Your session will end in  seconds due to inactivity. Click here to continue using this web page.
The Study Bible - A Bible that gives you instant access to all of John’s teaching on the passage you’re reading.
Thursday, April 15, 2010 | Comments (5)

Carl Sagan, perhaps the best-known scientific celebrity of the past couple of decades. A renowned astronomer and media figure, Sagan was overtly antagonistic to biblical theism. But he became the chief televangelist for the religion of naturalism. He preached a world-view that was based entirely on naturalistic assumptions. Underlying all he taught was the firm conviction that everything in the universe has a natural cause and a natural explanation. That belief—a matter of faith, not a truly scientific observation—governed and shaped every one of his theories about the universe.

Sagan's religion included the belief that the human race is nothing special. Given the incomprehensible vastness of the universe and the impersonality of it all, how could humanity possibly be important? Sagan concluded that our race is not significant at all. In December 1996, less than three weeks before Sagan died, he was interviewed by Ted Koppel on "Nightline." Sagan knew he was dying, and Koppel asked him, "Dr. Sagan, do you have any pearls of wisdom that you would like to give to the human race?"

Sagan replied,

We live on a hunk of rock and metal that circles a humdrum star that is one of 400 billion other stars that make up the Milky Way Galaxy, which is one of billions of other galaxies, which make up a universe, which may be one of a very large number—perhaps an infinite number—of other universes. That is a perspective on human life and our culture that is well worth pondering. (ABC News Nightline, December 4, 1996)

In a book published posthumously, Sagan wrote, "Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity, in all this vastness, there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves” (Pale Blue Dot, New York: Random House, 1994, p. 9).

Although Sagan resolutely tried to maintain a semblance of optimism to the bitter end, his religion led where all naturalism inevitably leads: to a sense of utter insignificance and despair. According to his word-view, humanity occupies a tiny outpost—a pale blue speck in a vast sea of galaxies. As far as we know, we are unnoticed by the rest of the universe, accountable to no one, and petty and irrelevant in a cosmos so expansive. It is fatuous to talk of outside help or redemption for the human race. No help is forthcoming. It would be nice if we somehow managed to solve some of our problems, but whether we do or not will ultimately be a forgotten bit of cosmic trivia. That, said Sagan, is a perspective well worth pondering.

All of this underscores the spiritual barrenness of naturalism. The naturalist's religion erases all moral and ethical accountability, and it ultimately abandons all hope for humanity. If the impersonal cosmos is all there is, all there ever was, and all there ever will be, then morality is ultimately moot. If there is no personal Creator to whom humanity is accountable and the survival of the fittest is the governing law of the universe, all the moral principles that normally regulate the human conscience are ultimately groundless—and possibly even deleterious to the survival of our species.

Indeed, the rise of naturalism has meant moral catastrophe for modern society. The most damaging ideologies of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries were all rooted in Darwinism. One of Darwin's earliest champions, Thomas Huxley, gave a lecture in 1893 in which he argued that evolution and ethics are incompatible. He wrote that "the practice of that which is ethically best—what we call goodness or virtue—involves a course of conduct which, in all respects, is opposed to that which leads to success in the cosmic struggle for existence” ("Evolution and Ethics," The Romanes Lecture, 1893).

[Note: Huxley nonetheless went on to try to justify ethics as a positive result of humanity's higher rational functions, and he called upon his audience neither to imitate "the cosmic process" nor to run away from it, but rather to combat it—ostensibly by maintaining some semblance of morality and ethics. But what he could not do—what he and other philosophers of his era did not even bother attempting to do—was offer any justification for assuming the validity of morality and ethics per se on purely naturalistic principles. Huxley and his fellow naturalists could offer no moral compass other than their own personal preferences, and predictably, their philosophies all opened the door wide for complete moral subjectivity and ultimately amorality.]

Philosophers who incorporated Darwin's ideas were quick to see Huxley's point, conceiving new philosophies that set the stage for the amorality and genocide that characterized so much of the twentieth century.

