As we all know, Darwinism is the official scientific philosophy accepted by our culture today. But here’s a question: does being widely accepted make a thing true? In the last article, we talked about how the validity of any given scientific philosophy should be judged by how closely it fits the observable evidence. Not how widely accepted it is. In other words, science is not democratic. Or at least, it shouldn’t be.
Sadly, many Christians assume that because Darwinism is so well established (i.e. widely accepted) it must therefore be the true science of origins. Taking evolution to be fact, they then try to fit their faith around it. There have been many pseudo-evolutionary theories put forward over the years to try to reconcile Christianity and Evolution. One of the most popular today is Theistic Evolution. Theistic Evolution is basically Evolution with a qualifier: God. God started everything and then let random chance, billions of years, and natural selection do the rest, only stepping in at key points (like the creation of man).
A reasonable compromise, a level-headed balance between science and religion, don’t you think? After all, we wouldn’t want to be labeled fanatics, or worse, Creationists, now would we? But there is one small problem with this seemingly reasonable, level-headed solution. Namely, it undermines the very foundation of Christianity itself.
What is the basis of Christianity? Christ. The belief that Christ is the Son of God and that he died on a cross to save sinners. This is what we call the Gospel.
Here are some of the ways Theistic Evolution undermines the Gospel:
Denies our need for a savior: This one doesn’t come intuitively, but think about it for a moment. Death is the vehicle of evolution. Survival of the fittest, natural selection, and millions of years all require death. If God created death as part of the original creation (as Theistic Evolution implies), then death was not the result of sin. If death was not the result of sin, then sin must not be a big deal. Therefore, if sin is no big deal, why do we need a savior to save us from sin?
Denies the goodness of God: How could a good God create a world full of death, disease, suffering, struggle, and pain? This makes death God's fault not man’s. So how is man responsible for death if it was there from the beginning?
Denies the truthfulness of God: If Theistic Evolution is true, then the Creation account in Genesis is false. That makes God a liar. If we cannot trust him to tell us the truth about creation, how can we trust him about anything else he says (especially about salvation for mankind)?
The list continues but the bottom line is this: Theistic Evolution denies the absolute truth of scripture by assuming the very first words of scripture, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth,” are false.
If the foundation is faulty, the building will collapse in the first earth quake.
Remember the reason for coming up with Theistic Evolution in the first place? It was to try to “fit” Christianity into the evolutionary paradigm. But in trying to fit Christianity into the paradigm, Theistic Evolution destroys the very meaning and purpose of Christianity.
Why do we want to fit Christianity into the paradigm, again? Because we believe the ridiculous fallacy that widely accepted equals true. But truth is not democratic (To those of you who would argue that truth is relative, I have a challenge for you: build a bridge on that principle and then walk across it.)
If you had to choose between the word of an infallible God who created the entire universe, or the word of a fallible scientist who frequently makes mistakes that result in the contents of a test tube blowing up in his face, whose word would you trust to tell you the truth about reality?
As Christians, our starting point should be “Scripture as absolute truth and see how the scientific evidence fits around it,” not “Evolution as absolute truth and see how scripture fits in around it.”
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
As we all know, Darwinism is the official scientific philosophy accepted by our culture today. But here’s a question: does being widely accepted make a thing true?
No. Most certainly not. In science an idea that is widely accepted is not necessarily true. However, if that idea has tons of evidence, and if that evidence is undeniable, then, yes of course, it's fair to say that idea is true. Unfortunately for people who don't like scientific facts that threaten their religious beliefs, and fortunately for human progress, the scientific community now has enough evidence to call the basic facts of evolution the strongest facts of science. Newer evidence from molecular biology settles it, because molecular biologists can not deny what they can see with their own eyes when they compare DNA sequences of different living species, and what they see are countless pieces of extremely powerful evidence for evolutionary relationships, including our close relationship with chimpanzee apes with who we share an ancient ape ancestor.
By the way, the scientific fact of evolution is called "evolution", not "Darwinism". Also evolutionary biology is not a philosophy. It's a branch of science. Please don't use worthless words like "philosophy" when talking about science. They are two completely different subjects.
Theistic Evolution is basically Evolution with a qualifier: God. God started everything and then let random chance, billions of years, and natural selection do the rest, only stepping in at key points (like the creation of man).
