# Evolution



## TheocraticMonarchist

I’m posting to request some apologetic help. My biology teacher seems to be getting more confrontational with his views on evolution. He’s the type that’s not afraid to admit that he doesn’t have all answers because he has “the better case”. I would like to approach him form a presuppositional apologetic position. 

Some Q’s

What are some erroneous presuppositions that scientist hold about the universe (big-bang, evolution, ecct.) ?

Specifically, what are some erroneous presuppositions that Biologists hold in regard to evolution?

What are some philosophical arguments for God? (I’ve heard one using absolutes before, but I don’t remember much of it)

Why does the Pentateuch contain the only accurate historical account of creation?

Why & how is science limited in the area of history? 


Anything else I need to know? I'd appreciate web resources too


----------



## panta dokimazete

TheocraticMonarchist said:


> I’m posting to request some apologetic help. My biology teacher seems to be getting more confrontational with his views on evolution. He’s the type that’s not afraid to admit that he doesn’t have all answers because he has “the better case”. I would like to approach him form a presuppositional apologetic position.
> 
> Some Q’s
> 
> What are some erroneous presuppositions that scientist hold about the universe (big-bang, evolution, ecct.) ?
> 
> Specifically, what are some erroneous presuppositions that Biologists hold in regard to evolution?
> 
> What are some philosophical arguments for God? (I’ve heard one using absolutes before, but I don’t remember much of it)
> 
> Why does the Pentateuch contain the only accurate historical account of creation?
> 
> Why & how is science limited in the area of history?
> 
> 
> Anything else I need to know? I'd appreciate web resources too



Take a look here and see if it is helpful.


----------



## PresbyDane

Creation ministries are good they broke out from "Answers in Genesis" or AIG you might want to go there to


----------



## Confessor

You can argue that nature could not be uniform without a providential God. And if nature is not uniform -- or rather if we do not have a rational justification for believing in the uniformity of nature -- then science cannot proceed.

And if you're not familiar with this argument, I can flesh it out more.


----------



## ChristianTrader

I think this article will be helpful: http://www.owenanderson.net/reviews/ZygonLyellArticle.pdf


----------



## TheocraticMonarchist

Confessor said:


> You can argue that nature could not be uniform without a providential God. And if nature is not uniform -- or rather if we do not have a rational justification for believing in the uniformity of nature -- then science cannot proceed.
> 
> And if you're not familiar with this argument, I can flesh it out more.



I would appreciate it if you would do that. I'm not familiar with many arguments.


----------



## mvdm

You might some of this useful from John McArthur:

The Implications of Evolution  --  John MacArthur


----------



## reformed trucker

Try here.

Covenant Media 
Foundation

O.K., didn't go right to the page. On the left sidebar under More Info click on Free Articles.


----------



## Confessor

TheocraticMonarchist said:


> I would appreciate it if you would do that. I'm not familiar with many arguments.



Will do. 

First, uniformity of nature is needed for science to function. All scientific laws and theories are purely _descriptive_, in that they merely describe what reality is like. They describe how objects have behaved in the past and assume that the objects will behave the identically in the future, barring different circumstances. For instance, every recorded instance of free-falling objects without air resistance (which would be one of the "different circumstances" in the definition) measures the objects' acceleration at -9.8 meters per second squared, and as a result scientists will say that objects _in the future_ will also fall at the same speed. *Thus, uniformity is the assumption that the future will behave as the past does.*

Second, people will usually justify their belief in uniformity by appealing to experience. For instance, they will say that at one fixed point in the past, they experienced that the sun rose every day prior, and then the sun acted exactly the same way after this fixed point. But this is a _non sequitur_, for uniformity is a belief about the _yet unreached future_, and therefore any arguments pertaining to the more distant and more recent past (i.e., two periods of time on each side of a fixed point in the past) will not bear any truth on our present investigation, since we are concerned with the yet unreached future.

