# Argument for God from the Theory of Evolution



## Peairtach (Dec 5, 2009)

This occured to me through reading David Stove's excellent "Darwinian Fairytales". No doubt it's not original but has occurred to others and hopefully been published.

(a) Darwinists say that there is an overall purpose in the natural world, i.e. biological world, of plants, animals and Man, which is the survival of the fittest or that various possible entities - there is confusion among Darwinists where this purpose centres - are dominated in their structure, actions, etc, by the purpose of surviving as long as possible and propagating as many of their genes as possible.

Darwin traditionally centred this purpose of competition with all other life for survival and propagation, in the individual plant or animal. Later Darwinists broadened it to be focussed on the family or tribes' survival and propagation. In "The Selfish Gene" Dawkins locates the centre of survivability and propagation on the genes themselves.

(b) I very much doubt whether any Darwinist was saying that animals or plants _consciously_ had a purpose of survivability or propagation, or that Dawkins is seriously saying that the genes _want_ to survive and propagate but that it is a purpose which shapes the forms and instinctual behaviour of the entities.

(c)So where did this overarching purpose/goal/teleology that Darwinists say is in flora and fauna and genes and Man come from?

(i) If this purpose that Darwinists see in the natural world is just a construct that is in the mind(s) of the Darwinist(s) then it is them that are imposing a fantasy of their own on the natural world and what they observe there. In that case evolution is false. The purpose the Darwinists speak of is just in their brains and nowhere else.

(ii) We've already seen that it cannot be seriously argued that the overarching purpose of survival and propagation can be consciously in the plants and animals and genes themselves. Someone could try to do it, and Dawkins has in "The Selfish Gene" but I'm sure he'd have difficulty if he was asked if he believed that genes consciously wanted to survive and propagate. Some men's main conscious purpose in life is to survive as long as possible and have as many children as possible, but as David Stove shows, they are a vanishing small number, which further contradicts the theory.

(iv) Could such overarching teleology have arisen by random chance in the early development of life? But atheistic random chance and/or determinacy isn't teleogical.

(iii) The only conclusion therefore, by a process of elimination, is that such an overall teleology in life that is trumpeted by evolution, if evolution is indeed true, was put there. 

_If _the theory of evolution is indeed true as atheists almost to a man claim, there must be a Designer that gave evolution its teleology.

Of course, I don't believe in the theory of evolution, but if I did, I would be compelled to believe in a God.

I don't know if presuppositionalists or other philosophers could refine this argument? Probably.


----------



## Philip (Dec 5, 2009)

Lewis had an interesting argument, actually. He said that if materialism is true, then our thoughts are merely chemical reactions and therefore we can't be sure that they have any connection to reality. The theory of evolution, therefore, is unreliable unless you posit a creator and posit that we are, in fact, more than material.


----------



## El Tejano (Dec 5, 2009)

Richard Tallach said:


> _If _the theory of evolution is indeed true as atheists almost to a man claim, there must be a Designer that gave evolution its teleology.
> 
> Of course, I don't believe in the theory of evolution, but if I did, I would be compelled to believe in a God.




Back in my undergrad days, as a recently converted atheist (and very concerned to hold an orthodox view of origins), I profited greatly from reading an article by Father James Sadowsky, S.J., on the question, "Did Darwin Destroy the Design Argument?" One thing I learned was why, even as an atheist, I was never really comfortable with the idea that evolution provided a successful argument against God. I always had this nagging feeling that our view of origins really presupposed one of the very things we thought it refuted. I had moments when I thought, "Accident or not, it does just seem to work out as if designed."

On one hand, then, you're quite right: Some of the implications of Darwinism would seem upon reflection to argue for God rather than against him. On the other hand, recall St. Paul's teaching in Romans 1 that those who deny God nevertheless know him and have no excuse for their claims to the contrary.


----------



## SRoper (Dec 6, 2009)

I haven't heard Darwinists refer to survival of the fittest as "an overall purpose." That seems to me to make as much sense as talking about the "overall purpose" of gravity. Does a body just really _want_ to be close to another body? Seems kind of silly. Rather survival of the fittest is merely a description of the way things are. I think you're building a straw man.


----------



## Peairtach (Dec 6, 2009)

SRoper said:


> I haven't heard Darwinists refer to survival of the fittest as "an overall purpose." That seems to me to make as much sense as talking about the "overall purpose" of gravity. Does a body just really _want_ to be close to another body? Seems kind of silly. Rather survival of the fittest is merely a description of the way things are. I think you're building a straw man.



What do they mean when they say "survival of the fittest" is the way things are? According to who's perception? That of animals or that of Darwinists?

