Evolution

[tellville]

I love how British people say evolution:

"evilution"

Seriously!

 

[panta dokimazete]

I'd probably start with the fact that evolution is not intellectually satisfying in that the theory relies on the unguided increase of information to accomplish what it theorizes, which is counter to the observation of natural processes.

I'd also say that I object to the premise of evolution, that is, "from goo to you" as well as the implications - that is - social Darwinism (Nazi-ism, Communism, the French reign of Terror - more deaths in the last century - over 100 million or so - than the sum of all previous religious or political movements in human history).

I'd summarize that while I may not be able to rebut him on the level of detail into which he may try to dive and while evolutionary theory and the worldview it supports may be intellectually satisfying to some, I am satisfied that my worldview supports a spiritual and scientific outlook with an ultimate purpose and goal for Creation and does not reduce Mankind to a deluded, purposeless gene-passing meatbag.

 

[caddy]

From a presuppositional point of view, you know he knows the truth of God's invisible attributes without entering into a discussion of evolution, and that is where I would start.

He knows God's power, and divine nature. He is without excuse. Trying to argue with evolution is essentially pointless because he won't accept the truth that evolution is a flaky excuse put up by those that don't want to believe because they are morally defective. In speaking to the Areopagus, Paul quickly switched away from the local idols to the true and living God. He pointed out their need for being saved because their worship of idols was defective.

While I firmly believe evolution is false, I also believe it is not profitable to argue the details of evolution (or even talk about it) with those that are not believers. It may be possible to have someone become willing to listen to you if you have logical reasons that they would understand from their world view on the subject, but ultimately it is of no consequence in proclaiming the Gospel that you would refute him on evolution.

I might be able to argue with someone on their terms why I don't believe evolution (the Discovery Institute has played out some very articulate reasons for rejecting evolution) but it doesn't do the Gospel any good even then.

Evolution is a rabbit trail put up by those that are running from God. Don't bother going there if your goal is to witness the gospel.

If your goal is to show their reasoning is defective, you probably won't get too far arguing from a Biblical presuppositional standpoint (they won't listen, unless they would listen to the Gospel because the Holy Spirit is in fact calling them). If you really want to give them pause in persecution of the creationist view, but don't intend on presenting the Gospel, then beat them with their own logic, but only gently, or others will see it and you won't have adorned the Gospel to the others.

Excellent ! The local "idols" cannot be missed. I highly recommend Herman Scholssberg's wonderful book:

Book Review - Idols for Destruction by Herbert Schlossberg (Part 1)
Gary North

Book Review - Idols for Destruction by Herbert Schlossberg
John Frame

There is MUCH meat in that book. Another one I recommend is Nancy Pearcy's book called Total Truth:


Nancy Pearcey on Total Truth
Nancy Pearcey (mp3)

Nancy Pearcey on Total Truth - One Year Later
Nancy Pearcey (mp3)

Mortimer Adler concluded that the naturalism and materialism that inform humanist thought would destroy the humanitarian ethic. For without anything transcending the material, the love ethic is without foundation. The action that despises the external restraint of law in favor of self-determination is one of self-deification.

Some random quotes from Idols of Destruction:

Man is the autonomous ruler of himself, able to define right and wrong and frame statues according to whatever he defines as just. Or else man is created and sustained by a Holy and just God who declares on matters of right and wrong in the form of law.

People fail to appreciate the worth of society's Christian underpinnings because they are the unconscious recipients of its blessings. The most vigourous atheist in the West has grown up in a world in which love and justice are ideals. But such ideals have no objective refrent outside of the biblical accounts.

People who reject the biblical doctrines of responsibility and sin do NOT thereby rid themseleves of guilt, and so they feel guilty. They do, however, rid themselves of any way to handld their guilt, and that is why it breaks out so destructively. Responsibilty denied is thrust upon a soceity anyway, but within the humanitarian context there is no way for it to repent and mend its ways.

Mortimer Adler puzzled over why Protestant theologians should have come to the positin of athesim and decided that it was because they had committed themselves to the reigning views of naturalism and materialm. Once the norms of academic orthodoxy were accepted, it was only natural tha tits conclusions should be adopted as well.

There are no technological solutions to theological problems.

The creation myths of antiquity, so many of which have been thought to be mere variants of the Genesis account, are really quite the opposite. Those myths portray the visible universe as in some way identified with deity.

The naturalist assumptions that removes sexual practices from the realm of morality remove everything from the realm of morality. Animals do not act morally or imorrally; they only act naturally. A system of ethics that says human beings ought to base their behavior on nature therefore justifies any behavior, because nature knows no ethic. If naturalism rules, it means there is no bar to adultery, which is all right with many naturalists, but it also means there is no bar to murder. If man is only one of the animals, it makes no sense to grant him a privileged position over other animals.

When life has grown arbitrary one becomes obsessed with, and prays to, chance.