Third, therefore, we can see that any belief in the uniformity of nature based on _experience_ (which I can almost guarantee your professor affirms), cannot possibly work, for experience can make judgments only about the *past* and can therefore make no judgments about uniformity, since uniformity pertains to the *future*.

Fourth, the Christian answer is that Jehovah is sovereign and providentially controls and organizes all of nature, and the answer thus provides a rational connection between past and future that any secularist cannot support. Secularists can base their beliefs only on custom or tradition, but not on rationality, giving science no rational force in any argumentation.

Fifth, if he says that a Muslim (or Mormon, or deist, or whatever) could use the same answer as the Christian one -- as if that is somehow a defense of the secularist position -- ask him if he's going to convert. 

Tell me if I need to clarify anything, brother.


----------



## Brian Withnell

*Go for the heart.*

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.


----------



## Brian Withnell

Confessor said:


> First, uniformity of nature is needed for science to function. All scientific laws and theories are purely _descriptive_, in that they merely describe what reality is like. They describe how objects have behaved in the past and assume that the objects will behave the identically in the future, barring different circumstances. For instance, every recorded instance of free-falling objects without air resistance (which would be one of the "different circumstances" in the definition) measures the objects' acceleration at -9.8 meters per second squared, and as a result scientists will say that objects _in the future_ will also fall at the same speed. *Thus, uniformity is the assumption that the future will behave as the past does.*



Hate to be a spoil sport, but if he is anything of a good scientist, he will state uniformity is of no concern to science (been there, done that argument). What he will do is say that science is only interested in models that are useful in prediction of outcome. If he is *really* well versed in quantum mechanics, he might even be knowledgeable in the field of non-causality that is rather well accepted at this point. He would say he doesn't care if there is uniformity, but only if a model is useful in predicting what might occur. At the subatomic level, you will certainly see scientists looking at what might happen, as almost everything they deal with is stochastic, not deterministic.

The guy I was talking to was a physicist, not a biologist, but you would hope at the university level they would "cross pollinate" enough that they would understand the grand scheme of things in other fields.


----------



## Confessor

Brian Withnell said:


> Hate to be a spoil sport, but if he is anything of a good scientist, he will state uniformity is of no concern to science (been there, done that argument). What he will do is say that science is only interested in models that are useful in prediction of outcome. If he is *really* well versed in quantum mechanics, he might even be knowledgeable in the field of non-causality that is rather well accepted at this point. He would say he doesn't care if there is uniformity, but only if a model is useful in predicting what might occur. At the subatomic level, you will certainly see scientists looking at what might happen, as almost everything they deal with is stochastic, not deterministic.
> 
> The guy I was talking to was a physicist, not a biologist, but you would hope at the university level they would "cross pollinate" enough that they would understand the grand scheme of things in other fields.



And if he realizes that the only reason science can predict outcomes is because of habit or custom, then he will realize he has no rational basis whatsoever. No one denies that science works; we are questioning _on what basis_ it does work.

And if he appeals to quantum mechanics, well, then that is just a straight-up appeal to ignorance.


----------



## Solus Christus

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.


----------



## Brian Withnell

Solus Christus said:


> 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.



Thank you for saying more eloquently what I prattled on about ... I appreciate it.


----------



## Marno

Well, more simply, many evolutionists believe everything came from nothing.

SPACE + TIME + CHANCE = THE UNIVERSE

But of course each of these = nothing without the universe being there in the first place. So the universe sprang into existence by itself, from nothing and with no reason or impetus for doing so. I think that's a pretty interesting and stupid presupposition.


----------



## kalawine

Marno said:


> Well, more simply, many evolutionists believe everything came from nothing.
> 
> SPACE + TIME + CHANCE = THE UNIVERSE
> 
> But of course each of these = nothing without the universe being there in the first place. So the universe sprang into existence by itself, from nothing and with no reason or impetus for doing so. I think that's a pretty interesting and stupid presupposition.



As wrong (and stupid) as the presupposition is, it was accepted by some of the Greek philosophers. Well, actually, they thought that the universe (rather than springing into existance) was eternal (that is, with no beginning at least) Sad, huh?


