Is the Word Running Down

8/6/2019 Is the Word Running Down

1/376

IS THE WORLDRUNNING DOWN?


2/376

Other books by Gary North

Marx5 Religion of Revolution, 1968 An Introduction to Christian Economics, 1973Unconditional Sur rena !q 1981

Successf idInvesting in an Age of En vy, 1981T he Dominion Covenan t: Genesis, 1982Govern rn .mt B y Emergeruy, 1983Th e Last Train Out , 1983

Backw ard, Christian S oldiers?, 198475 B ible Questions lbur Instructors Pray &u Wont Ask, 1984Coined Freedom: Gold in the Age of the Bureaucrats, 1984

Moses and Pharaoh: Dominion Religion V2ZSUSPower Religion, 1985

Negatrends, 1985Conspiracy: A Biblical View, 1986U n h o @Spirits: Occultism and New Age Humanism, 1986

Honest Moruy, 1986 Fighting Chance, 1986 [with Arthur Robinson]

Dom inion and Common Grace, 1987 Inherit the Earth, 1987 The Pirate Economy, 1987

Liberating Planet Earth , 1987 Healer of the Nations, 1987 T he S courge: AIDS and the Com ing Bankrupt~, 1988Tools of Dominion, 1988

Books edited by Gary North

Foundations of Christian Scholarsh$,1976 Tatics of Ch ristian R esistance, 1983T he T heology of Ch ristian Resistame,1983Editor, Journal of Christian Reconstruction (1974-1981)


3/376

IS THE WORLD

RUNNING DOWN?

Crisis in t heChristian Worldview

G a r y N or t h

Ins t i tu t e fo r Chr i s t i an EconomicsTyler, Texas


4/376

Copyright 0 1 9 8 8by Gary North

All r igh ts reserved. Writ ten p erm iss ion m u st be s ecu red fromth e pu blish er to us e or reprodu ce any par t of th is b ook,

except for b rief qu otat ions in critical reviews or a rticles.

Pu blish ed in Tyler, Texasby In st i tu te for Ch rist ian Economics

Distr ibu ted b y Dominion Press711 2 Bur n s Str eet, Fort Worth, Texas 7611 8

Typesett in g by Th obu rn Press , Tyler, Texas

Printed in the United States of America

ISBN 0-930464-13-3


5/376

Th is b ook is ded icated toArthur Robinson

who pu sh ed m e in to an in tellectu al corner,thereby decreasing my intellectual entropy.


6/376

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ixIn trodu ction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 1

1. Th e Unn at u ra ln ess of Scien tific Nat u ra l Law . . . . . . . . . 1 32. The Pessimism of the Scientists. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 403. Entropy an d Social Theory. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 674. Th e En tropy Deba te with in Hu m an ist ic Science . . . . . . . 9 15 . Chr istian ity vs. Social En tr opy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 46. Th e Qu es tion of Ethics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 1177. Mysticism vs. Ch rist ian ity.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 3 18. Dom in ion a n d S an ctificat ion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..1 4 59. Resu rrection a n d Recon str u ction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163

Con clu sion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 175APPENDIXA The Disastrous Quest for

Scien tific Comm on Grou n d . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 187APPENDIX BThe End of I l lusions:

Creationismin the Pu bl ic s ch oo ls. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 0 6APPENDIXC Comprehensive Redemption:

A Th eology for S ocial Act ion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .219APPENDIX DAre Postmillennialists

Accom plices of th e New Age Movem en t? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 7APPENDIX E Th e Divis ion with in Disp en s at ion a lism . . . . . .281APPENDIX F Time for a Change:

Rifkins New, Improved Worldview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 3 0 5SCRIPTURE INDEX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 325GENERAL INDEX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2 9

vii


7/376

PREFACE

Bu t if t here be no resurrection of the dead , then is Christ not risen: and if Christ be not risen , th en i s our p reachin g va in , and your faith is also vain .

Yea, an d we are found false wi t rmsesof Go~ because we have ta t i f iedof God th at he raised up Cht i s t :whom he ratied not u p, fso be that th dead t ie not. For # th dead n-senot, t k t i not Chrkt raised: and Zf Chris tbenot raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins (1 COK 15:13-17).

Th is book ask s a n d th en a ttemp ts to an swer one qu estion: Wh ichis m ore im porta n t , Ada m s Fa ll or th e bodily resu rrect ion of J esu sChris t? I t seems l ike such a s imple quest ion for a Chris t ian to

an swer. Th e an swer seem s so eas y. Obvious ly, th e resu rrec t ion i smore important, now and in eternity. If there had been no resurrec-tion of Christ, our faith would be vain. But this answer immediatelyra ises a secon d qu es t ion: Which i s more impor tan t , the qfects of Chr is t s resu rrect ion in h is tory or th e @ects of Ada m s Fa ll (God scu rs e of th e grou n d) in h ist ory? My an swer to th is corollar y ques tioni s going to make a lot of very dedicated Chris t ians unhappy. Ian swer th at t h e effects of Chr is t s res u rrect ion ar e more im porta n t ,

as t ime goes b y, tha n th e effects of Ada m s Fall. Th e im plicat ion s of this statement, if believed and put into daily practice, would revolu-tionize the Christian world. In fact, they would revolutionize the en-tire fa llen world. I will go farther: the implications will revolutionizeth e fallen world. Yet th is is wh a t m ost Ch ristian s ca tegorically den ytoday. Th ey den y it beca u se th ey h ave been ta u gh t , im plicit ly an dexplicitly, t h a t th e effects of Ada m s Fa ll a re overwh elm ingly, in -evita bly m ore powerfu l in h ist ory th an Ch rists res u rrect ion. Th is

book is m y an swer to this den ial .

Scientific Methodology and Eschatology

I wish th is book were not n ecessa ry. It will a liena te s ome verydedicated Chr is t ian s wh o ha ve devoted th eir careers to refu t ing thefundamental world-and-life view of our age: Darwinian evolution.

ix


8/376

x IS THE WORLD RUNNING DOWN?

What I present in this book is a Bible-based case against the prevail-ing apologetic 1 approach of most scientifically trained six-day cre-at ion is t s . Th eir a rgum ents h ave yet to convin ce more th an a fewsporad ic evolu tionists , an d n ot one of th e prominent ones; bu t m oreimportant, this methodology has simultaneously weakened the casefor biblical Chr ist ia n ity, for th ey h a ve relied on a wea k r eed: an a p-peal to the second law of thermodynamics, sometimes referred to intextbooks as the law of entropy.

This is a book on theology, meaning a / @ed th eology, or Practicaltheology. Before we begin, we must ask ourselves: What are the fun-damental doctrines of Christianity? They are these: God the Trinity;

Gods creat ion of th e u n ivers e ou t of n oth in g by the p ower of Hissp oken word in s ix cons ecu tive an d contigu ou s 24 -hou r da ys; Godscreat ion of m an as His im age; Gods covena n t with m an to exercisedominion over the earth as His lawful c o v e n a n t a l represent ative; th etem pta tion of Ada m by Sat an ; the eth ical Fall of Ada m ; Gods s u b-sequ ent cu rs ing of both m an an d th e ear th ; Gods jud gm ent of th eear th by a u n iversa l F lood; the p reservat ion of m an kin d a n d lan dan im als by mea n s of an ar k; Gods s catt erin g of rebellious m an kind

at the Tower of Babel through the confusion of language; Gods cov-e n a n t a l ad option of Isr ael as a n at ion in h is tory; Gods givin g toIsrael His law for the establishment of a covenant law-order; the in-carn at ion of J esu s Ch ris t , born of a virgin ; th e death , bodily resu r-rection, a n d b odily as cens ion of Christ; th e esta blish men t of Christskingdom in heaven (definitively) and on earth (progressively);Ch rists iss u in g of th e great comm iss ion of world d is ciplesh ip; th esen ding of th e Holy Spirit a t Pen tecost ; th e s econ d comin g of Chr ist ;

th e resu rrect ion of a ll people at th e fin a l ju dgm en t; Gods ca st in g of Satan an d h is fo llowers , in c lu d ing resu r rected h u m an c o v e n a n t -brea kers , in to the etern al lak e of fire; an d th e entra n ce of resu rrectedcovena n t-keepers in to th e s in- free , e ternal n ew heavens an d n ewear th . Remove any one of these doctr ines , and you emasculateChrist ian ity. Chris t ian s h ave long debated a bou t th e chron ologicalorder of th e event s a fter Pentecost, b u t to den y an y of th ese doctrinesis t o aba n don Gods Bible-revealed plan for th e ages.

Scientific Creationism has openly emphasized four of these doc-

1. By apologetics, I do not mean saying were sorry. mean apologetic in thesense of the academic discipline of defending the Christian faith philosophically.

2. I u se ca pital letters when referring to scientific creationism becau se it is a sp ecific movement with an identifiable set of presuppositions and methodologies. Thercould be other six-day creationists who are scientific who do not share some of thesepresuppositions.


9/376

Preface xi

trin es: th e six-da y creat ion ou t of n oth in g, Gods cu rs e of th eground, the universal Noach ic Flood, and Christs second coming. It

h as n ot dea lt s ystem atically with Chr is t s bodily resu rrect ion. Thisn eglect of th e doctrine of Chr ist s resu rrection h as serious ly crippledthe Scientific Creation movement.

With ou t Ch rists b odily res u rrection, n o even t th at followed th ecrucif ixion would make sense, a t least unt i l the f inal judgment .With out His r esu rrect ion, th ere wou ld b e no n eed for God to post -pon e th e fin al ju dgmen t, except to in creas e th e nu m ber of people tobe con dem n ed to e terna l torm ent . With out Ch ris t s res u rrect ion,

Pau l s ays , Ch ristian s fa ith is va in (I Cor. 15 :14-17 ). Yet it is th is doc-t r ine, th e touch st one of Chris t ian ity an d th e prim ar y offens e to thefallen world, t h a t Scient ific Creat ion ism relegat es t o secon da ry (orless ) im porta n ce, preferr in g in st ead to em ph as ize th e scient ific im -port a n ce of Gods cu rs e of th e groun d a fter Ada m s r ebellion , whichthey equate with the second law of thermodynamics. Until ScientificCreationists self-consciously begin to r e - e x a m i n eth eir worldview interm s of th e doctr ine of Chr is t s resu rrect ion , its m em bers will be

hampered in their efforts to persuade Christians and non-Christiansconcern in g the imp ortan ce of th e doctr in e of th e s ix-day creat ion . Adoctraneof creation without a doctrine of the resurrection is as erroneous as adoctrine of the resurrection without a doctn-neof creation . The first position th e six-da y creation with out Christs resu rrection leads to P h a r i -sa ism , an d th e second pos it ion Ch r is t s resu rrec t ion with out th esix-day creation leads step by step to neo-evange l ica l i sm, B a r t h i a n -ism, and neo-orthodoxy.

