For about a decade Liberals have described Conservatives as “anti-science.” If you question global warning theorists, you are anti-science. If you question the evolutionary religion that argues for spontaneous generation, you are anti-science. Start with nothing  . . . absolutely nothing. No air. No matter . . . not even an atom. No energy. No space. No thought. No time. Just a long dead silence. This is the evolutionist’s reality before the dawn of something becoming everything. At some infinitesimal moment in time all the stuff that makes up our world came into being. To doubt this theory (not empirical science) makes you anti-science.

Even some atheists find the view incredible. Consider the latest book by Thomas Nagel: Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False.

“The modern materialist approach to life has conspicuously failed to explain such central mind-related features of our world as consciousness, intentionality, meaning, and value. This failure to account for something so integral to nature as mind, argues philosopher Thomas Nagel, is a major problem, threatening to unravel the entire naturalistic world picture, extending to biology, evolutionary theory, and cosmology.”

Former Newsweek editor Howard Fineman said that the Republican Party has become

“a ‘faith-based,’ ‘Bible-based’ political organization. Fineman also derided Paul Ryan as untrustworthy when it comes to considering science: [Ryan] starts every consideration of public policy, not from the standpoint of science, but from the standpoint of faith.’”

There is no human dignity in the evolutionary worldview. It’s dog-eat-dog, “nature red in tooth and claw,” survival of the fittest. The further political regimes get away from a “faith-based” worldview that has the personal God at its core the closer they get to tyranny and dehumanization. A materialistic, science-based worldview is like setting the sails of a ship “for the island of nihilism. This is the darkest continent of the darkened mind — the ultimate paradise of the fool.”1

Science as it’s taught today cannot make moral judgments. Science can only conclude how atoms line up, how hot or cold something is, or how fast something travels. Science can’t say if genocide is morally right or wrong or whether taxing the rich is good or bad for the economy. Science can only publish the body count of the dead and the amount of money that’s collected from tax payers.

The only thing that is keeping America from going over the cliff is a faith-based, Bible-based worldview. Our founders understood this, even those who had strong objections to some of the Bible’s doctrines. The Declaration of Independence makes it clear that “rights” were an endowment from the Creator and not a gift from the State.

The Declaration states that “the Representatives of the United States of America, in general Congress assembled,” appealed “to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of [their] intentions.” This was a faith-based worldview. Science doesn’t know a thing about rights.

Where is the science in the economic policies of the Democrats? How is taking money from some people and passing it along to other people pass for moral rectitude and sound public policy? How does Mr. Fineman propose to use science to make this determination? He can’t.

1. R. C. Sproul, The Consequences of Ideas: Understanding the Concepts That Shaped Our World (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2000), 171. [↩]