Karl Marx, for example, self-consciously followed Darwin in the devising of his economic and social theories. He inscribed a copy of his book Das Kapital to Darwin, "from a devoted admirer." He referred to Darwin's The Origin of Species as "the book which contains the basis in natural history for our view” (Stephen Jay Gould, Ever Since Darwin, New York: Norton, 1977, p. 26).

Herbert Spencer's philosophy of "Social Darwinism" applied the doctrines of evolution and the survival of the fittest to human societies. Spencer argued that if nature itself has determined that the strong survive and the weak perish, this rule should govern society as well. Racial and class distinctions simply reflect nature's way. There is therefore no transcendent moral reason to be sympathetic to the struggle of the disadvantaged classes. It is, after all, part of the natural evolutionary process—and society would actually be improved by recognizing the superiority of the dominant classes and encouraging their ascendancy. The racialism of writers such as Ernst Haeckel (who believed that the African races were incapable of culture or higher mental development) was also rooted in Darwinism.

Friedrich Nietzsche's whole philosophy was based on the doctrine of evolution. Nietzsche was bitterly hostile to religion, and particularly Christianity. Christian morality embodied the essence of everything Nietzsche hated; he believed Christ's teaching glorified human weakness and was detrimental to the development of the human race. He scoffed at Christian moral values such as humility, mercy, modesty, meekness, compassion for the powerless, and service to one another. He believed such ideals had bred weakness in society. Nietzsche saw two types of people—the master-class, an enlightened, dominant minority; and the "herd," sheeplike followers who were easily led. And he concluded that the only hope for humanity would be when the master-class evolved into a race of Übermenschen (supermen), unencumbered by religious or social mores, who would take power and bring humanity to the next stage of its evolution.

It's not surprising that Nietzsche's philosophy laid the foundation for the Nazi movement in Germany. What is surprising is that at the dawn of the twenty-first century, Nietzsche's reputation has been rehabilitated by philosophical spin-doctors and his writings are once again trendy in the academic world. Indeed, his philosophy—or something very nearly like it—is what naturalism must inevitably return to.

All of these philosophies are based on notions that are diametrically opposed to a biblical view of the nature of man, because they all start by embracing a Darwinian view of the origin of humanity. They are rooted in anti-Christian theories about human origins and the origin of the cosmos, and therefore it is no wonder that they stand in opposition to biblical principles at every level.

The simple fact of the matter is that all the philosophical fruits of Darwinism have been negative, ignoble, and destructive to the very fabric of society. Not one of the major twentieth-century revolutions led by post-Darwinian philosophies ever improved or ennobled any society. Instead, the chief social and political legacy of Darwinian thought is a full spectrum of evil tyranny with Marx-inspired communism at one extreme and Nietzsche-inspired fascism at the other. And the moral catastrophe that has disfigured modern Western society is also directly traceable to Darwinism and the rejection of the early chapters of Genesis.

At this moment in history, even though most of modern society is already fully committed to an evolutionary and naturalistic world view, our society still benefits from the collective memory of a biblical worldview. People in general still believe human life is special. They still hold remnants of biblical morality, such as the notion that love is the greatest virtue (1 Corinthians 13:13); service to one another is better than fighting for personal dominion (Matthew 20:25-27); and humility and submission are superior to arrogance and rebellion (1 Peter 5:5).

But to whatever degree secular society still holds those virtues in esteem, it does so entirely without any philosophical foundation. Having already rejected the God revealed in Scripture and embraced instead pure naturalistic materialism, the modern mind has no grounds whatsoever for holding to any ethical standard; no reason whatsoever for esteeming "virtue" over "vice"; and no justification whatsoever for regarding human life as more valuable than any other form of life. Modern society has already abandoned its moral foundation.


You have 3000 characters remaining for your comment. Note: All comments must be approved before being posted.


#1  Posted by Victoria Womack  |  Thursday, April 15, 2010 at 4:37 AM

This saddens me to the marrow. Because I know and love several young people who's lives are directed by this worldview. I ache for them, and all who have submitted their thinking, their lives to this lie.