Ignoring th e Chu rch s Fou n da tion of Victory

There is no doubt in my mind that the Scientific Creation move-m ent h as been vita l in cha llengin g the m ajor rel igion of th e m odernage: D a r w i n i s m . Scientific Creationists have been correct in point-in g to th e Bibles a ccoun t of th e Noach ic Flood as th e key even t in th egeological historical record of the earth. They have given Bible-believing Christ ians much-needed confidence in challenging thenu m ber-on e secular hu m an is t m yth of our d ay. Cer ta in ly m y ownth ough t h as been s h ap ed by Scient ific Creat ionism s conclus ions r e-garding the inapplicability of Darwins hypothesis to the earths geo-logical record. I read and generally accepted T he Genesis Flood in1963. I even used the libraries of Christian Heritage College and theCreation Research Society to gather information that I used in writ -


10/376

xii IS THE WORLD RUNNING DOWN?

in g th is b ook. Bu t I h ave ab an don ed th e most sh ak y pi llar of th eirdefense: their misuse of the entropy doctrine. That pillar has alwaysrested on a foundat ion of humanist sand.

Strengthening theC m e

What I want to do in this book is strengthen the case for six-daycrest ionism . I h ave becom e convin ced th at th e Scient ific Creat ion -ists h ave been mu ch too soft a n d a cademically gracious in th eir d eal-in gs with God-ha t in g Dar win ian scien t is ts . Th ese defend ers of th efaith h ave not gone for the jugular of their opponents, for they haveaccep ted t oo m an y of th eir oppon en ts illegitima te groun d ru les inthe debate . 3 Scientific Creationists have offered their intellectual op-ponents far too much ammunit ion. Scient i f ic Creat ionis ts haveallowed th e Darwin ists to esta blish th e m eth odological sta rting poin tin th e debate over th e origin s of th e u niverse an d m an : the autonom ousm ind of man. Th e problem with th is s t r ategy is th at if you ackn owl-edge the legit im acy of you r opp onen ts pres u pp osit ion ab out m an sautonomy, the best you can hope to achieve is to convince him thath is sta rting poin t does n ot lead to th e conclus ions he h as proclaimed.Bu t you c~nnot rationally go from his erroneous presupposition to acorrect conclu sion ; a p erson s s tar t in g poin t determ in es h is conclu-sions. You cannot show him what is correct; you can only sh ow h imtha t what h e has conclu ded cann ot be t rue. You can at best demon-st rat e to h im (or the a u dien ce) th at h e doesn t h ave a leg to sta n d on;bu t ou r goal sh ould be t o provide h im with a pa ir of working legs,n ot sim ply to expose h is a rtificia l legs in pu blic deb at e.

This insight regarding the proper starting point in all debate has

been a rgu ed forcefu lly by Corn eliu s Van Til, an d th e u n willin gnes sof th e Creation Science movement to un dersta n d h is poin t an d a dopthis apologet ic method has cr ippled their efforts as surely as theirdebate points have crippled their Darwinist opponents. The problemis, the Darwinists are perfectly willing to continue to hobble along ontheir art if icial legs, pretending that they are Olympic sprinters,rather than to go to the Bible for their source of scientific knowledge.Once you accept th e prem ise of th e au tonom y of m an s m in d to s it in

j u d ~ e n t on ~h e t r & h s God has r e v e a l e d : you are forever con-demned to hobble on artificial legs legs that are themselves the giftof God in His common grace .AAs a result, Scientific Creationists are

3. See Appendix A: The Disastrous Quest for Scientific Common Ground.4. Gar y North , Dominion and Common Grate :The Biblical Basis of Progress (Tyler,

Texas: Institute for Christian Economics, 1987).


11/376

Pre&e. . .

Xlll

lim it in g them selves t o hobb lin g wh en th ey cou ld s pr int ; th ey u seonly h u m a n ism s a rtificial legs, for th e sa ke of ar gum en t Van Til

writes:

A deduct ive argument as such leadsonly from one sp ot in the u n iverseto anoth er spot in th e un iverse. So also an in du ct ive argum ent as su ch cannever lead beyond the u niverse. In eith er case th ere is n o more th an an inf i-nite regression. In both cases it is possible for the smart little girl to ask, If God made the universe, who made God? and no answer is forthcoming.Th is an swer is, for in sta n ce, a favorite reply of th e ath eist deba ter, Clar enceDarrow. But if it be s aid to su ch oppon ents of Chris t ian ity that , u nless th erewere an a bsolu te God their own qu est ions a n d dou bts would have n o mean -ing at all , there is no argument in return. There l ies the issue. It is the firmconviction of every epistemologically self-conscious Christian that nohuman being can utter a single syllable, whether in negation or in ffirmat-ion , u n les s it were for Gods exist ence. 5

Half a dozen of the most forensically skilled of the ScientificCreationists have been tactically successful in many brief publicdeba tes with Darwin ist s, bu t only becau se of th e weak s cien tific casefor D a r w i n i s m an d th e weak d ebat ers wh o ha ve foolish ly agreed tosh ow u p. Th ey h ave been pu blic am pu ta t ion sess ions , n ot conver-sion sessions. These one-night successes have strengthened the self--confiden ce of Bible-believin g Ch ristian s, a n d th ey h a ve recru ited afew science students and even fewer faculty members; nevertheless,Scient if ic Creat ionists and their associates have not yet begun tooffer a systematic, comprehensive alternative worldview to the domi-nant Darwinian paradigm. They have failed to recognize clearlytha t t he hea r t of Da rwin ism s h old on th e th in king of th e modernworld is n ot th e evolu tion ist s scientific cas e, which h as beenrem ar ka bly weak from th e begin n in g, bu t ra th er th e very worldviewof Darwinism, for i t conforms to the primary long-term goal of au-t on o m ou s m a n : to escapefiom Go#s judgments, historical andjrzal .

By narrowing the focus of their chosen intellectual battleground,Scient ific Creat ion ists h ave n ot yet s u ccess fu lly at t acked th e s oftu n derbel ly of D a r w i n i s m :historical dzspair.Scien tific Crea tion is ts , by

proclaiming the sovereignty of the entropy process, have also im-m ers ed t h eir own worldview in h is torical des pa ir. They can offerD a r w i n i s t s and their fol lowers only an escape from history: Jesus

5. Cornelius Van Til, A S u r v g of Christiun E @tem ology, Vol. 2 of In Dejense of Biblical Chri r t ian i~(Phill ipsburg, New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed Pub.Co., [1932] 1969), p. 11.


12/376

xiv IS THE WORLD RUNNING DOWN?

secon d com in g. Hist orical esca pe is exact ly wh at New Age myst icsoffer th em, bu t with out a sk ing them to give u p th e fu n dam enta l

pr in ciple of th eir Da rwinian religion : a n es cap e from Gods ju dg-m ent s. Which , if eith er, of th ese es cap ist religiou s a pp eals s h ould weexpect to win th e h earts of Darwin ian h u m an ists , New Age mysti-cism or Scientif ic Creationism? The answer is obvious. The NewAge myst ics a l low secular humanis ts to re ta in the hear t of theirDarwin ian re ligion: hu m an au tonomy.

An Alternative to Historical Despair

Christians need a better alternative than historical despair, bothfor th em s elves a n d for th eir p res en ta tion of Ch rists gosp el of re-demption. We are at war with post-Darwinian evolutionism, and thiswar encompasses every area of l ife. Very few Christians recognizeth e com preh ens ive , lite ra lly life -an d-death na tu re of th is war, in -clu ding mem bers of th e Scient ific Creat ion m ovem ent . Mar x u n der-stood it , Lenin u n ders tood i t , bu t Chr is t ian s d ont . Occas iona l tac-tical victories du ring well-orga n ized evening deb a tes a re mot iva t ion -al ly encou ragin g to those Chr is t ian s wh o ha ppen to at ten d or lis t ento th e tap es, bu t th ese ta ct ical victories a re n ot decisive to the ou t-come of th e war. The D a r w i n i s t s are still winning the visible war.Not a s ingle libera l ar ts college or u n iversi ty ha s been cap tu red forsix-da y crea tion ism . (Ch ristian Heritage College began with six-da ycreat ion ism ; it was n ot captu red for it . ) Th ere ha s n ot even b een aclose call . Not a single Christian denomination or association hasad opted th e doctr in e of th e s ix-day creat ion as a s creening doctr inefor th e ordin at ion of its pa stors an d dea con s, let a lone th e facu ltymembers at their underfunded, s t ruggling col leges.

This indicates that the vast majority of Christians still do not be-lieve that the doctrine of the six-day creation is relevant for Christiansp iritu a l life. Th ere is a r eas on for th is: Scientific Creat ionist s h a vewritten virtually nothing on how and why the doctrine of the six-daycrea t ion mu s t r e shap e a ll of m odern Ch ris t ian th eology an d th e en-t ire Ch rist ian way of life. Ch rist ian s h ave not been sh own clear lyan d decisively th at D a r w i n i s m is a to ta l worldview, an d tha t by ac-cepting any aspect of this worldview, Chris t ians compromise andweaken th e presen ta t ion of th e Chris t ian worldview, as well as r isk disobeying God. They have not been shown how evolutionismspreads like cancer from the geology or biology textbook to everyarea of personal ethics and public policy. Worse, they have not been


13/376

Prejhce xv

sh own why an d h ow s ix-day crea t ion ism leads to a fu nd am enta llyu n ique wor ldview th a t en com pas ses th ings o ther th an academ ic

topics like historical geology and biology.G To win th e ba tt le withDarwinism, which is above all a comprehensive worldview justifyingcomprehensive power,six-day creation ists mu st believe th at th e sta kesare far larger than mere laboratory experiments or one-eveningdebates. Creation scientists must demonstrate to Christians that six-da y creationism rea lly ma kes a differen ce in every ar ea of life.

