After North noted the failure of Scientific Creationism to properly recognize the importance of the Resurrection (instead focusing on the Second Law of Thermodynamics), he notes in his book Is the World Running Down (page xx: the bold has been provided by myself):
Paradigm Shift is in Progress
I do not expect to persuade the founders of the Scientific Creation movement with the arguments in this book. Very few established scholars ever participate in a paradigm shift. I do expect to persuade the best and the brightest of the younger members of the movement. Like the Darwinists, Scientific Creationists do not hold their position because of scientific arguments alone, or even primarily. They hold them because of the overall worldview they have already adopted personally. They came to six-day creationism after their conversions to Christ; they did not begin with six-day creationism and then become Christians. (On this point, the Darwinists are correct: Scientific Creationism exists only to bolster the Christian religion. What they refuse to admit is that Darwinism exists only to bolster the anti-Christian humanist religion.) In short, a scientist’s worldview generally determines the kind of science he does, not the other way around.
The religion of evolution is tied closely to faith in the Total State. This god is dying visibly as we speak, and I doubt that there will be anything but rotting relics in 50 years.
This defeat will not be because of a resurgent Christian faith (although I expect such a rebound after the old idol has visibly collapsed, just as Communism was dumped after the Soviets lost power), as much as the failure of the God-State to cope with either technological change, or with economic reality.
The failure of the Total State in the economic universe is now obvious, and so is slowly and grudgingly being abandoned by academia decades after the intellectual reasons for its failure – outlined in Mises’ Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth – was published.
What’s more interesting is that technological power has increasingly empowered the individual, and not the state as feared by C.S. Lewis, George Orwell, H. W. Wells, or Aldous Huxley.
This is a welcome if rather unexpected surprise: freedom was restored not by the pathetic and insipid hand of the Church: if we were dependent on the bishops and the pastors, we would have long ago been placed under the heel of an secularistic communist state (which took the time to mouth a few Christian platitudes every so often.) It was wrought by the very nature of technology, coupled by the very nature of human behaviour.
With no small assist by thousands of anti-Christian scientists and entrepreneurs, whose work was used by God to break the bonds of the anti-Christian Total State. Yes, even the online God-hating prono types had their role to play: and now, their usefulness to God finished, are now left to fade to financial irrelevance.
The God of Isaac is a very powerful God, but a very strange one, who likes to move in extremely unexpected ways. I wish that His people would listen to Him more, and obey Him with more consistency. It would make for a far more interesting world, and a faster move to a most glorious (and outrageously funny, in the kindest and happiest sense possible) future.
A bit more from North:
(The bold is mine, but the italics are his)
Christians need to start arguing that the burdens imposed by the second law of thermodynamics could be progressively removed as a curse on man and the creation if mankind would repent before God. Even better, they should become prophetic: the second law of thermodynamics will be progressively removed as a curse on man and the creation when mankind repents before God. We never hear Creation Scientists arguing this way. It would destroy their original argument. They assume that the second law is a constant – a uniformitarian constant – in the external world (except when God performs a miracle). This constant never changes (except when God performs a miracle). Indeed, this explicit uniformitarianism is the heart and soul of the Scientific Creationists’ technical criticism of evolutionism: the evolutionists supposedly do not adhere to the second law as a constant, they argue. Creation Scientists almost always argue as though the imposition of the second law of thermodynamics were God’s irrevocable curse on Adam; they never argue that we can legitimately expect a reduction in these curses as a result of Christ’s resurrection – the most astounding miracle in the history of man. They find themselves in the unenviable position of implicitly (and sometimes explicitly) arguing that the cursed effects of Adam’s sin will remain cosmically dominant in history – except possibly during a millennium when Christ and His death-free resurrected saints will rule the earth – despite Christ’s bodily resurrection.
We must abandon this presupposition. We must begin to work out the implications of Christ’s resurrection for every area of life. Jesus offers us redemption – comprehensive redemption. No area of life is exempt from the judgment of God, so no area of life is outside the redemptive work of Christ.
Am I arguing that the second law of thermodynamics will be pro- gressively repealed in history as a result of the preaching of the gospel? No. It need not be “repealed” in history because it was not imposed in history as God’s curse. The second law of thermodynamics was oper- ating in the sin-free garden, and it will be operating in eternity, too. It is an aspect of the original creation, not a product of the curse.
Now, THIS is what Across the Stars is all about!