Whose purpose is it to survive and propagate the most genes? And how did they get that purpose?


----------



## CharlieJ (Dec 7, 2009)

Richard Tallach said:


> What do they mean when they say "survival of the fittest" is the way things are? According to who's perception? That of animals or that of Darwinists?
> 
> Whose purpose is it to survive and propagate the most genes? And how did they get that purpose?



I agree with SRoper that you seem to be foisting a teleology where one really isn't. I will grant that there are some who have tried to philosophize evolution, but according to biology, "survival of the fittest" isn't a purpose, it's a result. 

Remember, evolution is a coherence theory of truth, somewhat (but not entirely) unique among the sciences. It's tested not by correspondence to externally measurable phenomena, but by internal consistency. So, the evolutionist starts with the reality of the present world and says, "On naturalistic principles, how could things have gotten here?"

With that in mind, there is no teleology. The attempt is to explain only the how, not the why. The genes are not trying to survive, they just do. We see organisms that have an impulse to survive because those that didn't have that didn't survive, leaving only ones that did. We see organisms that reproduce because ones that didn't.... didn't and aren't around.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon (Dec 7, 2009)

CharlieJ said:


> Richard Tallach said:
> 
> 
> > What do they mean when they say "survival of the fittest" is the way things are? According to who's perception? That of animals or that of Darwinists?
> ...



Well said. Evolutionists wouldn't say there is a "goal" or purpose - they just say evolution happens, but there's no "why" attached to it. Honestly I don't think the argument in the OP works well at all...


----------



## Peairtach (Dec 7, 2009)

But do they not consider "survival of the fittest" to be a law of nature, and one that is presumably not just in their own minds and imposed on the facts?

And why do evolutionists find it so difficult to avoid teleological language when speaking about evolution if they believe that there's no teleology involved? They apply teleological language to individual animals, families, species and even genes - as Dawkins has done in ''The Selfish Gene".

*Quote from Mason*


> Well said. Evolutionists wouldn't say there is a "goal" or purpose - they just say evolution happens, but there's no "why" attached to it. Honestly I don't think the argument in the OP works well at all...



Do they never ask - if they are atheistic evolutionists - why or how in a random chance universe, not only did life arise but also an invariable law that they posit from their study of nature, that the fittest always survive?


----------



## CharlieJ (Dec 7, 2009)

*An Inversion*



Richard Tallach said:


> Do they never ask - if they are atheistic evolutionists - why or how in a random chance universe, not only did life arise but also an invariable law that they posit from their study of nature, that the fittest always survive?



You are confusing senses of "law." Survival of the fittest, or natural selection, is not a *prescription* for how lifeforms must operate, but rather a *description* of a presumed biological process. In one sense, it's just like the "law" of gravity. Scientists do not claim to understand "why" gravity works. The formulas are descriptions designed to match observable phenomena.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon (Dec 7, 2009)

CharlieJ said:


> Richard Tallach said:
> 
> 
> > Do they never ask - if they are atheistic evolutionists - why or how in a random chance universe, not only did life arise but also an invariable law that they posit from their study of nature, that the fittest always survive?
> ...




Interestingly, one of my atheistic (yet Buddhist) vertebrate biology professors once docked points on a test because I made some comment about about molecules "trying" to do something in one of my answers. His rationale was that molecules don't try to do anything, they just do them according to the laws of physics, chemistry, etc. So most evolutionists wouldn't ask the "why" question - they just document what they see. Where they err is in extrapolating what they observe to explain life as we know apart from the existence of God.


----------



## Peairtach (Dec 7, 2009)

CharlieJ said:


> Richard Tallach said:
> 
> 
> > Do they never ask - if they are atheistic evolutionists - why or how in a random chance universe, not only did life arise but also an invariable law that they posit from their study of nature, that the fittest always survive?
> ...



Well from one perspective all scientific laws are descriptions of how things are observed to operate. 

There are numerous exceptions to the description that all creatures naturally (and presumably, everyone _really_ agrees mostly unconsciously?) seek to survive and maximise the number of offspring that they pass on. 

But if that is what the Darwinists are saying happens how do they account for such a predictable pattern emerging from the primordial soup, or vents, without a mind being behind it? How is it kept going in a random chance atheistic universe? How is such a law-like pattern going on everywhere there is life and at all times, when we're living in the random chance universe of atheism? 