On ly a h an dfu l of Ch rist ian s ar e ever willin g to sa crifice th eirrepu ta t ion s an d p resent as socia t ion s for th e sa ke of som e rar i fied

th eological doctrine. Th e Scien tific Creat ion m ovem en t h as n ot yetpersuaded Chr is t ians tha t i t s doct r ina l pos i t ion i s anything moreth a n a ra rified t h eological opinion d eveloped by ivory tower sp ecia l-ists in th e na tu ral sciences. Th e on ly people wh o seem to un dersta ndh ow m u ch of a t h reat th e six-day creation doctrin e is to all of m odernsecular humanism are the best- informed secular humanists on ones ide an d th e Ch r is t ian Reconst ru c t ionis ts on th e oth er. Th e secularh u m an ists reject the conclu sion s of th e Scient ific Creat ionists , a n d

argue that the creationists official methodology (the appeal to scien-t ific n eu tra lity) is a cha ra de, while th e Chr is t ian Recons tru ct ionistsaccept t h e creat ion is ts con clu sion s bu t r e ject th eir m ethodology asself-deception rather than a charade.

Sau l ? Armor

Th e Scien tific Creation is ts cas e agains t Dar win ism h as beenn arrowly focu sed a nd h igh ly techn ical rath er tha n a n o-holds -barred

at ta ck: th eology, p h ilosoph y, eth ics, ps ych ology, econom ics, law,an d h ist ory. Th ere is n o single volu m e th at h as come ou t of Scien tificCreat ionism tha t summarizes the na ture of the war be tween cre-a t ionism and evolut ionism in the main areas of modern thought .Th ere is n ot even a pa th -break in g sch olar ly m onograp h in a n y oneof th ese ou ts ide fields . Th is is n ot becau se th ere are n ot in tellectu allycompetent people within the Creation Science movement. I t isbecau se of th e self-im posed m eth odological arm or th at Scien tific

6. If six-day creationism couldbe used to locate oil and mineral deposits less ex-pensively than the methodology of evolutionism does, we would begin to see theabandonment of evolutionism, and also see last ditch efforts of university evolutioniststo explain the creationists success in terms of some other evolutionist theory. What weneed is for evolutionism to start drilling more dry holes than we do. If nothing else, wecould at least afford to fund a lot more creationist research projects.


14/376

xvi IS THE WORLD RUNNING DOWN?

Creat ion ists h ave don n ed. Th ey h ave worn Sau ls a rm or in to bat t leagainst Goliath, and it does not fit. It hampers an effective attack on

th e weak p oin ts in th e enem ys defen ses .I think there are two glar ing weaknesses in Creat ion Science:1) relian ce on th e tra ditiona l apologetic m eth od of emp iricism ra th erth an on Corn eliu s Van Tils biblical pres u ppos it iona lism ; 2) an ex-cessive reliance on the Fall of Adam and the resultant curses of Godrather than on the resurrection of Christ and the resultant blessingsof God. Th is s econd err or is reflected in Crea tion Scien ces h eavyrelian ce on th e secon d law of th ermodyn am ics a s t he b as is of its case

for creationism.Wh at I argue in th is b ook is th at a ny ap peal to th e secon d law of thermodynamics must remain a t b ed essentially a negative critique of one t echn ical as pect of Dar win ian evolu tion . It involves ta king aprin ciple of hu ma n istic physics nineteenth -centu ry ph ysics at tha t an d a rgu in g tha t evolu tionists h ave disregarded th e im portan ce of this principle. Christians have told the evolutionists that humanisticscience has been inconsistent in not acknowledging the overwhelm-

ing importance of the second law. Darwinian scientists have univer-sa lly dism iss ed th is ch allenge as ill-con ceived, erron eous , n aive, an din con sis ten t with wha t s cience real~ teaches. (See Appendix A.)Because Darwinian evolutionists control virtually a ll the classroomsof the world, and not just the natural science classrooms, they havetaken the position that they can safely ignore technical criticisms of th eir pos it ion, s in ce the a verage stu den t or voter will n ot gra sp th eim porta n ce of techn ical cr it ic ism s. Th ey correct ly u n ders tan d th at

wheth er som e techn ical accu sa tion is a ccur ate or n ot is p olitically ir-relevan t . Th e h eart an d s oul of m odern Darwin ism is n ot scient ific;it is political. Humanisms religion is above all a political religion,for they believe in social salvation by legis la t ion.7

In an y cas e, th is t act ic of ap peal in g to the s econ d law of th er-modynamics is at best negat ive: showing an inconsistency in theother m an s p osit ion. It h as also creat ed a kind of bl in dn ess on th epa rt of th e Creat ion Scien ce movem ent . Creat ion Scien ce ha s b eenneedlessly yet so visibly dependent on this appeal to the second lawth at its leaders h ave n eglected to discu ss what sh ould be an obviouspoin t : the res u rrect ion of Chr is t h as in p rinciple al tered redeem ed

7. R. J . Ru sh doony,Politics of Guilt and Pig (Fairfax, Virginia: Thoburn Press,[1970] 1978).


15/376

Prejace xvii

ma n s relations hip with God an d n atu re, and it ha s th erefore alteredGods r e la t ion sh ip with m an an d n atu re , for ma n is Gods cove-n a n t a l repres ent at ive over th e ear th ( G e n . 1:26-28).

Science and Motivation

You n eed to keep th is qu es t ion in m ind as you read th is b ook:

If the world is inevitably running down, what hope canCh ristian s legitim at ely pla ce in th eir ea rth y efforts , scient ific an dotherwise, to improve life on earth?

If Christ ians have no legit imate biblical or cosmic hope ina ch ievin g th e gosp els goal of m a kin g God-h on orin g, worldwide im -provemen ts in th e extern al con dit ion of th is world in h is t ory (Deu t .28:1-14) I@ore Chr is t re turns phys ica l ly in judgment , then whyshould they sacrif ice everything they possess to launch a doomedf rontal assaul t against Darwinism? There is only one reason:because they believe that God has told them to do so. But the prob-lem with th is fal l-back m otivat ion is th at th e vas t m ajority of th ose

who den y tha t th e chu rch can be victorious in h is tory also believeth at Gods law is n o longer bin ding in New Testa m ent t im es. Th u s,th e eth ical motivat ion of obedience is u n dercu t, for Christian s d o notkn ow sp ecifical ly wh at God requ ires t h em to do. Th u s, th ey th rowa way th eir God -given tool of dom inion, His law. s Th ey ha ve lost th em otiva tion of victory (opt imis m ) and the method of victory (Godslaw). They have therefore lost most of their cultural battles, and theyh a ve been in volved in on ly a few since 1 92 5 (th e year of th e Scopesm on ke y tr ial).

Darwinists obviously control the major institutions of this world,including most of th e chu rches. The readers of th is book k n ow th is.So do the readers of Scientific Creationisms books. If the world can-n ot be com preh ens ively im proved p rior t o Chr is ts second coming,th en wh y shou ld Ch ristian s r isk everyth in g they presen tly poss ess intryin g to con vert, dislodge, an d rep lace th e Darwin ian princes of th isworld? Wh y n ot ju s t s tan d on s t reet corn ers an d pa ss ou t gospe lt ra cts a n d wait for th e in evitab le end?

Th is m ent al ou t look of as su red h ist orical defeat crea tes a m ajorpr oblem for Scien tific Creat ionism . Th ere is n oth in g to be gained

8. Gary North, Tools of Dominion: The Care Laws of Exodus (Tyler, Texas: Institutefor Chr istian Reconst ru ction, 1988).


16/376


17/376

Prejace xix

th e face of t r iu m ph an t D a r w i n i s m in their respective fields? Andeven if they were willing to do so, where will they look to discover

sp ecifical ly wh at God requ ires of th em in th eir a reas of pers ona l re-sp ons ibi lity? Not in th e Old Testa m ent , su rely; th ey h ave been t oldth rou ghou t th eir l ives, you re u n der grace, n ot law. So, th ey fin dth ems elves u n der h u m an ist c ivilizat ion, n ot Ch ris t ian civilizat ion.

Cons ider th e Christian sch olar. Carefu l scholars h ip t akes a lot of work, a lot of money, and a lot of time. Rethinking any area of life interms of Christian principles is a life-long task. If Christians are toldf rom the beginning that no mat ter what they discover in their

st u dies, th e world is s ti ll goin g to ru n down , th en very few of th emwill m ak e th e effort . (If th ey th in k th at J esu s is com in g again in th en ext few year s, a lm ost n o one will m a ke th e effort . Wh o need s foot-n otes con cern in g the wor ld on th is s ide of th e Rap tu re in a fu tu reJ esus - run in te rna t iona l bureau cracy?) It is n o t r andom tha t th e reh as yet to be written a single book by an y Scient ific Creation ist in th esocial sciences or hu ma nities t ha t compreh ens ively exposes th e Dar-winian principles that govern his field, and which then offers a com~

prehensive, specific, detailed, Bible-based alternative to a r w i n i s m .Yet th e Scient ific Creat ion m ovemen t is over a qu ar ter cen tu ry old.

Darwin pu blish ed The Origin of Species in 18 59. A qu arter centu ryla ter, th e whole acad emic wor ld h ad been r esh ap ed in te rms of h isworldview. D a r w i n i s m dominated discus sion s in every acad emic dis-ciplin e by 188 5, a ll over th e world. Scien tific Creat ionism h a s yet toprodu ce its firs t s cholarly book in an y field ou ts ide of n at u ra l science.Th is s hou ld warn u s th at th ere is a fu n dam enta l problem with Scien-

t ific Creat ionism . It is th e pr oblem of th e res u rr ection. Scien tificCreationists ignore it .

A Paradigm Sh#t is in Progress

I do n ot expect to pers u ad e th e foun ders of th e Scient ific Crea-t ion m ovemen t with th e argu m ent s in th is b ook. Very few esta b-lish ed sch olar s ever pa rt icipa te in a pa ra digm shif t .9 I do expect topersu ade th e bes t an d th e br igh tes t of th e youn ger mem bers of th emovement. Like the Darwinists, Scientific Creationists do not holdtheir position because of scientific arguments alone, or even primar-ily. They hold them because of the overall worldview they have

9. Thoma s Kuhn , T h e St rudure of S cient @c Revolutions (2nd ed.; University of Chicago Pres s, 1970).


18/376

xx IS THE WORLD RUNNING DOWN?

already adopted personally. They came to six-day creationism aftertheir conversions to Christ; they did not begin with six-day creation-

ism an d th en b ecome Chris t ian s . (On th is poin t , the Darwinis ts a recorrect: Scientific Creationism exists only to bolster the Christian re-l igion. What they refuse to admit is that Darwinism exists only tobolster th e a n ti-Ch rist ian h u m an ist religion.) In sh ort , a scientis tsworldview gen era lly deter m in es th e kind of science h e does, n ot th eother way arou nd .