LORD, do in me whatever it takes to be useful to You in combating this damning thought. To, You, Creator, Savior, LORD, be the glory forever, Amen.

#2  Posted by Carol Gayheart  |  Thursday, April 15, 2010 at 5:39 AM

Why would men ever expect to achieve a peaceful society/culture when they so readily accept “survival of the fittest”? (Is that not foundational thinking for gang mentality?)

And if all living things began their existence as scum, though are supposedly progressing to some “higher” level, I want to know “WHO IS IT WHO DEFINES THAT HIGHER LEVEL?” With no god & no accountability/no pre-set rules, each man defines his own higher level, hence multiple religions with differing & competitive beliefs.

It all comes full circle to the reality that there’s always been elitism with man, the pride of himself, being his own god & calling his own shots, creating his own heaven/reward system. (No, there’s nothing new under the sun.)

And what is man’s proof that he has attained that higher level of development, that “superiority” over others? A position of power in society (attained at ANY COST) in which he can then justifiably enforce his own ideologies on others – “for their own good”, (or the good of the society he envisions) though they are incapable of understanding the “good” being done for them on their behalf. This is “self-nobility,” “self-god,” “self-authority.” (This is “SELF-ABSORBED!”)

Most or all other belief systems seem to not just “pull others down to their level,” (that would create equality) but instead “push others down below their level,” (creating inferiority), while Christianity’s belief system is based on God setting the supreme living example in His Son, Jesus, & pulling us up, with our ultimate goal to be more like Christ Jesus, our Savior! Now THAT is progression to a HIGHER LEVEL!

Remember: Whatever a man reaps he also sows? If you teach evolution in schools, you should not be surprised when students act accordingly:

· Teach evolution…reap cheating, lying, greed, bullying, homosexuality, sexism, insubordination, etc.

· Teach survival of the fittest…reap hatred, stealing, violence, abortion, gangs, rape, murder, etc.

And don’t be surprised when those students become adults, that they push their own ideologies on everyone else with the mentality that THEY are superior to others, because they are just seeking to be the “fittest” and progress & survive at the top!

#3  Posted by Bebe Atto  |  Thursday, April 15, 2010 at 7:19 AM

Thank you Dr. MacArthur and GTY, great post, God bless

#4  Posted by Don Jordan  |  Friday, April 16, 2010 at 9:33 AM

The evolutionary cosmogony completely strips the universe of any intrinsic meaning. Even at the biological level, any meaning inferred from the complexity of life is only an illusion as the evolutionist Jacques Monod explained:

“We call these events accidental [mutations]; we say that they are random occurrences. And since they constitute the only possible source of modifications in the genetic text, itself the sole repository of the organism's hereditary structures, it necessarily follows that chance alone is at the source of every innovation, of all creation in the biosphere. Pure chance, absolutely free but blind, at the very root of the stupendous edifice of evolution: this central concept of modern biology is no longer one among other possible or even conceivable hypothesis. It is today the sole conceivable hypothesis, the only one that squares with observed and tested fact. And nothing warrants the supposition--or hope--that on this score our position is likely ever to be revised.”

“Chance and Necessity”, Jacques Monod, (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1971), pp. 112 - 113 (Emphasis in the original).

Our children understand what evolution teaches about the ultimate meaning of life and our society is reaping the results. The protestations of theistic evolutionists notwithstanding, the God of the Bible is superfluous in the evolutionary world view. Consider what the Apostle Paul wrote:

“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed [it] unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.” (Romans 1:18 - 20)

If evolution is true and if evolution is “God’s method of creation,” then why did God create the universe in such a way as to make it appear as if all order and complexity in the universe happened by chance? To put it another way, if evolution is true, then ungodly man most certainly does have an excuse.

#5  Posted by Alvie Perkins  |  Friday, April 16, 2010 at 7:21 PM

It is sad that many people put their trust only in what they see. Evolution is so wrong even before the Lord saved me, I knew we had to come from someone. Praise the Lord that He removed the log from my eye. When I read that people believe in stuff like this I really hurt for them. Romans 1 they better understand that!