Science does not possess an objectivity denied to other investigative activities, because scientists cannot fully insulate their critical faculties from the other aspects of their personalities.

Evolution itself is accpted by zoologists not because it has been observed to occur or...can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible.

There can be no simple appeal to the "facts", for factuality cannot be considered apart from a philosophy by which the facts are interpreted.

University of London philosopher C.E.M Joad has described science as a form of art, "an imaginative picture constructed by the human mind," far from maintaining an objectivity denied to the other pursuits, science is subject to the same array of personal vagaries as any human enterprise.

Humanism is fundamentally irrational. Although naturalistic in most of its forms, it nevertheless professes belief in the special worth and dignity of human beings, a position for which there can be no support in naturalism.

Modern humanists are hostile to any notion of law that is external to the legislative organs under human control, and this means that morality cannot be predicated on universal codes.

There is no action so evil that it cannot and will not be said to be motivated by love. Antinomian love goes perfectly with autonomous man; neither can stand the shackles of law. They both epitomize lawlessness. Humanist anthropology does not need law because it has a high view of man's moral stature. Not being encumbered by a propensity to sin, he has no need for external restraint or correction.

A pluralistic society heralds the virtues of paths that have no exits.

Soundly designed experiments, complete data, airtight controls, scrupulous honesty, and rigorous logic yeild wrong conclusions when the original assumptions are wrong.

Anyone with a hierarchy of values has placed something at its apex, and whatever tha tis is the god he serves.

The belief that science will ultimately comprehend the nature of reality at both the macro and micro levels is no less founded on faith than the belief that there is a God and that Jesus was His Son.

-----Added 3/6/2009 at 10:08:03 EST-----

While there is much value in understanding the faulty logic which evolutionary science stands on, I wonder how much impact you may have on your teacher. The only reason I mention this is such questions may lead him to become more aggressive, perhaps even antagonistic towards you. He could even develop some biases against you and treat you unfairly.

I agree with Brian's comments. Consider your motives carefully. Is this an attempt to "shake up" his worldview? Or is this an attempt to share the Gospel?

There's been many instructors I wanted to pose questions, to admittedly, test their "faith." And I've had a couple of science teachers who clearly were drinking from the evolutionary Kool-aid. Point is, I was there to learn in the course (knowing the stance they would propose), and not there to debate them.

I just don't want to hear you get burned, as I'm sure having his views questioned may lead to some anger. This may be the case of tossing the pearls towards the swines. If you decide to proceed, I hope you won't get trampled on.

This is great advice. I majored in biology for my undergraduate degree with evolutionary biology as my capstone at a secular university. I'm currently in graduate school for a degree in molecular biology - evolution has pervaded every aspect of my education for the last 10 years. What I've learned is that unless God has graciously given an individual faith in Him, creation is totally foolish and evolution makes a lot of sense. If you don't first bring Christ to your prof, he's not going to have any reason to be persuaded by your arguments.

Presuppositional apologetics can be fun and are a good exercise, but please don't think that your going to convince a biology academic of your beliefs only through these arguments. I've had plenty of conversations with biologists who freely admit that they don't have an answer for the physical beginnings of the universe but are well-versed and totally confident of the mechanisms of biological evolution. Maybe discussions with a physics prof would be different.

I know the majority of us here on the PB have a lot of fun pointing out how stupid and illogical evolution is... but it's really not that simple. We all have the benefit of the Holy Spirit aiding our understanding - with out the HS, we'd be no different.

Blessings, I hope your discussions are fruitful.

No truer words have been spoken! I have had open dialogue with a handful of athiests / agnostic for a couple of years. No matter how could our arguments and language are, some will just NOT get it for the simple fact that God has purposely "veiled" their eyes to NOT GET IT.

Keep in mind that we didn't deserve His mercy and grace just as these "current" agnostics and rebels don't deserve it now. Constantly pray that God uses you to do just that.

 

[Wannabee]

Nobody accidentally made everything out of nothing.

I love the answers here. This has been an edifying discussion. If I might, I'd add some perspective to what's already been said.

It boils down to one's source of truth. The professor's source is himself. If it's not, then it's another man. This presupposes that he has all the information he needs, has correctly interpreted all the information he has, has correctly assimilated such interpretation and has rightly applied his interpretation. That's a lot of assumption based on the expertise of the finite who can't even explain exactly what electricity is, or gravity, or time, or any other number of challenges in creation. On the other hand man can accept the truth of God and recognize that He is the source and sustainer. The evidence that God is who He says He is is evident in all creation, and specified in Scripture. But the man of the world will deny the truth of God in unrighteousness.

As some have pointed out, it is a matter of faith. But in whom? I wouldn't debate him. I would point out a few inconsistencies in his argument by asking questions that show the challenges. I would ask them with a genuine desire to know how he deals with them. I would ask them humbly (I hope). These can respectfully be done in the classroom, and may help others think as well. It is also a witnessing opportunity. You don't need to debate, but you may have an opportunity to lovingly present enough truth to help others see the light.