The prevailing Christian worldview is now changing. An eschu to -logical shz#t is in progress in American fundamentalism: from premil-

lenn ialism to post m illenn ialism . 10Th e fu n dam enta lists are begin ningto recognize this. 11Th e hu m an ists are a lso begin n in g to recogn izethis. U An ethical shz@is in progress: from a nt inomian ism to theonomy(Gods law). ~ An apo loge t t i shf i is also tak in g place: from n atu ral lawevidentialism to biblical presuppositionalism. 14These parallel shiftsinvolve a total restructuring of the prevailing fundamentalist outlook regarding tim e, eth ics, an d th e im pa ct of Christs res u rrection in h is-to ry. As more and more Chr is t ians adopt one or more of these

recently acknowledged (yet original New Testament) viewpoints,this will eventually produce a restructuring of the Scientific Creationm ovemen t . Th is res t r u ctu r in g will begin with a re th in king of th edoctrin e of Chr ists res u rr ection .

Ch rists Resu rrection

J esu s Christs resu rrection in principle restored redeemed ma n sethical relat ion sh ip to God, thereby overcom in g the br eak in m an -kind s p erson al re la t ions h ip to God th at t ook p lace when Ada rnrebelled. Creat ion S cient is ts u n ders tan d th at Ch rists resu rrect ionres tored in dividu al men to God, bu t th ey h ave not pu rsu ed an othercrucial implication of this altered ethical relationship: that n a t u r e i

10. David Chilton,Parad ise Restored: A B iblical Tbology of Dominion (Ft . Wort h,Texas: Dominion Press, 1985).

11. Dave Hunt , Bgond Seduction: A Return to Biblical Chnkt iani~ (Eugene, Oregon:Ha rvest House, 1987).

12. Frederick Edwords and Stephen McCabe, Getting Out Gods Vote: PatRobertson and the Evangelical,The Hum anist (May/June 1987).

13. R. J . Rush doony,Insti tutes o~ Biblical La w (Nutley, New J ersey: Cra ig Press,1973); Greg L. Bahn sen,Theonomy in Christian Ethics (2nd ed.;Phillipsburg, NewJ ersey: Presbyteria n & Reform ed, 1984).

14. Corn elius Van Til,ChA Lm -T heis t t i Evdences, Vol. 6 of I n Dg%nseof Biblka l Chn&t iami~ (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed Pub. Co., [1961] 1978).


19/376

Prejace xxi

relation sh ip to m an an d God ha s a lso been a ltered in prin ciple by theresu rrection, ju st a s th is relations h ip was altered by the cu rse which

God placed on the cosmos when Adam rebelled. Creat ion Scient is ts n ewdiscuss Chr i s t iresurrection as the founaiztionof progressive cosmic restoration.

Th e ear th was brou gh t u n der a cu rse by God in Gen es is : 1 7 - 1 9 .Th is is t h e key biblical pas sa ge in th e Creation Scient ist s ar gum entba sed on th e secon d law of th ermodyn am ics. Bu t wh at a bout th e res-urrection? The resurrection was the great healing event in history. Itd&zitively res tored redeemed mankind as the legi t imate heir of God. U Th is n ew ethical an d legal relat ions h ip is to be worked ou t

progressive~ in history. Therefore, these ques t ions m u s t be ra ised :Wh at effects on t h e cosm os did Christs res u rrection p rodu ce? None?If n ot, th en why n ot? If Gods visible cu rs es were placed on th ecosm os b ecau se of Ada m s covena n ta l rebellion, th en why were th ereno blessings placed on the cosm os a s a resul t of the death an d resu r-rection of His S on, J esu s Ch rist? Was Ada m s r ebellion of greatercon sequ ence h is t or ically an d cosm ically th an th e resu rrect ion of Jesus Christ , the Son of God? Why did the covenantal restoration of the resurrection produce no healing cosmic effects? Why is the curseof God in Genesis 3 still in full force in history?

Th e an swer is: it isn t. Th ere ha s b een a progress ive hea lin g of th eeart h s in ce Calvar y. Th is h as com e spora dical ly in r espon se to thesporadic c o v e n a n t a l fa ith fu ln ess of Gods people. Th ere h a ve beenm ajor scien t ific a dvan ces, rema rka ble m edica l progress , a n d eco-n omic growth, es pecial ly s ince th e Protestan t Reforma tion. West erncivil ization has brought these wonders to the common man 1 6 thefirs t civilization to d o so an d Ch ristian ity was origin ally th e fou n -dat ion of th e West . Redeem ed m en h ave been th e pr im ary agen ts of this healing. It is their responsibility self-consciously to carry out thedominion as s ign m ent of Genesis 1:26-28, which is why Chris t d e-livered th e Great Com m iss ion to th e chu rch (Matt . 2 8 : 1 8 - 2 0 ) .Th eeffects of dea th a n d d ecay ar e pr ogres s ively rolled b a ck wh en Godspeople faithfully transform their lives, institutions, and physical en-

viron m en ts to conform to Gods r evealed laws. 1 7Chris t ian s n eed to s tar t arguing tha t th e burdens imp osed by th e

15. Gary North , Inherit the Earth (Ft. Worth, Texas: Dominion Press, 1987),ch . 5.16. Fern an d Braudel, Civilization and Capitalism, 15th-18th Centwy,3 vols. (New

York: Harper & Row, [1979] 1981-82).17. Gary North , Dominion an d Common Graze.


20/376


21/376

Prejace. . .

Xxlll

garden . God cu rsed Adam an d th e ear th b y a l ter ing the efects t h a tth e second law of th ermodyn am ics ha s on m an an d th e cosmos. As

with everything else in life, there are now c o v e n a n t a lcurses a t tachedto ma n s en vironm ent . God us ed th e secon d law of th erm odyn am icsas a m eans of cu r s ing u s , ju s t a s He u sed the grou nd an d our ownbodies to cu rse u s. Th e qu estion is: Can th ese curs es be redu ced as ares u lt of ou r obed ien ce to God? The b iblical an swer ca tegorically isyes. Read Deu teron omy 28:1-14 for proof.

Gods c o v e n a n t a lju dgmen t is a two-fold p rocess : bless in gs an dcursings. D The r esu rrection of J esu s Christ poin ts to the cosm ic real-

ity of the potential blessings. Christs bodi~ resurrection implies that thecursed aspects of the second law of thermodyn am ics can beprogressive~removed in histo~ in r e spons e to societies in creased covenanta lfaithfulness. UntilChris t ian s b egin to take s er ious ly th e promise of bless in gs th at t h eres u rrection h a s valida ted in h ist ory, th ey will n ot be a ble to offer abelievable worldview as an alternative to humanisms various visionsof long-term despair.

Wh at Chris t ians offer toda y is lit t le m ore th an an other-world-

view: a call to people to forsake the affairs of this life and to retreatin to the s u ppos edly sa fe womb of th e local chu rch , since noth in g canbe done to heal this world by mean s of th e gospel an d th rou gh t h eem powerin g of Ch rists people by th e Holy Spirit . Th e en d r esu lt of su ch a retreat can be seen today in th e Soviet Union : wh en th e soci-ety out side the walls of th e chu rch fal ls to th e sa tan ic enem y, thereare no more safety zones for Christians to flee to. Faithful membersof Gods chu rch ar e sen t to concen tra tion ca m ps . Th e sa fe wom b of

the in s t itu t ion a l chu rch can be sm as hed . Greek Chr is t ians ha vekn own th is ever s in ce Cons ta n t in ople fell to th e Tu rks in 145 3.

Intellectual retreat is the second step toward surrender. The firsts tep is th eological: a denial of the comprehensive t ransformingpower of th e gosp el. Th e Creat ion S cien tists m isu se of th e secon dlaw of thermodynamics is one aspect of this intellectual retreat fromthe battlefield of cultural ideas.

Who Is My Target?I wan t to emph as ize from th e begin n in g th at m y prima ry tar get

in this book is not the Creation Science movement. My primary tar-

19. Ray R. Sutt on, T h u tY ou M ay Prosper: Dominion By Covenant (Tyler, Texas: In-stit ut e for Chr istian Economics, 1987), ch. 4.


22/376

xxiv IS THE WORLD RUNNING DOWN?

get is J e rem y Riflcin. To stren gthen th e cas e agains t Rifkin, I callinto question some misguided and simplistic conclusions that many

popu lar izers of m odern h u m an is t ic sc ience h ave procla imed in th en am e of scien ce conclu sion s th at Rifkin h as adopted in order to at-tack Chris t ian orth odoxy an d Western civilizat ion. In at tack in g thefu n dam enta l idea in Rifiin s th esis th at th e secon d law of th ermo-dyna m ics th reaten s to en gu lf an d overcom e Western civilizat ion Inecessarily must challenge certain aspects of the apologetic method-ology of th e Creat ion Scien ce m ovem en t. Th is m eth odology rests onan overem ph as is on th e secon d law of th ermodyn am ics .

To repeat : becau se th e Scien t ific Creat ionists h ave adopted th esecond law of thermodynamics as their biggest gun in the waragains t evolu t ionists , t h ey h ave fal len in to a t rap : u sing th e Fal l of m an an d Gods s u bsequ ent cu rses as th e order in g pr in c ip le of th e irscient if ic theory, rather than using the resurrect ion of Chris t andGods su bs equen t blessings. Th is stra tegy ha s n ow backfired ou tsideth e rea lm of ph ysical science, a s we sh al l see. (I believe th at a cas ecan a lso be ma de th a t it h as backfired with in th e rea lm of ph ys ica l

scien ce, an d I presen t s u ggest ion s alon g thes e lin es in Appen dix A.Th e key problem is th e proper Chr ist ian u se of h u m an ist ic scien cesh ypoth et ical ly u n iformitar ian s ta n da rds .) Th is s tra tegy h as createda Chr is t ian m in d-se t tha t p lays in to th e han ds of Rifiin, who alsoproc la ims tha t he , t oo, has adop ted th e s econd law of t he r-m odyn am ics a s th e orderin g prin ciple of h is ra dical social th eory. Itsh ould also be n oted th at th is stra tegy has gained very few convertswithin the ranks of the physical science profession.

What I argue throughout this book is that Riilcin s growin g popu -lar ity am ong otherwise con servat ive evan gelical ha s been aided b yth e relian ce tha t cons ervat ive Christian s h ave placed on ent ropy asth e n u m ber-on e in te llectu a l weapon in th e ir war again s t th e evolu -t ionists . En tropy, modern science in forms u s, is a mea su re of disor-der, a d isorder th a t d oes n ot decreas e for the u n iverse as a wh ole(m aybe). Wh en ent ropy is n ot actu al ly in creas in g, th e total disorderof th e un iverse rema in s cons ta n t , in equilibrium (maybe). The

concept of entropy has an almost hypnotic effect on many Christianswho pos ses s on ly a s m a tter in g of scient ific kn owledge.