Evolution does not need any adjectives, especially not the worthless word "theistic" which is good for nothing but polluting and dumbing down science. Like any other natural process, the mechanisms of evolution (including natural selection, sexual selection, and genetic drift) did not require a supernatural inventor. And most certainly there was no supernatural intervention required for the evolution of the human ape species.
Also, I hope you understand natural selection is not "random chance". Of course chance has been important in the history of life. For example, if an asteroid did not wipe out the dinosaurs 65 million years ago, our small mammal ancestors would never have developed into primates including the human ape species. But there's nothing random about natural selection, which is the most important mechanism of evolution.
A reasonable compromise, a level-headed balance between science and religion, don’t you think? After all, we wouldn’t want to be labeled fanatics, or worse, Creationists, now would we? But there is one small problem with this seemingly reasonable, level-headed solution. Namely, it undermines the very foundation of Christianity itself.
There can never be any compromise between science and religion because scientists could care less what any religion says.
Yeah, evolution has huge religious implications. So what? If improved science education leads to a world full of atheists, then we can say goodbye to ignorance and human progress would really take off.
So we completely agree about one thing: evolution "undermines the very foundation of Christianity itself."
http://darwin-killed-god.blogspot.com/
So we completely agree about one thing: evolution "undermines the very foundation of Christianity itself."
What we don't agree about is the truth of evolution. On your side there are a lot of misconceptions about how evolution works and about the massive evidence for evolution. But this is a problem that can be easily fixed, unless a person has cemented his mind permanently shut because of religious reasons.
Intellectually curious evolution-deniers should want to read this interesting and easy to understand book written by Jerry Coyne, published in 2009, "Why Evolution is True".
More information about evolutionary biology, and the religious implications of evolution, can be found all over the internet including my blog:
http://darwin-killed-god.blogspot.com/
Two people own the "Darwin Killed God" blog. Myself, an atheist (Human Ape), and a former minister who now loves science (John).
Many thanks for your policy of immediately publishing comments, which is what we do on our blog.
Sorry, just one more comment because I wanted to answer this excellent question:
If you had to choose between the word of an infallible God who created the entire universe, or the word of a fallible scientist who frequently makes mistakes that result in the contents of a test tube blowing up in his face, whose word would you trust to tell you the truth about reality?
I would never blindly trust any scientist, no matter what his credentials are, and no matter how many important scientific discoveries he has made. Fortunately nobody has to trust any scientist, because to determine the value of a scientific idea, anyone can just study the evidence for it. I have been studying evolutionary biology for many years, and all I find is more and more evidence for evolution, and so far I have found nothing that conflicts with the evolution idea. That's why I have been able to accept the facts of evolution without having to trust anyone.
http://darwin-killed-god.blogspot.com/
Interesting thoughts from all... I would love to start at the very beginning here.
John (I believe that was your name), you believe that evolution is true. However, by believing in evolution you cannot believe in the very idea of truth. Evolution, as a method of explaining life itself, cannot explain intangibles such as morality and truth. Now, you could say that my desire to jump into a frozen lake to save the child who just fell in through the ice (no relation to myself) is to maintain the continuity of my species (which in itself has flaws, because I may be sacrificing both of us, so to ensure the continuity of humanity, I would make sure one of us would survive and stay away). However, if survival of the fittest is the primary goal, and competition to survive is all that life is about, then how do you explain a veterinarian? An individual who's job it is to keep alive other species that only take up our time and resources. The very concept of truth and morality cannot exist in your world, if they do, then you're borrowing from religious views in order to make your ideology work... and that doesn't seem very intellectually honest.
Speaking of evidence for evolution. If we're talking about micro evolution, then sure, it exists. But the idea that a fish became an elephant over billions of years is flawed to the max. Transitional species have not been found, it's as simple as that. Even if this kind of evolutionary process had taken place, at some point the fish's fins would have to be totally gone before the legs began to form... making it incapable of swimming or walking... and it would have died. This applies to any animal that would go through this kind of process. Any minute change to different vital aspects (the eyes, heart, lungs, liver for example) of the animal's anatomy would've killed it. Also, going back to the survival of the fittest argument. Needing to change means that it wasn't the fittest at one point, which means it wouldn't survive. And during the changing process, there must have been some point where it wasn't the fittest, so it would've died then anyway. Either way, it doesn't work.