----------



## Marno

kalawine said:


> Marno said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, more simply, many evolutionists believe everything came from nothing.
> 
> SPACE + TIME + CHANCE = THE UNIVERSE
> 
> But of course each of these = nothing without the universe being there in the first place. So the universe sprang into existence by itself, from nothing and with no reason or impetus for doing so. I think that's a pretty interesting and stupid presupposition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As wrong (and stupid) as the presupposition is, it was accepted by some of the Greek philosophers. Well, actually, they thought that the universe (rather than springing into existance) was eternal (that is, with no beginning at least) Sad, huh?
Click to expand...


Yes. But an eternally-existing universe is somewhat less sad and illogical than one springing BOING into being, with no point, purpose, or reason for having done so. Nor, to hear the evolutionists posit, is it necessary for it to have done so.


----------



## Nate

Solus Christus said:


> 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.


----------



## TheocraticMonarchist

Thanks for all the input! Spring break is this week and I plan on doing some research (in addition to normal school work).

I've come across the following arguments for the existance of God. Does anyone want to help me weed them out? 



Leibnizian cosmological arguments 
Knowledge arguments 
Axiological arguments 
Kalam arguments 
Modal Ontological arguments 
teleological arguments 
Noological arguments 
Godel's ontological argument

-----Added 3/5/2009 at 10:57:51 EST-----



NateLanning said:


> Solus Christus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


My natural inclination is to be on the quite side, and I don’t want to bring persecution on myself, but every time my prof. asks the class if we have any objection to what we are being taught I feel as though I should speak up. He’s actually told the class that by being silent we only condone his teaching. This is what I was concerned about all along. Perhaps this is part of his master plan to start an evolution debate. 

The other day a girl said, “I don't believe in evolution”. When asked why she explained, “I just don’t believe in it”. When asked for evidence she said, “I’m not very smart”. 

I almost said something, but the conversation turned. Part of the class believes in evolution, and the other part doesn’t. Some have grown up in the church and are confused. How would you feel if these were your children caught in the fray?

As a Christian, how am I supposed to handle this situation, especially when directly challenged? My professor knows that I plan on attending seminary (he asked the class to tell him what we planned on doing with our education) and really wants to have that discussion.


----------



## Theognome

That's the problem with this kind of situation- between you and your teacher, you're the only one that understands that it's not a question of science, but one of faith- two religions at war. 

However, yours is the only one backed by objective truth- something which a humanist will, by default, declare to be subjective. This is utterly illogical, since the 'evolution' religion claims to be objective. Note that while Christian truth can be demonstrated objectively (general revelation and common grace), evolution (macro) cannot endure such examination. 

Ultimately, this teacher would need to agree that science is not the issue, faith is- and a classroom may not be the best environment for such a confrontation.

Theognome


----------



## TheocraticMonarchist

Just a randome fact: The last 3-4 chapters we cover in class (unless we get behind) will be on evolution.


----------



## Theognome

TheocraticMonarchist said:


> Just a randome fact: The last 3-4 chapters we cover in class (unless we get behind) will be on evolution.



No, the last 3-4 chapters will be on religion- he just doesn't realize it.

Theognome


----------



## TheocraticMonarchist

Theognome said:


> That's the problem with this kind of situation- between you and your teacher, you're the only one that understands that it's not a question of science, but one of faith- two religions at war.
> 
> However, yours is the only one backed by objective truth- something which a humanist will, by default, declare to be subjective. This is utterly illogical, since the 'evolution' religion claims to be objective. Note that while Christian truth can be demonstrated objectively (general revelation and common grace), evolution (macro) cannot endure such examination.
> 
> Ultimately, this teacher would need to agree that science is not the issue, faith is- and a classroom may not be the best environment for such a confrontation.
> 
> Theognome



I don't have much control over the location. He seems to want to show off his intelect/ enlighten us, but he would probably be interested in a private meeting.