Rifkin is a n a ccom plish ed in tellectu al hypn otis t . He ha s placedent ropy a t th e end of a 12- inch cha in , an d h e swin gs it ba ck an dfor th in front of h is Chr is t ian au dien ce. His words are soothing:You a re growin g sleepy. You a re wind ing down . You r m ind is wear-


23/376

Prejace xxv

ing out. You are steadily losing IQ points. Everything is becomingconfused. Now listen carefully as I tell you the scientific secret of the

ages. Repeat after m e: En tropy, ent ropy, ent ropy. He u ses th eword as a kind of ta l isman, a magical device to manipulate hischosen victims.

Th ere is an old l in e: You can t b eat som eth in g with n oth in g.Th e con cept of ent ropy ha s b een m isu sed to create a philosophy of long-run nothingness. Until Chr ist ian s s top ta lking abou t th e worldsfuture in terms of sovereign entropy, they will not be able todevelop a believab le a n d cons isten t p osit ive a ltern at ive to m odern

humanism, meaning a positive program which will give people hopefor solving th i s worlds pr oblems . As I argu e in th is book, to ap peal toa n exclusive~other-worldly hope is to abandon hope for this world. Itleads to social pess im ism .

Apostle of a New Age

I am att empt in g to refu te a n ew heresy, wh ich is in fact a very an-

cien t h eresy: th e New Age movem en t. 2 0 Th e New Age movem en th as m ade im portan t in roads in to Ch ris t ian c irc les s ince 1979, an dalso in roads in to the th in kin g of Chris t ian leaders . On e m an , moreth an an y oth er, is r espons ible for th is su ccess fu l in filtra tion: J eremyRitlcin. Wh at I argue in th is b ook is th at s ome of th e key presu pposi-t ions of th e Scient ific Creation m ovemen t s erve as th e fou n da tionsfor Rifkins cosmological, economic, and social analyses. More thanthis: their shared presuppositions h a ve m a de it very difficult for s ix-da y

creation ist s an d oth er evan gelical to respon d t o Rifkin.Yet Ch ristian s m u s t respond to Rifkin. Firs t , h is general presu p-

posit ions are wrong. They are closer to Eastern mysticism than toWestern ra t ion al ism . Second, h is an t i- ra t iona l argu m ents are in i-t ial ly disgu ised , for h e a pp eals to wh at h e (an d th e Scien tific Crea-tion ist s) sa y is th e key fa ct of West ern scient ific ra tion a lism , th e en -tropy law,*l in order to mak e h is ca se a gains t Western ra t ion al ism .Third, he has dis tor ted the his tory of the West . Fourth, he has

20. Gary North, Unho~ S~iritx:Occultism and N ew Age Hum anism (Ft . Wort h,Texas: Domin ion Pr ess, 1986).

21. Th e Entropy Law was actually the proposed title of the book byRifkin whichwas eventually published under the title, Entropy. Somet ime in lat e 1979 or early1980, the Peoples Business Commission,RifMnsorgan izat ion, sent out a br ochu redescribing this forthcoming book, which also listed Noreen Banks as co-author,along with Ted Howard.


24/376

xxvi IS THE WORLD RUNNING DOWN?

den ied th at econ omic growth is m oral ly val id or even su sta in ab le,long-term. Fif th, he has cal led Christ ians to adopt Eastern mysti-

cism in th e n am e of a n ew Ch ristian ity. Sixth, h is recomm ended eco-nomic system would lead to the creat ion of a huge bureaucrat ictyranny, yet he argues as if he were call ing for a decentralized,minimal- State 2 2 form of govern m en t.

In sh or t , J e remy Rifkin is a specialist in deception. He is veryclever an d th erefore a very da n gerou s m an . He h as self-con sciou slyselected his target : Christ ians, especial ly the charismatic and theneo-evangelicals. He writes that we are in the morning hours of a

second Protesta n t Reforma tion. . . . [I]t is the evangelical c o m m u -n it y, with it s resu rgent spi r itu a l vita lity, th a t h as the m omentu m ,drive an d en ergy tha t is requ ired t o ach ieve th is ra dical th eologicaltra n sforma tion in Am erican society.zs He is d etermin ed to take ad -van ta ge of th is secon d Reform at ion, to red irect i t a lon g very differ-ent p at h s from th ose ou tlin ed in th e Bible.

Overturning Capitalism

What kind of transformation is he talking about? Radical! At thevery leas t, it will requ ire a sh ar p r edu ction of Am ericas econ omicwealth . As long as we con tinu e to devou r th e lions sh ar e of th eworlds resources, squandering the great bulk of them on trivialitieswhile th e rest of th e world st ru ggles t o fin d its n ext mea l, we ha ve n or igh t to lectu re other peoples on h ow to con du ct th eir econom ic de-velopment .24 You know the argument: 1) we eat ; 2 !) they areh u n gry; 3) th erefore. . . .

Th en, ju st to m ak e every su ccess fu l person feel dou bly gu ilty,Today, the top one-fifth of the American population consumes over40 percen t of th e na tion s income.~Do you kn ow wh y on e-fifth of th epopu lation con su m es over 40 p ercen t of th e na tions income? Becau seone-fifth produces over 40 percen t of th e n at ions in come. Th at fact, Ias su re you , J e remy Rifkin and the professional guil t -manipulatorsn ever, ever tell you . I believe th at people sh ou ld n ot be m ad e to feel

22. I capitalize State when I refer to civil government in general. I do not capi-talize it when I refer to the administra tive unit in t he United Stat es known as t hestate.

23. J eremy Rifkin (with Ted Howard), The Emerging Order: God in th e A geof Scarc i@(New York: Ballantine, [1979] 1983), pp. x, xii.

24. J eremy Rifkin (with Ted Howar d), Ent ropy: A N ew World View (New York:Ban tam New Age Books, [1980] 1981), p. 190.

25. Ibid., p. 194.


25/376

Prejace xxvii

guil ty just because they are product ive .z6 But i t is J erem y Ritlcinsself-app oin ted t as k to m ak e u s feel gu ilty. Gu ilt-r idd en people ar emore easily man ipu lated. z

W h a t do we need? as ks Rii- l in. Wh at t rem end ous n ew eco-nomic breakthrough is cal led for? Why, that same old utopiandream, that same old poverty-producing scheme: economic jdanning.mTh e qu est ion is: Wh o will be in ch ar ge of th is plan n in g? If th e freem arket h as n ot prom oted su ch a p lan , then we m u st n eed . . . well,h e n ever real ly says. Bu t b ear in m in d t h at if people refu se to d oth in gs volu n tar ily, then som eon e ha s to m ak e them do it if th ey are

goin g to get it done. Rega rd les s of which cou rs e we follow, th e com -in g tran si t ion is s u re to be accomp an ied by su fferin g an d s acrifice.[Th is m ean s America3 s u ffering a n d s a crifice! G. N.] Bu t t h ere isrea lly no oth er ch oice. [We ca n t figh t t h e in evita b le! G.N. ] Thefa ct is [a n d we can t a rgu e with fa cts ! G.N.], th e s u fferin g will beminimized if the transition from the existing energy base to the newone is made now in a thoughtful, orderly manner, rather than later,out of sh eer pan ic an d des pera t ion. We are rap idly ap proach in g th e

ab solut e lim its of th e foss il fu el en ergy requ irem en t. If we wa it u n tilwe ru n sm ack u p a gains t th e wall of th is exist ing energy ba se, wewill fin d th at we ha ve n o energy cu sh ion left to eas e th e tra n sitionprocess .m

Ah , yes, th e old exis tin g ener gy ba s e a rgu m en t. The old wereru n n in g low on oil ar gu m en t. It a ll sou n ded so b elievab le . . . in198 0. In th e firs t t h ree m onth s of 198 6, th e cas h price of oil fell from$2 9 a ba rrel to u n der $ 10 . Lets s ee if I u n ders ta n d t h is . Oil priceshave dropped rapidly because we are running out of oil. Back to thedrawing board!

Oil pr ices ca n go u p, obviou sly. Oil is n ow a gain in th e $2 0 p erba rrel ran ge, as a resu lt of Sau di Ara bias decision to st op sellin g allth e oil it can produ ce. Terrorist at ta cks on th e Midea st pipelin es, orth e expa n sion of th e Iraq-Ira n war into th e Stra its of Horm u z, or aSoviet invas ion of th e Midd le Ea st , could pu sh prices even h igher.The point is , contrary to Rifk in , th ere is n o eviden ce tha t we are

26. David Chilton, Productive Christt ins in an A ge of Guil t-Man@lators:A Biblical Response to RonaUJ. S &r (4th ed.; Tyler, Texas: Institute for Christian Economics, 1986).

27. Rush doony, Politics of Guilt an d Pip, Section I.28. Don La voie, National Economic Planning: What Is Left? (Cambridge, Massa-

chusetts: Bal l inger,1985).29. RiiMn, Entro@y, p . 203.


26/376

.

.

.

Xxvlll IS THE WORLD RUNNING DOWN?

running out of energy. W are simp~ th e victims of a government-created oilcartel. Like a ll car tels, it h as sh own sp oradic sign s of fallin g apa rt, a s

members cheat on the previously agreed-to production limits. Hope-fully, this will continue. In any case, we should have learned by nowtha t capi ta l i sm tends to lower the price of raw materials if the freemarket is left alone. This is the testimony of two centuries of indus-trial production. The evidence is o v e r w h e l m i n g . ~

If we ever d o ru n ou t of com m ercially a vaila ble en ergy, it will bebecau se we firs t ra n ou t of freedom .

New Age PoliticsWhat Rifiin wants is a New Age politics.~1 Wh at h e wan ts i s

regional organic farms. 32Wh o will ru n th ese s m all, regiona l en ter-prises? Why, our old favorites, The Workers: . . . f irms should bedem ocra t ical ly organ ized a s worker-m an aged companies .33

Does th is b egin to sou n d fam iliar ? Havent we seen all th isbefore? Isn t th is ju st warm ed-over rh etoric from th e 196 8 cou n ter-cu ltu re? Isn t t h is lan gua ge left over from som e yellowin g m im eo-

graphed platform statement of some faction of Students for a Demo-cratic Society (SDS), the radical organization that, figurativelyspeaking, blew itself apart in 1969?

Th ere will be n o jet plan es in th e comin g u topia. A Boein g 747 ,for in s ta n ce, s im ply can n ot be man u factu red by a sm al l com pan yem ployin g several h u n dred in dividu als . Th u s, a n ew ethic will ha veto be adopted. . . .~ No more jet bombers, ei ther. No morem iss iles, I wou ld im agin e. Not in Ch ristian Am erica .

