Scientists Shake Their Fists at God
Some scientists want to dictate commandments back to their Maker.
“Thou shalt not tell us how to behave any more” shouts a headline on New Scientist toward God. Of course, to the secular evolutionary atheists at science news sites, all gods are created equal. They are endowed by their human creators with certain unsavory mights, among them strife, arbitrariness and the pursuit of punishment.
We already know that humans don’t need religion to be moral. Now it turns out that religious moralising is an evolutionary response to societal upheavals 2500 years ago.
Religion won’t disappear. But the research suggests the great moralising religions are doomed to ebb away, as they already are in the more affluent parts of the world. Some people worry that without moral guidance, anarchy will ensue. They need not worry: we will do good without it.
The boastful statement begs many questions. What is moral? On what basis do they understand the origin of morality? On what basis can they predict the future behavior of humans? Evolutionists didn’t do too well predicting morality in Darwin’s century, with its two world wars and atheist-inspired democides of 148 million people (11/30/05). According to CMI, Stalin credited Darwin with his hefty share in these crimes against humanity:
Reading Darwin had an enormous impact on me. It corroborated my defiance of God and inspired me to systematically break all the Ten Commandments, which I now realized were only chains. Though I had stolen and lied before, I now stole and lied with a higher purpose—freedom of self. And the effects on my political philosophy were equally lasting. Historians of the future may even conclude that Darwinism + Leninism = Stalinism.
Before they get too cocky, the editors at New Scientist should consider the influence of religion on their own theory. Dr. Aldemaro Romero questions the reductionism of the “Modern Synthesis” (neo-Darwinism). On PhysOrg, he cautions fellow evolutionists, who follow a limited focus on natural selection, that they echo the predestination of some religions. He warns, “if they do not understand the historical roots and the philosophical framework of their research, they are doomed at presenting only a very partial (and many times biased) view of nature.” The headline is even broader: “Influence of religion and predestination on evolution and scientific thinking.”
There’s nothing new under the sun. The New Scientist attitude is the same old grumbling of the mixed multitude described in the Pentateuch. Though they had witnessed all of God’s powerful wonders to rescue them and meet their needs, they refused to obey Him, and would not have his chosen leader Moses to tell them what to do. Don’t you think Korah, Dathan and Abiram promoted themselves as the academic intelligentsia of their day? Don’t you think they fancied themselves as the superior thinkers? Don’t you imagine they presented their offerings as more respectable than those demanded by the revealed Law? The doom of today’s boasters will be no less swift and final.