----------



## Solus Christus

I feel for you Jonathan. My own theological hackles raise just hearing what your teacher is proposing. Unfortunately, I think in this situation he seems to be goading people into a fight. Perhaps he feels a need to prove himself(?) The challenge almost feels like a trap or something.

I completely agree with Bill. A classroom doesn't seem like a good place to conduct such a debate. Honestly, a more neutral place would be better. But again, like Bill said, this isn't a question of whether science is right but who's faith is right. Evolution is a religion. If you really feel the need to talk to your teacher, it would be best in a one-on-one situation. You do have truth and God on your side, but from a courtesy point of view I don't see the need to potentially embarrass him in front of his class (even though he is asking for it).

Prayerfully consider what to do next.


----------



## Confessor

I'm thinking more and more and more, especially due to the professor's apparent desire to get in a debate, that it would be wise to basically tell him that your faith rests in the authority of the Bible and not in fallible man.

This will probably not convince him by any means, but it could very easily be the last statement of any argument he may try to incur. Moreover, it could get him thinking, "How is science fallible?" -- though that's not a guarantee. If he does, though, that could be the beginning of a conversion for him.

So, basically, I would advise that you tell him you're against evolution, and if he asks why, tell him because you place your trust in infallible revelation from a God who never lies rather than in the fallible methods of man. And if he goes on explaining how "objective" and perfectly "unbiased" the scientific method is, just remind him (again, very briefly) that man is fallible and even depraved. If you want, invoke Romans 3:4: "Let God be true, and every man a liar."

It would be a bad idea to debate on the subject, for it appears that what would occur is not a humble exchange of ideas but a vicious delivery of evolutionist dogma.

Lastly, if you give a brief account of how you trust in God over any man, some students may talk to you outside of class and they will likely be more open to the Gospel or to some arguments you may have at your disposal.

Blessings,


----------



## Brian Withnell

TheocraticMonarchist said:


> My natural inclination is to be on the quite side, and I don’t want to bring persecution on myself, but every time my prof. asks the class if we have any objection to what we are being taught I feel as though I should speak up. He’s actually told the class that by being silent we only condone his teaching. This is what I was concerned about all along. Perhaps this is part of his master plan to start an evolution debate.
> 
> The other day a girl said, “I don't believe in evolution”. When asked why she explained, “I just don’t believe in it”. When asked for evidence she said, “I’m not very smart”.
> 
> I almost said something, but the conversation turned. Part of the class believes in evolution, and the other part doesn’t. Some have grown up in the church and are confused. How would you feel if these were your children caught in the fray?
> 
> As a Christian, how am I supposed to handle this situation, especially when directly challenged? My professor knows that I plan on attending seminary (he asked the class to tell him what we planned on doing with our education) and really wants to have that discussion.



If you want to state you have an objection to evolution, about the best way I can think of doing this with a secularist is to do so at there level. The girl who answered "I'm not very smart" gave him all the ground he wanted ... those who are smart (everyone else) believes in evolution.

Evolution doesn't have a rationalist leg to stand on from a practicality point of view, and that might be a better solution to what you are facing. We (Christians) ought to be better equipped to think through the space they are in and find the problems with it. The largest hole in evolutionary theory is that it is analogous to "proof by mathematical induction". The whole of the theory relies on there being a starting point, and then saying if it works once, it works (over time) for the rest. There are plenty of wholes in the theory to poke at, but the easiest is the starting point. Life from non-life is rather bleak ... in order to get the whole system to start, you need a cell, and a cell needs about 250 proteins, and while in a "primordial soup" you might be able to roll the dice and get a single protein, rolling 250 dice at once to get all 250 proteins is just insanely improbable. Even if it were 2 sided dice, 10 to the 75th power? The currant high estimate for atoms in the universe (not just on earth, but the whole universe) is only 10 to the 60th power. For any rational person, trillions of years is not enough time to have that set of 250 dice all roll properly at once.