Th e tr ou ble is , wh a t if th e Soviet Un ion does n t go alon g withRiflin s New Age polit ics , bu t th e United Sta tes d oes? Wh at th en?

Now all this s h ould begin to sou n d fam iliar .Will life be pr osp erou s in th e New Age, th e way it is t oda y for

m ost m iddle-clas s Am erican s? I fear n ot . Th e ent ropy econom y isone of necessities, not luxuries . 3 5 Dont expect mu ch, bu t expect tobe h app y. Everyone who lives in a u topia is h app y. Th at is t h e ma rk

30. Herman Kahn and Julian L. Simon (eds.),The Resourceful Earth (New York:Oxford Un iversit y P ress, 1984).

31. Rifkin , Entropy, p. 211.32. Ibid., p. 214.33 . Ibti., p. 216.34 . Idem.35. Ibid., p. 245.


27/376

Prefaze xxix

of utopias. You are required by law to be happy. That also is themark of utopias. (Utopia: from the Greek words ou = no a n d

topos = place.) It is a lso th e m a rk of Comm u n ist tyran n ies.There will be fewer people around to be happy, however. Finally,the low-entropy age we are moving into will require a great reduc-tion in world population.% But who will decide who lives, whodoesnt, an d wh o gets b orn? He refu ses to sa y exactly n o u se u pset-ting the potential victims in advance but he mentions one possibil-ity: h avin g th e govern m en t licen se p a r e n t h o o d . sT

All this is offered in the name of a new, improved Christianity by

a m an who was once the h ead of someth ing called th e Peoples Bicen-tenn ial Com m iss ion.

Wh o Is J erem y Rifkin?

J e r e m y Rifkin is a best -sellin g co-au th or. He wrote T he E n w rg i n gOrder (with Ted Howard), published in 1979, Entropy (with TedHoward) , publ ished in 1980, and W7Z0 Shal l Play God? (with TedHowa rd ), a b ook critica l of genetic engin eerin g, pu blish ed in 1 97 7,which s old over 2 50 ,000 copies. He a lso wrote The North Shall Rise

Again (with Ran dy Barb er). Th en cam e Algeny (with Nicanor Perlas) .Wh o kn ows, s omeda y he m ay write a bes t-sellin g book a ll by h im self.

Before he became a best-sel l ing co-author, he was the projectdirector of the Peoples Bicentennial Commission, which employedboth Mr. Howard a n d Mr. Barb er. In h is b iograp h ica l su m m aryth at h e in clu ded in h is or igin al proposal for th e Com m iss ion, h e

l isted a B.S. in economics from the Wharton School of Finance &Com m erce (196 7) an d a n M.A. in internat ional affairs f rom theFletch er Sch ool of La w an d Diplom acy (19 68 ). He also ser ved a s aVISTA volunteer in East Harlem. w

With th is a s h is a cadem ic backgrou n d, h e now com es before usas th e proph et of a n ew worldview, one th at su pposedly is b as ed en-tirely on rigorous physical science. It i: a lot easier to ma ke a ca se forRifkin as an academically qualified expert in social revolution than

as a n exper t in th ermodyn am ics .

36. Ibid., p. 217.37. Ibid., p. 218.38. The At tan@to Steal the Buentennial, T hz Peoples Bicentennial Commskion,Hearings

Before the Subcommittee to Investigate the Administration of the Internal SecurityAct a nd Oth er In tern al Secur ity Laws of th e Comm ittee on t he J udiciary, UnitedSta tes S ena te, 94th Congr ess, Second S ession (Mar ch 17 a nd 18, 1976), p. 110.


28/376


29/376

Prejace xxxi

Caribbean islands, new Black liberation movements are popping upall over. In Canada, the Quebeco i s Liberation Front has brought thefires of revolutionary nationalism right up to the U.S. frontier. Onth e Eu ropean continen t , s imilar fires a re scorching the h ides of im -per ia l is t s . . . . In Asia the en t ire con t in ent s eeth es with th e move-ment. The victory of the first stage of the Chinese Revolution can besa id to h ave stru ck th e spa rks th at set off th e whole world-wide ph e-n omen on of revolu t iona ry nat ional ism.41

What about the United States? On page 157, Rossen informs usthat the American version of the concept of revolutionary national-

ism will be a n t i-capi talis t an d s ocial is t in con ten t , an d n at ion al inform a n d rhetoric.4ZMr . Rifk in s par tn er sp ecified in th e March / Apr i l 197 1 issu e of

Th e New Patriot (his own publ icat ion) what his unders tanding of Marx was:

Marx laid the sturdy foundations for the scientific revolutionary-social-ist methodology, and for any modern revolutionary to ignore those founda-tion s would be as st u pid as for a ph ysicist to ign ore the fin dings of Isa ac

Newton. Bu t n eith er can a m odern r evolu tion ar y limit h ims elf to th e fin d-in gs of Mar x. Th at is wh y I u s e th e expres sion s cien tific revolut iona rym eth odology ra th er th an th e express ion Mar xism . Th e pr oblem withmost of those who call themselves Marxists today is that they accept Marx-ism as a d ogma an d n ot as a s cient ific tool, a r evolu tion ary m eth odologywhich is con st an tly being refin ed, ad ded to, imp roved on th e bas is of th erevolutionary experience of the last century and a quarter.4 3

Co-au th ors Ted Howard, Rand y Barb er, an d Rifkin were all a s-sociated with the Peoples Bicentennial Commission, which was laterrenamed the Peoples Business Commission. As he said to a W h . d u k g -ton S t a r reporter in 1979, Our job is to develop a politics for the 80san d 90s .4 4

A New Targeted Audience: Evangelical

Th is was th e origin a l goal of th e Peoples Bicen ten n ial Comm is-s ion: p olit ical cha n ge. Rifkin began to target evangelical Christiansin th e lat e 197 0s with h is b ook, T he Em erging Order. Th is was simp ly a

41 . Ibid., p. 12.42 . Ibid., p. 13.43 . Ibid., p. 9144. WmhingtonStar (Jan. 24, 1979).


30/376

xxxii IS THE WORLD RUNNING DOWN?

cont in u at ion of th e st ra tegy ou tlin ed b y Willia m Peltz, th e Midwestregiona l coord in at or of th e Peoples Bicent en n ial Com m iss ion. At ameeting in Ann Arbor, Peltz argued that conservative Christians canbe tu rn ed into p romoters of revolu t iona ry polit ics i f you can sh owthem that the Bible teaches revolution.

Interestingly, he cited Leviticus 25, the chapter that contains theJ u bilee lan d laws, wh ich r equi red th a t th e own ersh ip of th e lan d of Is ra el be ret u rn ed to th e origin a l fam ilies every 50 years.As Th is h assu bsequ ent ly becom e a popular th eme of n u m erou s ra dica l Chr is -t ians, including Ron Sider and SojournOs magazine. I t has also be-come a theme in cer ta in fundamenta l i s t g roups . They have notu n ders tood th a t th e J u bilee was a n as pect of m ilita ry con ques t , anecon omic in cent ive to figh t t h at was given to each Hebrew fam ilybefore Isr ael in vad ed Can aa n .% Th ey also h ave not recogn ized th atth e J u bilee was fu lfilled in pr in ciple by J esu s (Lu ke 4) an d a bolish edhistorically when Israel as a nation ceased to exis t .ATBut most of all,th ey ha ve n ot both ered to tell th eir followers th at if Leviticus 25 isstill morally and legally binding, then lifetime slavery is still morallyand legally valid, for it is only in Leviticus 25 that the Hebrews were

told that they could buy and enslave foreigners for life, and then en-slave their heirs forever (Lev. 25:44-46). It is time to abandon Leviti-cus 25 as th e bas is of social reform.

The Myth of Neutrality

Th is book dea ls in great deta il with th e writ in gs ofJ erem y Riflcinthat are aimed specifically at a Christian audience. But it is not sim-ply to refu te Rifkin th at I write th is b ook. It is to refu te th e earth ly

pess imism tha t Riilcin s thesis promotes . Unfortunately, Bible-believin g Ch rist ian s h ave adopt ed a very similar view of th e su p-posed natural decline of this natural world, and this has led to asim ila r d ebilita ting ou tlook a self-cons ciou s effort on th e pa rt of Christian s to rem ove th e su pern at u ra l from s cient ific discu ss ion, a tleas t in th e pr elim in ar y st a ges of d i s c u s s i o n . ~

45. Th e Attempt to Steal the Bicentenntil, p . 36.46 . Gar y Nort h, The F ulfillment of th e J ubileeYear; Biblical Econom ics T oday, VI

(March/April 1983).47. Ibid.48. A good example of such an approach is John N. Moores book, How to Teach

ORIGINS (Without ACLU Znte@rence) (Milford, Michigan: Mott Media, 1983). Thispresum es th at Christian s a re being employed by officially neut ra l but in factGod-ha tin g, hu ma nist -opera ted schools. This per petu ally ineffective str at egy of subver-sion has yet to work, the latest defeat being the U.S. Supreme Courts decision in

Edw ards v. Aguillard (June 19, 1987). See Appendix B in this book.


31/376

Preface. . .

Xxxlll

This ap proach is bas ed on t h e disa str ous lu re of th e myth of n eu-trality. Van Tils warning is ignored: If the theistic posit ion bedefensible it is an impossibilip for any hum an beingto be neutra l. Th is isquite readily admitted when a centrally religious question is dis-cu s sed . We need on ly recall th e word s of J esu s, He th at is n otagains t m e is for m e, to rem in d ou rs elves of th is fact. When two na -t ions ar e at war n o cit izens of e ith er of th ese two na t ions can ben e u t r a l . ~Th is n eu tra lity-bas ed apologet ic meth od ass u m es, er-roneously, that the natural man can be led logically from his initial,agreed-up on b elief th at it is poss ible to discu ss th is world with ou tan y reference to God, to a con clu sion th at th e God of th e Bible exist san d contr ols everything in th e creation a world in which God mu stbe assumed in the first place in order to make sense of our environ-ment. Such a l ine of argument assumes initially that the doctrine of creat ion is intel lectual ly irrelevant to the argument, and then theforce of logic su pp osed ly will lead to th e conclu sion t h at th e doctrin e of creation is what the Bible says it is: the starting point of all knowledge.In th e begin ning God created th e hea ven an d th e ear th (Gen . 1:1) .

