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


Topic: Science

Capitalizing on Deceit

by Darrel Cline

We have been addressing the conflict between scientists (so-called) and the Bible. (139) We have claimed that there is no conflict between scientific data and properly interpreted biblical revelation. But there is an enormous conflict between men and the God of the Bible; a conflict that arises from God's insistence upon responsible moral behavior and man's insistence upon willful self-direction at whatever cost to whoever gets in the way. The fundamental issue is morality, not validated scientific fact.

However, since evolutionary theory has dominated the educational system for half a century, what we have is an ignorant populace. It is not ignorant in the sense of being uneducated; it is ignorant in that it has not been given an opportunity to be exposed to both sides of the issues involved in evolutionary theory. Witness the heavy-duty screaming by evolutionists when the idea is put forward that students in our schools ought to be able to study creation as well as evolution. What do evolutionists have to hide that makes them so adamant that creation "is not science" and ought not to be taught? Usually the weakest wheel of the cart squeaks the loudest--what are they trying to hide? Typically, whenever the facts are put forward in regard to creation and evolution, evolution takes a real beating. Why? Truth doesn't have to hide, scream, or insist that options cannot be reasonably pursued.

One of the main facts in this debate is this: Given the amoral foundations of evolution as they apply to philosophy, there is no way anyone can prove that the world was not just created ten seconds ago. In theory, God could have just created all that is with the appearance of age and history and implanted memories in everyone. In other words, there is no way that science can prove we all were not just created.

However, the evolutionist argues, this would not be moral for God to create a false impression of age by creating and simultaneously implanting unreal memories. But here the evolutionist wants to have his cake and eat it too. Evolution does all it can to destroy moral imperative: no God means no foundation for morals. And then it cries foul if someone accepts its immorality and posits an immoral theory to explain the universe.

But, is it immoral for God to create an appearance that is unreal? Is it immoral for God to create a tree that is fully grown? Is it immoral for God to create a fully mature man? Is it immoral for God to create? You see, there is no way to create without the appearance of age. As soon as a finished creation exists, it looks like the product of much time. Is this immoral?

It might be--if the creator didn't set the record straight. But the Bible says that God created with the appearance of age and gives a fair chronology of history from that time till now. If I build a replica of my wife's grandmother's oak table to sell, I have not been immoral if I tell the buyer it is a replica and not the original. It is only immoral to deceive. God has not deceived us because He has told us plainly what He has done. It is the evolutionist that capitalizes on deceit, not God.

(return to the top of the article)

Previous articleBack to Table of ContentsNext article
This is article #141.
If you wish, you may contact Darrel as darrelcline at this site.