# Answering evolutionists



## cih1355 (Jul 1, 2010)

I heard an evolutionist talk about his view of the nature of science. He said, "Science asks questions about the universe and nature gives us the answers. We don't know the answers in advance." He implies that creationists assume what nature is like before observing nature or letting nature answer their questions. How would you respond to this?


----------



## JennyG (Jul 2, 2010)

I'd point out that evolutionists are as dependent as Creationists on their assumptions. This has always been one big way they were able to pull wool over the lay-person's eyes - by defining the atheist/materialist as the man with no presuppositions. Creationists presuppose God - we are the real scientists, because we presuppose nothing!! 
It's nonsense. They start by presupposing that God had no hand in creation. they then have no option but to arrive at a materialistic account of the world. 
The ID movement has been fighting this ideological battle for years now, simply trying to get a hearing for the scientific evidence of design. It still encounters grim opposition from the people with no presuppositions! This is the one area in which they can never, never be open to following where the evidence leads - they have far too much to lose


----------



## SouthernSaint (Jul 2, 2010)

I agree with Jenny. Evolutionists presuppose the non-existance of God.

Both are belief systems about the past. True science employs the scientific method to validate some scientific theory. Obviously we can't conduct experiments to see if basic chemicals plus eons of time will result in life as we know it today.

As an Engineer and a Christian, this debate was a real interest for me. I actually put together a short little article on it:
Creationism and Evolution

I used to spend too much time studying this issue. As I read my Bible more and realized the truths of total depravity and that the lost of this world have been blinded by satan (2 Cor 4:4) and are held captive by him to do his will (2 Tim 2:26), I realized that I needed to just give the gospel out more and pray that God would grant them repentance (2 Tim 2:25).


----------



## JennyG (Jul 2, 2010)

SouthernSaint said:


> I agree with Jenny. Evolutionists presuppose the non-existance of God.
> 
> Both are belief systems about the past. True science employs the scientific method to validate some scientific theory. Obviously we can't conduct experiments to see if basic chemicals plus eons of time will result in life as we know it today.
> 
> ...


Robert, I'm saving your article for later when I have time to read it! - there's only one point I'd make, (which I owe to Phillip E Johnson the author of Darwin on Trial and other books). He always argues we should be careful to put the "ism" either on both sides of the debate, or else neither. If it's Creation*ism* vs evolution plain and simple, the evolutionists are happy, because it sounds as if their side is pure science and ours just one more piece of snake oil (his term). I proved the truth of that myself when I used to troll a bit on the Dawkins site (kidding - I did get called a troll as creationists tend to, but actually I always stuck around to defend what I said) Nothing ever got them more hopping mad than an "-ist" on the end of their designation, and they never tired of explaining the implication, which was exactly as Phillip Johnson had pinned it.


> I used to spend too much time studying this issue. As I read my Bible more and realized the truths of total depravity and that the lost of this world have been blinded by satan (2 Cor 4:4) and are held captive by him to do his will (2 Tim 2:26), I realized that I needed to just give the gospel out more and pray that God would grant them repentance (2 Tim 2:25).


I know what you mean. I spent a lot of time on this issue a few years back, then afterwards ~I thought I ought just to have believed the Bible in the first place and saved the trouble. But it is good to have a grasp of the issues, and there are always some who (humanly speaking) are more easily reached this way than any other


----------



## larryjf (Jul 2, 2010)

I presuppose an orderly God who created the world.
Atheists presuppose a chaotic explosion that created the world.

Since science relies on the presumption that there is order in the world, they must borrow from my Christian worldview to do any science. Otherwise they can't be sure that the same laws that exist today will exist tomorrow since all is, in the end, based on chance and chaos.


----------



## cih1355 (Jul 5, 2010)

Thank you for your responses.

I have heard from evolutionists that the theory of evolution has nothing to do with atheism. I just find this hard to believe. If an evolutionist says that evolution has nothing to do atheism, is it worth it to convince that this is not true?


----------



## JennyG (Jul 6, 2010)

cih1355 said:


> Thank you for your responses.
> 
> I have heard from evolutionists that the theory of evolution has nothing to do with atheism.


This is another one they cling on to like grim death, and one reason they love the "useful idiots" in the Liberal churches, who claim to be Christians as well as evolutionists. On the whole, evolutionists don't want to sever the connection with religion because (at least in the States) it would be a PR disaster. Privately, the more clued-up atheists know perfectly well that evolution does away with any need to postulate a God. If the cosmos was able to create itself, then He is not Creator, and if there was no literal Fall, then neither is he needed as Saviour. 
That was the whole point as far as Darwin himself was concerned; he knew his theory meant he no longer needed to believe or fear God - as does Dawkins. But they're willing to fudge it for the sake of their public image, research funding etc. Even Darwin himself held back from coming right out and saying it in so many words - he didn't want to upset his wife. 
And of course many less clear thinkers, both atheist and "Christian", probably genuinely believe the two belief systems are compatible.


> If an evolutionist says that evolution has nothing to do atheism, is it worth it to convince that this is not true?