This apologet ic approach is based on the assumpt ion that ra-t iona l m en can discu ss th e firs t principles of science (or an y oth ersecu lar su bject) on th e ba sis of com m on-grou n d p resu ppos it ionsab ou t th e tru e na tu re of th e u n iverse. Th is , of cou rse, is p reciselywhat covena n t-breaking men h ave a lways wan ted to assu m e: th atth ey cou ld rea ch worka ble tru th s with out an y appea l to, or jud g-ment by, the God of the Bible. This is a false assumption. Christiansshould not make it when presenting their case for Christianity. If we

allow the non-Christian to claim rightfully any theory-interpretedfact in th e u n iverse a pa rt from Gods s overeign contr ol an d int erpre-tat ion of th is fact , th en we ha ve thereby gra n ted h im th e au tonom yhe demands, and that God denies to any aspect of the creation. VanTils warn in g is cru cial : If th e Ch ristian pos ition sh ou ld p rove to beright in th e end, th en th e an ti-Ch rist ian posit ion was wron g, not onlya t th e end , bu t a lready a t th e beginning.so In short, Any method, aswe poin ted out a bove, th at d oes n ot ma in tain th at n ot a s ingle factcan be kn own u n less i t be th at God gives th at fac t m ean in g, is a nanti-Christ ian method . s l

49. Van Til, A S u m g Iof Ch ristian E pis t .m olog,p. 19.50. Ibid., p. 8.51. Ibid., p. 10.


32/376

xxxiv IS THE WORLD RUNNING DOWN?

Chr ist ian s h ave m ista ken ly ar gu ed again st Dar win ian evolu tionby appealing to the supposedly common-ground phenomenon of en-tropy. Riflcin s book d ovetai ls too well with th is en tropy-ba sed ap -proach to refu t in g D a r w i n i s m .He, too, says th at h e is a gains t D a r -win ism . He, too, bas es h is s ystem on en tropy. By acceptin g his sta rt-ing point, Scientific Creationists are left at his mercy. This is a dan-gerou s p lace to be.

Conclusion

Rifk in s th esis , if believed b y Ch rist ian s, ca n lead to emotion al

pa ra lysis . He ta lks a bou t m obilizin g Chr is t ian s, bu t an yone whotakes his books seriously will be difficult to mobilize, becauseRifkins outlook, t~ we believe what he says about entropy and the universe,leads to pess imism an d re t reat , n ot revolu t ion. Defeat h as n ot beenthe expressed intention of the six-day creation movement, althoughescha to logica lpess im ism h as been com m on in Scient ific Creat ionistcircles. Pess im ism regar ding posit ive social ch an ge is where t h e en -tropy defen se of th e creat ion can lead , an d u su ally does.

If God in His gra ce sen ds u s a seriou s evan gelical awak ening,tra n sform in g th e h ear ts a n d m in ds of litera lly billion s of people, wewill see a reb u ildin g of society, a h ealin g of th is cu rs ed world on ascale tha t will dwarf the p rogress of th e las t two th ous an d years. Forth ose wh o believe in su ch a coming revival, th is is a t im e for op-t imism rather than retreat, a t ime for economic freedom rather thansocialism s bu reau cracy, a t ime for expan sion an d econ omic progressra th er th a n a zero-growth econom y. If we really believe in a com in gworldwide reviva l, th en ou rs is a time to s ta rt b elievin g in a pos itiveearthly future.

It is th erefore t im e to aba n don J eremy Rit lin s worldview.


33/376


34/376

I N T R O D U C T I O N

Thyraimentwaxed notold upon thee, neith.a didthyfoot swell, theseforp

years (Deut. 8:4).A n d y e shal l serve t/ u L O R D yOUrGod, an d h e shall bless thy bread , a n dthy w ater; an d I will take sickness away j?om the m idst o] the. Thereshall nothing cast their young, nor be barren, in thy land: then u m b mof thy days 1 will fulj$l (Ex. 23:25-26).

Th e firs t law of th erm odyn am ics s ta tes th at t h e total of ma t t e r-energy in t h e u n iverse is cons ta n t th rou gh out etern ity, or at leas ta fter th e Big Ban g (th e evolu tionis ts vers ion of crea tion ). Th e s ec-ond law of th ermodyn am ics s ta tes th a t usef i l energy is either con-st an t (equ ilibr iu m con dit ions ) 1 or decrea sin g (kinet ic en ergy) in th eu n iverse a s a whole. Usefu l en ergy for the universe a a wh ole thereforecan never increase. (The underlying assumption of the second law isth at th e u n iverse itself is a closed s ystem, s ometh in g like a gian t con-ta iner. With out th is c ru cia l as su m pt ion , th e second law of th ermo-dynamics loses i ts status as a universal law.)

We r ea d: Th y r a i m e n t waxed n ot old u pon th ee, ne ith er d id th yfoot swell, these forty years (Deu t . 8:4) . Thu s , an y con s is ten t scient i-

fic ap pl icat ion of th e second law of th erm odyn am ics t o th is versewou ld h ave to as ser t th a t God m u st h ave dra wn energy from s omeexternal source in order to produce this local overcoming of entropyseffects . Perh ap s God in som e way recha n n eled energy from t h e su nthat otherwise would have been dissipated into space, or into the

1. A system is in equilibrium when its components ar e not m oving in a ny par tic-ular direction. When a gas is in equilibrium in a container, its molecules are bounc-ing randomly against the walls of the container. In theory, no heat from outside thecont ainer pa sses thr ough t o th e gas inside, and n o heat from th e gas inside passesthrough the containers walls to the outside. The random bouncing of the moleculesof the gas does not produce measurable changes heat, pressure in the gas,tu lmas a unit.

1


35/376

2 IS THE WORLD RUNNING DOWN?

ground, or wherever i t was headed. But He had to get this energyfrom ou ts ide th e local system , n am ely, from out side th e local envir-

onment of the clothing and the bodies of the Israelites. Problem: theBible sa ys n othing like th is, a n d th e kin ds of m iracles th at tak e placethrou gh out th e Bible can not be accou nted for by an y su ch rechan -neling of physical energy. Thus, the second law of thermodynamicsdoes not al low for events such as the miracles described in theseBible pas sa ges. In sh ort, $ the second law of thermodynamics is uniuersal@true, then the Bible is wrong.

Th is is why Ch rist ian s m u st s tat e categorical ly th at t h e ru le of

th e s econd la w of th erm odyna m ics is n ot u n ivers a l. Above a ll, wemu st d efend th e resurrect ion of Chris t a gainst th e hu ma nists who don ot wan t t o believe it , an d even if th ey feel comp elled t o a ckn owl-edge its h ist oricity, refu se to a ccept t h e Bibles in terp reta tion of itsmeaning. z For examp le , d id J esu s resu rrect ion ta ke place becau seGod recha n n eled some of th e su n s en ergy in to the tomb a n d th enin to Chr ist s d ead body? How m u ch en ergy (m eas u red in ergs) didit ta ke to raise J esu s from t h e dead? If we could ju st figur e ou t h ow totap into this same energy source, would we also be able to raise peo-ple from the dead? We can see where this sort of reasoning leads to:the dedication of scientzj$cman.

Thus, the Bible testifies to the non-universal nature of the secondlaw of th erm odyn am ics. It is a comm on feature of m an s environm ent ,bu t it is not un iversal. Overcomin g en tropy from time to time is oneway th at God poin ts to His own sovereign con trol over h ist ory. Th esecond law is at m ost a com m on a sp ect of Gods providen tial order-ing of the cosmos. It is a secondary source of physical continuity.Con tin u ity an d d iscont in u ity are always interpr eted in reference toeach other, and the incarnation and bodi~resurrection ofJesus Chnstare thegreatest discontirzuitiesin mankin#s histoy In short, the historic reality of Gods miracles is a refutation of the asserted universality of the sec-ond law of th ermodyna m ics.

Its a Miracle!

Its a m ir a c le ! People s a y th is wh en th ey rea lly mea n , Itsterrific, but completely unexpected. But there really are miracles in

2. In th e fa ll of 19 64 ,I hea rd U CLAs Pr of. Lynn White, J r., say in th e Classroomregar ding th e resu rr ection: Maybe it did hap pen. We live in a world in which a ny-th ing can ha ppen. By explaining th e resur rection in t erms of randomness r at herthan in terms of the decree of God, the humanist has denied the resurrection, even if he accepts the historical reality of the event. The fact of the resurrection of Christsbody from t he gra ve proves litt le if an yth ing. All facts a reinte@reted facts.


36/376

Introduction 3

l ife, and they usually are unexpected. Not always, however. Godprom ised Isr ael th e m ira cle of gen et ic n ear-perfect ion: n o m isca r-riages of m an or beas t in Isr ael, ju st so long as th e people were cove-n a n t a l l y fa ith fu l to God (Ex. 23 :25-26 ). Th ey kn ew in ad va n ce wha twas p ossible , bu t th ey did not obey, an d th ey did not r eceive th ebless in g. Neith er did th eir a n im als .

Th is book dea ls with m ira cles . It a lso d eals with ru n -of- th e-millactivities that involve the inevitable wear and tear of life. In the Book of Exodu s, we fin d a n otable verse th at s u pp orts th e thes is of th isbook, Exodu s 3:2: An d t h e an gel of th e L ORD appea red un to h im

[Moses ] in a fla m e of fire ou t of th e m ids t of a b u sh : an d h e looked,an d , behold , the bu sh bu rned with fir e , an d th e bus h was no t con-su med. Wh y was n t i t consu med? Becau se God su sta ined it . But i twas th e oddn ess of a bu rning bu sh tha t was n ot being consu med th atcau ght Moses a tten tion in th e firs t place (Ex. 3:3). So th e overcom -in g of en tropy h ad its pa rt t o play in Gods p lan for th e ages.

A similar comment applies to: 1) the manna of the wildernesswhich fed the Israelites for almost four decades; 2) the daily refilling

of the oil pot of the widow of Zarephath, who fed Elijah for overthree years; 3) the widow who poured oil out of a single small potth a t filled a room fu l of lar ge cont a in ers ; 4) J esu s tu rn in g of waterinto wine; and 5) His feeding of thousands with a few fish and loavesof bread. Most notably, i t applies to every account of resurrectionfrom th e dead, especia l ly the resu rrec t ion of J esu s Chr is t .

If I were to come to you a n d in sis t th at a s a Chr is t ian , you h avean intellectual responsibility to seek to identify the constant, univer-

sal, uniformitarian natural law that made any or all of these mira-cles p ossible , you wou ld regar d m e as a fool. Th ese were m ira cles;therefore, the normal cause-and-effect relationships of conventionalphysical science did not govern them. 3 This biblically reasonablerespons e is prec ise ly wh at h as long an gered hu m an is t ic sc ient i s t s .Th ey den y biblical m ira cles.