If you approach the professor properly, he might even admit it is highly unlikely ... instead of waiting for him to ask if everyone agrees, ask how he explains life from non-life to get the whole thing started. There are some that actually will push the issue off earth (seeding by an extra-terrestrial life form) but that only pushes the same problem to another location.

If you push at it privately, he might just admit it is a weak point (one that he is unwilling to throw away, but a weak point none the less). If you then point out that when you were doing math induction, it was a required part of the proof that you have an anchor (the starting point) and that without it, the proof is invalid, if you have never given him pause before, he may be either irritated, angry or admit that he believes it because there is no other alternative acceptable. The no acceptable alternative (or tells you to come up with an alternative) is beside the point (ask if that isn't just a red herring). You might point out that just because we (scientists) have no explanation doesn't mean we aren't still searching. (And even a Christian can look at origins from a standpoint of investigation of how does the universe work ... "thinking God's thoughts after him" but that is beside the point ... it may be impossible to find mechanisms.)

If he is not elect you will have at least given him pause to think about how sure he is of what is a leap of faith (origin of life and the anchor for evolution). Self replication is a starting point for evolution ... and that takes a full cell (even a virus cannot replicate without the aid of a cell). And the most simple cells take a highly unlikely event (the co-joining in a narrow space of time the well over 200 proteins in the same place). No scientist, even with working with the best conditions they can muster, has been able to produce a living cell from non-living material. Even the complex DNA structure that a cell requires, but is not sufficient for life, breaks down relatively quickly outside the protection of a cell. How them could a cell form?

That is all outside anything to do with religion in general. We (Christians) have reason to believe that random occurrence was not the cause of life (we have God's word that HE created ... nothing random about it.) But being able to argue what's wrong with evolution need not be confined to presuppositional truth ... it is sufficiently weak that it collapses under its own weight.


----------



## Nate

Wow. Your prof sounds like a real piece of work. My advice would echo the last few posts - the classroom might not be the stage for a grand debate if he is actually baiting the students into a confrontation (that doesn't mean that you can't show your Christian color in a classroom if the opportunity arises, though) . I think a private discussion with him using the advice in the prior posts would be a great idea. 

You mentioned your concern for others in the class. I assume nothing is standing in your way from briefly talking to a few or many of them outside of the class. If most of them brush you off - fine - but you might find a good opportunity to share Christ with a few of them (and maybe even find someone like-minded).

I hope you get to cover evolution in-depth at the end of the class. If the class gets behind schedule, I'd advise you to study those last 3-4 chapters on your own. It's good to know the opposing strategy inside and out.


----------



## Christoffer

*Self Refuting*

belief in naturalistic evolution seems to undermine itself.

If someone insists that evolution has happened then, as CS Lewis pointed out, even our brains are products of blind evolution. It is just there and pumps out beliefs and inferences.

But if our brains aren't designed, but rather just happen to be, why should we assume that they can be used to find out about the origin of man? After all, that involves a lot of thinking and drawing inferences about the non-observed.

So evolution undermines itself in this sense. If it has happened, there is no reason to think it has happened. In fact, if evolution has happened, there is no reason to trust anything reason tells us whether it be evolution, history or mathematics.


----------



## Confessor

Christoffer said:


> belief in naturalistic evolution seems to undermine itself.
> 
> If someone insists that evolution has happened then, as CS Lewis pointed out, even our brains are products of blind evolution. It is just there and pumps out beliefs and inferences.
> 
> But if our brains aren't designed, but rather just happen to be, why should we assume that they can be used to find out about the origin of man? After all, that involves a lot of thinking and drawing inferences about the non-observed.
> 
> So evolution undermines itself in this sense. If it has happened, there is no reason to think it has happened. In fact, if evolution has happened, there is no reason to trust anything reason tells us whether it be evolution, history or mathematics.



How did I forget this one? It rules.


----------



## Christoffer

Confessor said:


> How did I forget this one? It rules.



It definitively rules. Works every time


----------



## 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

Brian Withnell said:


> 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-----



NateLanning said:


> Solus Christus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...

 
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

August said:


> 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

August said:


> 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.


----------