Don't get caught in the "what does the Bible prove" argument. The Bible proves nothing. The Bible is a source of truth, not a proof of it. It proclaims truth, all else proves the Bible true.

Finally, I think I would somehow graciously attempt to convey to him that your perspective is not on ignorance, but on a different set of presuppositions and source of authority. Perhaps a plea for understanding that you are convinced that God is the source of truth, and that you will believe God before any mere man; and that such a perspective is incompatible with God's creation.

Understand that this will leave you wide open to scrutiny in the classroom. You might be ostracized for it. But, you will also declare yourself to be submissive to God almighty and be recognized as a conduit to the truth of God. Others who are of the same persuasion will be encouraged. Seekers will be curious and perhaps emboldened. Naysayers will, if nothing else, know exactly where you stand. And the fact that you are able to do it with love and not antagonism will speak volumes.

Ultimately, your plea is a plea for the souls of all who hear. Will they believe God or man? That is the ultimate question. And it's the only question in such a classroom that has any eternal consequences. Don't bother attempting to win. Use this as an opportunity to plant seed, water and see what else God does with it.

 

[panta dokimazete]

- you might start the reply with - "You must understand that my worldview proposes and presupposes as its foundation that God is the source of all truth, thus any proposition that challenges that is inherently false. I'd love to compare that with your worldview's foundational proposition."

 

[Wannabee]

Shadrack, Mishak and Abednego did not rail against Nebuchadnezzar. But neither did they bow to him. Railing or striving for debate will accomplish little to nothing if graciousness or love slips one iota. But if you can lovingly show that you will not bow to idols, and yet will submit to the furnace, God will sustain you through the heat. Who knows, maybe even the king will bow to YHWH as he sees your peace that defies the comprehension of the world.

 

[Jimmy the Greek]

Ask your teacher if he holds to classic Darwinian evolution theory. Why? he may ask. Because the scientific community by-and-large now admits that classic Darwinism is untenable and specifically cannot be supported by the fossil record.

Then ask if he prefers the Punctuated Equlibrium theory which is a form of gradualism, or the more exotic theories such as George Gaylord Simpson's quantum evolution, Richard Goldschmidt's saltationism, or some other modern attempt to deny creationism?

Then watch him squirm. No matter what his answer is, you have made your point and can sit down.

 

[panta dokimazete]

and don't forget the "alien seeding" theory that If I recall correctly Dawkins is willing to consider...

 

[TheocraticMonarchist]

Wow, thanks for all the well though out posts. I'll research, pray and study, and see how God works things out. I'll keep you all posted on any new events

 

[panta dokimazete]

As a follow-up, I posted my suggestion on ChristianSkepticism.org - take a look at the comments - particularly the atheist that posted.

 

[August]

Yes, so I'm actually engaged with that atheist over there at Christian Skepticism. So far he refuses to clarify what science is, is wishy-washy on what demarcates science from non-science, and absolutely refuses to engage on the things that secular scientists must hold to by faith. I'm being pretty blunt with him at this point.

Anyway, my first response over there in response to the original question is that one should engage on the microbiological level and basically ask the evolutionist the same question that Behe has been asking...Show at the microbiological level how through the process of random mutation and natural selection a descendant evolved from an ancestor. In other words, which genes acted on which proteins etc to effect the changes needed to go from the ancestor to the descendant. We've been able to observe at that level for at least ten years now, surely there must be some proof.

 

[steven-nemes]

There's some website on the internet somewhere basically called "The Riddle Atheists Can't Answer" where his argument is essentially as follows:

1. DNA is code; information.
2. Information comes from minds, not random processes.
3. Where does the information come from?

 

[August]

Good point Steven.

I guess that is one of the premises of Intelligent Design, that there can be no increase in genetic information from unguided processes.

 

[steven-nemes]

Good point Steven.

I guess that is one of the premises of Intelligent Design, that there can be no increase in genetic information from unguided processes.

Yep. It doesn't prove a whole lot, and in the long run, the argument is really useless. But still fun nonetheless and interesting.

 

[August]

Plus I guess the evolutionary answer relies on gene duplication or splitting, which seems to be a possible answer if you accept the rest of their premises.

 

[steven-nemes]

Plus I guess the evolutionary answer relies on gene duplication or splitting, which seems to be a possible answer if you accept the rest of their premises.

I think the argument goes against the notion of the first single-celled organism, which had to have had DNA, arriving by chance.

 

[August]

But don't you know that evolution just assumes that first organism...they don't have to account for it? Since when did they have to account for the first in the series? How ignorant we fundies are.

 

[steven-nemes]

Oh. Ha, I thought for a second that they had come up with some sort of explanation of that first organism.

Suddenly it seems so stupid to me.