*Quote from Moon*


> Interestingly, one of my atheistic (yet Buddhist) vertebrate biology professors once docked points on a test because I made some comment about about molecules "trying" to do something in one of my answers. His rationale was that molecules don't try to do anything, they just do them according to the laws of physics, chemistry, etc. So most evolutionists wouldn't ask the "why" question - they just document what they see. Where they err is in extrapolating what they observe to explain life as we know apart from the existence of God.



This doesn't stop this from happening in numerous popular works and natural history programmes, and in more academic works. If biology undergraduates don't get off with such sloppy and unscientific and unDarwinian language, why aren't people like Dawkins and David Attenborough of the BBC, immediately slapped down by their academic peers?

E.g. " The cuttlefish has developed this...The squid has an ingenious solution to that..." 

Richard Dawkins got off with calling a whole book, "The Selfish Gene". Presumably he doesn't think that genes are really selfish. If the first genes had been selfish it would go some way to help explaining how evolution got off the ground, although not far enough. Presumably the early RNA, DNA and proto-genes would have to be highly intelligent aswell as highly motivated to survive, to create cells around themselves. 

Since genes aren't selfish, Dawkins book title is a word-game/lie in itself which helps to disguise the paucity of his case.

I'll give other examples later.


----------



## Skyler (Dec 7, 2009)

William Lane Craig in his debate with Christopher Hitchens argued that it would be a miracle if evolution had occurred, and thus, evidence for the existence of God.


----------



## Peairtach (Dec 19, 2009)

*Quote from Charlie J*


> You are confusing senses of \"law.\" Survival of the fittest, or natural selection, is not a prescription for how lifeforms must operate, but rather a description of a presumed biological process.



Bears play fighting:-

[video=youtube;OjlDq1PFxx4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjlDq1PFxx4[/video]

The evolutionist would say that they have developed such behaviour in order to be better equipped to survive.

Is this the case? What would be the Christian's response, when we know that bears were ultimately created for the purpose of God's glory?


----------



## Nate (Dec 19, 2009)

Richard Tallach said:


> This occured to me through reading David Stove's excellent "Darwinian Fairytales". No doubt it's not original but has occurred to others and hopefully been published.
> 
> (a) Darwinists say that there is an overall purpose in the natural world,



For what it's worth, my undergraduate capstone was in evolutionary biology and all of my graduate biology courses were steeped in the theory of evolution. I never once was taught that there is an overall purpose in the natural world. In fact, the purposelessness of the natural world was often discussed.


----------



## Peairtach (Dec 19, 2009)

NateLanning said:


> Richard Tallach said:
> 
> 
> > This occured to me through reading David Stove's excellent "Darwinian Fairytales". No doubt it's not original but has occurred to others and hopefully been published.
> ...



But they do say there is a law of survival of the fittest by which they interpret animal devlopment and behaviour. In a meaningless and purposeless world how and why do they say that law arose?

I could also show you examples of where evoloutionists do talk about there being teleology in the natural world. So they're clearly hopping from one foot to the other.


----------



## Nate (Dec 19, 2009)

Richard Tallach said:


> NateLanning said:
> 
> 
> > Richard Tallach said:
> ...



I would be interested in reading some of these examples of evolutionists embracing teleology in the natural world. If true, that would certainly be inconsistent with the fundamentals of evolutionary theory. Again, I have never come across evolutionists who embrace this type of thought.

Could you give a sentence or two definition of your understanding of "survival of the fittest"? I'm not sure I follow your arguments as to why survival of the fittest is inconsistent with a purposeless universe. 

Very briefly, the following is an example applying my understanding of survival of the fittest: A random mutation in a gene alters the function of the gene product. This new function provides the host with a breeding or survival advantage over the hosts peers. Because of this advantage, the host and the hosts progeny eventually spread their new genetic information throughout all of (or the majority of) the species. In this example, is there teleology that I'm just missing?


----------



## DeborahtheJudge (Dec 19, 2009)

Hi Richard,

1) Mr. Lanning is correct with regard to the definition of EB/survival of the fittest. There is no room for teleology in the discipline.

2) That's not a defect, until you make it an all-controlling perspective for life. Evolutionary Biology is just a discipline, a tool, a way of studying things in-depth.

3) From a presuppositional perspective, the argument for meaning/purpose in nature comes from many verses, but psalm 19 is one that sticks out.

God's speaks through nature. This inherently endows nature with meaning. What is the purpose of that speech? To declare the Glory of God. If you view looking at the facts of nature as interpretation, you can provide a variety of analogies from biblical hermeneutics.

Vern Poythress has a fantastic book advancing this argument called "Redeeming Science" and its online in pdf form at frame-poythress.org. He also interweaves this perspective in many other places in his writing. I'll try to scrounge up some references.