If natural selection isn't random chance, what is it? Anything other than random chance involves a plan. The only thing involving a plan involves a planner. The only planner on a scale we're talking about is far above human form. I'm not even close to the Christian God yet! It just logically follows that if there's a plan, there probably is a planner, whatever that may mean.
Have you ever considered the idea that you have to have as much faith in evolution as Christians do in their God? You weren't there when life began, how can you know what happened? You both have your stories, and, statistically and logically speaking, the idea of a creator is much more feasible than either something coming from nothing (something I would hope we agree is an impossibility) or lightning striking a bundle of proteins which then form something that could eventually morph into a life-form (after trillions of years of random mutations of exactly the right type, moment, etc etc etc). How on earth is that more likely than the idea of there being the all-powerful God of the Bible?
I also would please respectfully request that you treat those you're talking to with a bit more respect. You may disagree with religion, you may even hate it. However, to dismiss it, and anyone who believes in it as completely ignorant is incredibly arrogant (something many atheists cry foul, and sometimes justifiably, about for Christians every few minutes). There are some incredibly smart Christian and non-Christian scientists who reject evolution and they have a firm basis for their thinking. Just as there are many incredibly smart individuals that believe in evolution. It isn't a one-sided game of the smart thinking one thing and the stupid another. You aren't the Bourgeoisie and we aren't the proletariat.
I disagree with your theory and ideology, but you're a human being, and I respect you, sir. Thank you for sharing your thoughts
John (I believe that was your name)
No, you misunderstood me. My internet name is Human Ape. The person who shares my blog is John, and I hope John stops by here because he has more patience than I have with people whose brains are cemented shut because of religious reasons.
I will be back several hours later. Please be patient. I'm not going to talk about every misconception you have because for that I would have to write a book. Instead I will pick one or two ideas you have and talk about why you are wrong.
Evolution does not need defending and I'm not going to waste valuable time defending it, and I'm especially not interested in wasting a lot of time with somebody like you who will never do your homework, and never do your own research, and who instead just repeats the same nonsense that creationists have been repeating for countless years, never caring that their ideas have been proven wrong countless times, because they enjoy wasting people's time.
You wrote "I respect you"
I'll be honest. I have zero respect for you. It's the 21st century and you're still living in the Dark Ages. There is no excuse for your ignorance and you are no better than a flat-earther.
However, I will return before I go back to work tonight. I will try to be nice, but John can tell you I have a strong tendency to just get real disgusted with evolution deniers.
You know what I think about Michael Behe. You should see what his university thinks about him:
Lehigh University Department of Biological Sciences
Department Position on Evolution and "Intelligent Design"
The faculty in the Department of Biological Sciences is committed to the highest standards of scientific integrity and academic function. This commitment carries with it unwavering support for academic freedom and the free exchange of ideas. It also demands the utmost respect for the scientific method, integrity in the conduct of research, and recognition that the validity of any scientific model comes only as a result of rational hypothesis testing, sound experimentation, and findings that can be replicated by others.
The department faculty, then, are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, which has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin and has been supported by findings accumulated over 140 years. The sole dissenter from this position, Prof. Michael Behe, is a well-known proponent of "intelligent design." While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific.
Excuse me, but having read Peter Singer, Charles Darwin, Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sigmund Freud, Renee Descartes, and many more evolutionists and atheists, I believe I've done plenty of homework. I don't care if you don't respect me. You are not an individual who's respect I want, and by communicating in the way you are, you're only making the case stronger against yourself. I have studied these topics for years, read countless books, articles, journals, blogs, and posts; listened to lectures, speeches, messages, and classes; watched videos, documentaries, and studies... all on this issue. You're only making yourself look foolish for jumping to these kinds of conclusions without either asking questions or getting to know who you're talking to. I do my research. I'm an independent thinker who's come to the conclusion after reading extensively on both sides and finding the facts. Just because I differ from you does not mean I'm inferior. You are calling yourself better than about 80% of every person who has ever lived and believed that a god exists, quite a statement. I'm sorry, but you are the minority in this one. You are not going to get out of this argument by saying you don't need to defend evolution. If we were to take that tactic, you would cry foul immediately. And I'm calling you out on it right now, it's intellectually dishonest, its ignorant, and it has no logical basis whatsoever.
Post a Comment