Th e idea t h at t h ese m ira cles ever ~ook place was rejected by a llnineteenth-century Darwinian scient is ts . Very few scient is ts have

ever a ffirm ed fa ith in Gods m iracles, a n d n ever in th eir s cien tificpap ers d oes th e su bjec t of m irac les come u p. Mirac les were u n der-

3. Somet imes I wonder if wem a k e too much of a fuss tr ying to find t he mecha-nisms of the Genesis Flood, or how Noah could have fed the animals, or how heSqueezedthem into the ark.


37/376

4 1S THE WORLD RUNNING DOWN?

stood a s irrelevan t to s cien ce, an d p roba bly a den ial of scien ce. Th ereas on for th is r eject ion is clear en ough : miracles cou ld n ot be ex-

plained in terms of the categories of nineteenth-century science. Theu n iverse was explained a s a sort of gian t m ach in e tha t is govern edexclusively by mathematical laws. Miraculous biblical d i scon t inu -it ies, if t ru e, deny th e u n iversa lity of th ese h ypoth et ical , u n brea k-able, m ath ema t ica l, n a tu ra l laws. Hence , in order to m ainta in t h e irfai th in th e world of n at u ra l scien ce, n in eteenth -cen tu ry scien t is t s(an d m ost of th eir s u ccessors ) rejected th e idea of biblical m ira cles .Typical of th is out look was a s ta tem ent in 191 0 b y the Am erican

soc ia l scien t is t an d p rogress ive edu cator, G. Sta n ley Hall:

We have largely evicted superstition from the physical universe, whichu sed to be th e du mping groun d of th e miraculou s. . . . But we ha ve greatgrou nd to rejoice that science is now advancing into this domain morerapidly than ever before, and that the last few years have seen more pro-gress than the century that preceded. The mysteries of our psychic beinga re bound er e long t o be clear ed up. Ever y one of th ese ghost ly ph enomen awill be brought un der th e doma in of law. The present recrudescence here of

an cient faith s in the sup erna tu ra l is very interesting as a psychic at avism, asth e last flas hin g up of old psychoses soon to become ex t inc t .4

A tiny number of modern humanist scientists might be willing toaccept the historical validity of some biblical miracles, but theywould reject the biblical explanation, namely, a sovereign God whobrought them to pass for His own purposes. These scientists are be-lievers in th e ess ent ial ran dom n ess of n at u re. An yth in g is poss ible,

th e y sa y.5

Anything except the sovereign God of the Bible who con-t rols a ll th in gs in term s of His plan for th e ages. T h a t isn t pos s ible.

We therefore discover a clash: the overwhelming majority of thatm in ority of scient ist s who a ctu a lly discu ss epistem ology (wh at wecan know and how we can know it) and cosmology (origins and fateof th e u n ivers e) vs. m ira cle-believin g Ch ristian s wh o also discu ss

4. G. Stanley Hall, Introduction; Amy Tanner,Studiesin Spiritism (New York:

Appleton, 1910), p. xxxii.5. Lyall Watson writes: Science no longer holds any absolute truths. Even thediscipline of physics, whose laws once went un cha llenged, ha s ha d to subm it t o th eindignity of an U ncert aint y Prin ciple. In t his clima te of disbelief, we have begun t odoubt even funda ment al propositions, an d th e old distinction between n at ur al an dsupern at ur al h as become m ean ingless. I find th is trem endously exciting.LyallWatson, Su@nature: A N atura l Hti tory of th e S u f w n a t u r a l(Garden City, New York:Anchor Press/Doubleday, 1973), p. ix.


38/376

Introduction 5

th ese topics . Th is is th e cen tu ry-old clas h between som e varian t of Darwinism and creationism. There is no bib l ica l~acceptable way to soften

this conzonta t ion .Th ere ca n be n o s m oothin g over of differen ces . Th etwo systems are incompatible. This is not a case of semantic confu-sion ; th is is a cas e of all-ou t int ellectu al war. It is at root a war betweenrival religious worldviews, rival religious presuppositions concerningGod, m an , law, an d t ime. We mu st h eed Van Tils warning:

In the first place, Christian theism must be defended against non-th eistic philosophy. We ha ve sough t to do th is in t he cour se in apologetics.In the s econd place, Ch ris t ian th eism m u st be defended a gainst n on-theis t icscience. . . . Christianity is an historical religion. It is based upon suchfacts as the death and resurrection of Christ . The question of miracle is atthe heart of it. Kill miracle and you kill Christianity. But one cannot evendefine miracle except in relation to natural law. Thus, we face the questionof Gods providen ce. An d p roviden ce, in tu rn , pr esu pposes creation. Wemay say, then, that we seek to defend the fact of miracle, the fact of provi-dence, the fact of creation, and therefore, the fact of God, in relation tomodern non-Christian sc ience .6

The Intolerance of the Darwinis ts

Th e Darwin is ts h ave been m u ch m ore cons is ten t abou t th e n oexceptions n atu re of th eir posi t ion th an th e Ch ris t ian s h ave been.Tho~e scien tist s wh o go in to-print in order t o set th e terms of accept-able scientific discourse on this crucial question of origins have definedc r e a t i o n i s m o u t o f t h e d e b a t e . T h e c o m m e n t b y H a r v a r dUnivers itys S teph en J a y Gou ld is typical: As in 19 09 , n o scientist or

thinking person doubts the basic fact that l ife evolves. Intensedebates about how evolu tion occu rs display science a t its m ost excit-ing, but provide no solace (only phony ammunition by willful distor-tion) to strict fundamen ta l i s t s . T In ad dit ion to teach in g pa leon to l -ogy, Gou ld a lso writes a m onth ly colu m n in Scientz@American. He is-.representative of mainstream public science.

Even less temperate are the remarks of Canadian Michael Ruse:

.

.

. I believe Creationism is wrong: totally, utterly, and absolutely wrong.I would go further. There are degrees of being wrong. The Creationists are

6. Corn elius Van Til, Chrik t ian-Th eistic E vidences (Phillipsburg, New J ersey: Pres-byter ian an d Reform ed P u b. Co., [1961] 1978), p. vii. I am quoting from th eoriginal edition, becau se a line h as been dr opped from th e 1978 edition.

7. Stephen J ay Gould,H e n ?T eeth an d Horses T oes: Furt her Rg?ections in N atural H t i -toy (New York: Nort on, 1983), p. 14.


39/376

6 IS THE WORLD RUNNING DOWN?

at the bottom of the scale. They pull every trick in the book to justify theirposition. Indeed, at t imes, they verge right over into the downright dishon-

est. S cient ific Crea tion ism is n ot jus t wron g: it is lu dicrou sly im plau sible. Itis a grotesqu e parody of hu m an thou ght , an d a downright m isu se of hu m anintelligence. In short, to the Believer, it is an insult to G o d . 8

Under no circumstances would I let Creationist ideas into [tax-financedschool] biology classes, or anywhere else where they might be taken by stu-den ts as poss ible fra meworks of belief. I wou ld not give Creat ion ism equ altime. I wou ld n ot give it an y t ime .9

It [Scientific Creationism] is in te l lec tuzdLudditism of the most per-nicious kin d. It is a betrayal of ours elves a s hu m an beings. And , it is th ere-fore for this reas on, above al l others , th at I argu e th at it sh ould not be p artof the m aterial tau gh t in sch ools .10

All mu st agree tha t th ere h as to com e a t im e when we ha ve to cry fin isto the teaching of certain ideas. After a while they become no longer ten-ab le, an d tr yin g to make t h em s o is p ositively har mfu l. It is a n act of ba dfaith even to pres ent su ch ideas as a poss ible bas is of belief. . , . Scientific

Creation ism is fallaciou s by every canon of good ar gu men ta tion . Thu s, Isay Keep it out of the schools! 1

Su ch vitriolic lan gua ge is a lm ost n ever u sed in North Am ericanacad emic circles. Wh en an y group becom es th e tar get of su ch verbalabu se , th is in dicates th at th e au thor i s ab solu te ly confident e ith erthat all his academic colleagues agree with his assessment or else thatthey will not dare to criticize it publicly. It is also indicative that the

tar gets a re not even r emotely in side the a cadem ic gu ild, an d th ere-fore th ey are en titled t o n one of th e gu ilds pr otection.The most prolific American author of this century is Isaac

Asim ov, who h ad written over 3 50 books b y 1986 , u p from only 20 0in 197 9. He ha s a book in each of th e ten m ain d ivision s of th e Deweydecima l system , 12although he is most famous for his science fictionbooks a n d s tories. He received a Ph.D. in chem istr y in th e 194 0s,and he taught for a few years a t the Boston Universi ty medical

school, but as he freely admitted once, I realized t h at I would n ever

8. Micha el Ruse,D a r w i n i s m Lhj2nded:A G u t i eto the Evolution Controversies (Read-ing, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley, 1982), p. 303.

9. Ibid., p. 321.10. Ibid., p . 327.11. Ibsd., p . 329.12. Thomas LaSk, Book Ends: New Y wk Ti m s s Book Review ( Jan . 28, 1979).


40/376

Introduction 7

be a first-rate scientist. But I could be a first-rate writer. The choicewas an eas y on e: I ju st decided to do wha t I did best.fi He ga ve u p

th e clas sr oom for th e typewriter. Bu t h e is well respected by oth erpopu lar izers of sc ience . Ast ronom er-au thor (an d te levis ion sh owpersonality of Cosmos in 198 0) Carl Sagan describes h im as th e greatexplainer of the age .14He is representative of conventional Darwin-ian science. List en to th e oth erwise jovial Asim ov in h is d u st jack etpr om otion of Willard You n gs pop u larly written book, Fall~ies of Creationism:

In Fal la&.s of Creationism , Willard Young has assembled the clearest,fairest and most complete analysis of the nonsense offered up by those whowish to persuade others of their invented Creationist superstitions. Youngquotes extensively from the writings of the Creationists to expose the man-n er in which they dis tor t facts a nd m issta te science in order to su pport thechildish myths they are determined to believe. Young strikes out vigorouslyagainst these pernicious Creationist foll ies that no rational person can ac-cept an d th at ca n only be design ed to fas ten m edieval sh ackles on th eh u m a n m in d .M

His total confidence in the evolutionists worldview is displayedin his religious affirmation concerning what every fact of everyscience teach es every tim e: In fact , th e st ron gest of all in dications asto the fact of evolution and the truth of the theory of natural selectionis t h at al l th e in depen den t fin dings of scien t is ts in every bran ch of science, when th ey h ave an ythin g to do with biological evolu tion atall, a i w a y

Is the Word Running Down

Documents