----------



## Peairtach (Dec 20, 2009)

Is "the survival of the fittest " not a tautology anyway?

Who are the fittest? Those who survive.

Who survive? Those who are the fittest.

Does that tell us anything?

*Quote from Nate*


> Could you give a sentence or two definition of your understanding of \"survival of the fittest\"? I'm not sure I follow your arguments as to why survival of the fittest is inconsistent with a purposeless universe.



In a random chance and illogical atheistic universe, why should the fittest always survive? Why shouldn't the least fit sometimes survive?

I would have thought there would also be a difference between atheistic, deistic and theistic evolutionists about the purposelessness of evolution. Or does the atheist view always win the day?

Here are some teleological quotes from George C. Williams's "Adaptation and Natural Selection" (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1974)

'' the goal of the fox is to contribute as heavily as possible to the next generation of a fox population" p.68

"seals were designed to reproduce themselves, not their species." p.189

"the real goal of development is the same as that of all other adaptations, the continuance of the dependant germ plasm" p. 44

"the organism chooses its own effective environment from a broad spectrum of possibilities. That choice is precisely calculated to enhance the reproductive prospects of the underlying genes. The succession of somatic machinery and selected niches are tools and tactics for the strategy of genes." p.70

These are just a few teleological quotes from Williams's book in David Stove's " Darwinian Fairy Tales" :-

Darwinian Fairytales: Selfish Genes, Errors of Heredity and Other Fables of Evolution: Amazon.co.uk: David Stove: Books

He also shows that Dawkins' book "The Selfish Gene" is about unconsciously purposeful genes, although the way Dawkins talks you would sometimes think they were consciously purposeful.

As Stove says, the title of Dawkins's book is as rational as a factual book would be if it was called "The Sex Mad Prime Numbers."

-----Added 12/20/2009 at 02:39:03 EST-----

*Quote from Joy*


> God's speaks through nature. This inherently endows nature with meaning. What is the purpose of that speech? To declare the Glory of God. If you view looking at the facts of nature as interpretation, you can provide a variety of analogies from biblical hermeneutics.



Presumably a theistic evoloutionist could agree that the overall purpose of nature is to glorify God (?)

The creationist could agree with the theistic evolutionist that one of the subordinate purposes which God has given to plants and animals is to survive and reproduce.

Presumably, as those who are Christian Theists, whether YEC, OEC, evolutionist, or whatever, we need not interpret _all_ plant and animal development and behaviour as an attempt to survive and reproduce, because under the rubric of glorifying God, God will have given other purposes apart from survival to plants and animals.

I agree that since the Fall, the subordinate purpose of survival and replication, in order ultimately to the glorification of God, may have become more prominent. That depends on what you believe was involved in the Curse at the Fall.


----------



## Nate (Dec 20, 2009)

Richard Tallach said:


> Is "the survival of the fittest " not a tautology anyway?
> 
> Who are the fittest? Those who survive.
> 
> ...


I've heard this before - unless this is a major point of contention for you, I'll pass on discussing it.



Richard Tallach said:


> *Quote from Nate*
> 
> 
> > Could you give a sentence or two definition of your understanding of "survival of the fittest"? I'm not sure I follow your arguments as to why survival of the fittest is inconsistent with a purposeless universe.
> ...



The randomness is referring to mutations. Creatures do not choose to have a particular gene mutate or to gain a new characteristic, rather, these events are random. Also, I haven't argued that evolutionists hold to an illogical universe - hopefully you are not addressing me with this portion of your discussion. I'm no philosopher, but I think that evolutionary theory follows logic. For example, a gene within a worm mutates, allowing this worm to survive and efficiently reproduce in a low-nutrient environment that will induce its colony mates to go into a non-reproductive state. It is logical to predict that if the environment in which this worm exists becomes low in nutrients, that the progeny of this worm will soon overtake the colony. 



Richard Tallach said:


> I would have thought there would also be a difference between atheistic, deistic and theistic evolutionists about the purposelessness of evolution. Or does the atheist view always win the day?



I don't fall into any of these groups, so I can't answer for the deistic and theistic evolutionists. I assume theistic evolutionists believe that God sovereignly decrees mutations to occur. I could be wrong.




Richard Tallach said:


> Here are some teleological quotes from George C. Williams's "Adaptation and Natural Selection" (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1974)
> 
> '' the goal of the fox is to contribute as heavily as possible to the next generation of a fox population" p.68
> 
> ...