It may depend on circumstances and individuals - but I think we should keep on pointing out, until the whole of society finally has got the message, that evolution is neither more nor less than the creation-myth of atheism, and the two have their life-blood in common.


----------



## teddyrux (Jul 7, 2010)

cih1355 said:


> "Science asks questions about the universe and nature gives us the answers. We don't know the answers in advance."



Without getting into the fact that "science" doesn't ask anything, unless Science is someone's name.  I'd respond with this......

"Theologians ask questions about the universe and Scripture gives us the answers. We don't know the answers in advance."


----------



## Meginomai (Jul 8, 2010)

Hello all,

Well this subject is one of the main reasons I came to this forum. I hope over time we can sharpen each other and be more equipped to answer for the hope that is in us _with respect to origins_. What I mean is, if modern evolutionary theory (MET) is factual, i.e., true, empirically verified as is claimed, it debunks the biblical account for Creation - there were humans before Adam and Eve, animals were not created as Genesis says, they did not merely reproduce after their kind, etc. Also, if MET is true, Naturalism (the belief that all knowledge-in this case scientific knowledge-can be explained by natural processes) is sufficient to account for the universe/earth/origins of life, and we should apply Occam's Razor to God--He is not necessary and should be eliminated from our view. MET supplants theism. Of course, what I'm writing is not necessary, but practically speaking, this is where it leads, and when I considered MET, if I concluded it was true, I would have gone in the same direction.

The best description of what evolutionists presuppose is Naturalism, as I've defined above. At the very least, methodological naturalism is presupposed. It is impossible to consider both unintelligent and intelligent sources for origins with this view, since it precludes the latter _a priori_. It reminds me of the skeptic who once asked me to show him a non-Christian, total unbeliever, who believed Jesus Christ rose from the dead, since anyone religious in any way is biased. Dear fellow, the Resurrection, once believed, naturally leads to belief in the supernatural, which is surely the broadest sense in which he himself would consider one "religious". And belief in the Resurrection usually leads one to Christianity; it has tremendous worldview implications. Just the same, a presuppositional commitment to naturalism has tremendous implications for materialism/atheism and the denial of any god--without examining evidence or arguments for His existence. So naturalism is surely the most significant presupposition of modern evolutionary biologists.

The presupposition of uniformitarianism is extremely significant as well. Dating methods for an old universe and earth, fossils, and explanations of geology rely heavily on the belief that "...the same natural laws and processes that operate in the universe now, have always operated in the universe in the past and apply everywhere in the universe." That is, the present is indicative of the past. We can trust from what we observe now that the past acted JUST LIKE this. But if God created the world in 6 days, if there were a universal flood, these would drastically alter that assumption. Even excepting the biblical catastrophic events, we simply can't know the past was like the present, whether it's the speed of light or rate of decay of certain atoms in an organism, or any other supposed constant. In studying dating methods it has amazed me to see the assumption of uniformitarianism as critical, and of course as Bible-believing Christians, this is one assumption we know is certainly false. It is ironic how we can observe in 2 Peter 3:



> Know this first of all, that (G)in the last days (H)mockers will come with their mocking, (I)following after their own lusts,
> 4and saying, "(J)Where is the promise of His (K)coming? For ever since the fathers (L)fell asleep, all continues just as it was (M)from the beginning of creation."



The underlined portion is the uniformitarian assumption. And what is Peter's response:



> For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that (N)by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was (O)formed out of water and by water,
> 
> 6through which (P)the world at that time was (Q)destroyed, being flooded with water.



They have forgotten:

*something of the nature of how the world was created

*the universal flood

This is precisely what evolutionists deny in their presupposing uniformitarianism, and it assures they will be wildly wrong in many of their most important predictions such as the age of the universe, earth and organisms.

As to the relation of evolution to atheism, I've already commented somewhat above, that I think they are closely connected (having 11 years of public education in which the chief reason most faculty and students were atheists was because evolution explained origins--I mean, what is the reason no man has an excuse before God in Romans 1? The Creation. If Satan undermines this in a person's heart, atheism, the fool's delight, is a viable option...and in a culture (world) where empirical knowledge (show my 5 senses and I'll believe it) is glorified as the superior epistemology (a la naturalism), atheism becomes the glowingly obvious choice). Richard Dawkins, renowned atheist apologist and somewhat of a scientist, remarked, "Evolution has made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist" (or something very close).


----------



## torstar (Jul 8, 2010)

cih1355 said:


> I heard an evolutionist talk about his view of the nature of science. He said, "Science asks questions about the universe and nature gives us the answers. We don't know the answers in advance." He implies that creationists assume what nature is like before observing nature or letting nature answer their questions. How would you respond to this?


 

I don't believe you can possibly respond in a meaningful way to an evolutionist with a materialist outlook on life.

Especially if they emit poetic and pithy missives like that.

Discern what is worth your valuable time and energy when you wish for miracles with dogs and swine.


----------



## cih1355 (Jul 8, 2010)

It is true that evolutionists presuppose naturalism and uniformitarianism. Both of these assumptions cannot be justified by the methods of science.


----------

