual will prefer distance from God and he will use his intellectual capacities to attempt to explain away his accountability to God. God’s merciful answer to man’s spiritual dilemma is the Person of Jesus Christ. By His life, substitutionary death for sinners, and His resurrection He has conquered man’s most pernicious enemies. Only the Son of God can get a man past sin, death, hell, the world, the flesh, and the devil. Only the power of the Son of God can save man from himself and from the wrath of God. Those who have not repented of sin and who have not placed their faith in Christ as Lord and Savior will continue to use their God-given faculties of mind to distort and suppress the truth of God (see Romans chapter one). What I would like to see happen is that the message of Jesus Christ as Creator, Lawgiver, Savior, Lord, and Judge be preached again as it was 200 years ago when men began their research with a fear and reverence for God as He is revealed in His Word. I hope that these answers are a cause for deep reflection and that these answers will again lead you to read the living Word of God, the Bible that you might “taste and see that the Lord is good” (Psalm 34:8). Consider also these excellent websites on the subject of science and origins: www.icr.org www.answersingenesis.org www.creationresearch.net In His Grace, Jay Wegter