I would have to read the bolded section in its context to be able to properly critique it. Regarding the other quotes, do you honestly think that Williams or Hawkins believe that a fox, seal or the process of development have a conscious goal WRT their reproduction. Or, that they believe that a gene could have an attribute of selfishness? If you do, you haven't honestly evaluated their writings - Dawkins, at least, usually takes a paragraph or two at the start of his writings to explain that genes and creatures exert no conscious influence on their evolution. If you want to critique their habit of using the terminology in the above quotes, fine, I won't stop you - that style of writing in biology is a pet peeve of mine too.

Just one final note: I'm a 6/24 guy myself, and it sickens me a little bit to be sort of defending these guys here. But, I think its necessary to accurately understand a belief system before you attack it.


----------



## Peairtach (Dec 20, 2009)

> The randomness is referring to mutations. Creatures do not choose to have a particular gene mutate or to gain a new characteristic, rather, these events are random. Also, I haven't argued that evolutionists hold to an illogical universe - hopefully you are not addressing me with this portion of your discussion. I'm no philosopher, but I think that evolutionary theory follows logic. For example, a gene within a worm mutates, allowing this worm to survive and efficiently reproduce in a low-nutrient environment that will induce its colony mates to go into a non-reproductive state. It is logical to predict that if the environment in which this worm exists becomes low in nutrients, that the progeny of this worm will soon overtake the colony.



I'm particularly referring to atheistic evolutionists. Presumably deistic and theistic evolutionists already believe in some kind of God that can account for order in the universe.

In an atheistic universe which is governed by pure chance, how do atheistic evolutionists account for the survival of the fittest? With great difficulty if they are properly challenged on the subject, just as they cannot account for any scientific law without the Personal and Absolute God of the Bible.



> I would have to read the bolded section in its context to be able to properly critique it. Regarding the other quotes, do you honestly think that Williams or Hawkins believe that a fox, seal or the process of development have a conscious goal WRT their reproduction. Or, that they believe that a gene could have an attribute of selfishness? If you do, you haven't honestly evaluated their writings - Dawkins, at least, usually takes a paragraph or two at the start of his writings to explain that genes and creatures exert no conscious influence on their evolution. If you want to critique their habit of using the terminology in the above quotes, fine, I won't stop you - that style of writing in biology is a pet peeve of mine too.
> 
> Just one final note: I'm a 6/24 guy myself, and it sickens me a little bit to be sort of defending these guys here. But, I think its necessary to accurately understand a belief system before you attack it.



But Dawkins believes that genes have a purpose, which is to replicate themselves. I only said that it _sounds_ from Dawkins that it is a conscious purpose. Which shows how he and his fellow popularisers of evolution, and in even academic books like Williams's, have to embellish what they believe to make it more compelling and believable. 

But he still believes that genes have a purpose. Which is teleology.


----------



## DeborahtheJudge (Dec 20, 2009)

Richard -So you agree with the presuppositional approach? I think Poythress' arguments diffuse alot of tension.

As to your argument concerning Richard Dawkins' book The Selfish Gene, you're exactly right. Most EB scientists would criticize the reductionism and language used in that book. Its one of the rallying texts for materialistic atheists - that should tell you something.


----------



## Nate (Dec 20, 2009)

Richard Tallach said:


> But Dawkins believes that genes have a purpose, which is to replicate themselves. I only said that it _sounds_ from Dawkins that it is a conscious purpose. Which shows how he and his fellow popularisers of evolution, and in even academic books like Williams's, have to embellish what they believe to make it more compelling and believable.
> 
> But he still believes that genes have a purpose. Which is teleology.



Dawkins actually believes that genes have a purpose? Can you provide quotes for that? If he and other evolutionary biologists generally believe this, then, I agree with almost all of your arguments. Like the fox/seal quotes above, I always took a different meaning from the context of their writings: they use the term "purpose" when they write a popular book that they want to sell, when they actually believe "function" (i.e. Dawkins believes that genes have a function, but not an actual purpose). 

I'm interested in those quotes if you can find them... and I have to admit that if that's what they believe I'll have change my view.


----------



## Peairtach (Dec 21, 2009)

DeborahtheJudge said:


> Richard -So you agree with the presuppositional approach? I think Poythress' arguments diffuse alot of tension.
> 
> As to your argument concerning Richard Dawkins' book The Selfish Gene, you're exactly right. Most EB scientists would criticize the reductionism and language used in that book. Its one of the rallying texts for materialistic atheists - that should tell you something.



Well, I was "feeling my way" towards a presuppositional argument for God based on the assumption of atheists that the theory of evolution is true. 

*Quote from Nate*


> I'm interested in those quotes if you can find them... and I have to admit that if that's what they believe I'll have change my view.



I'll look up more quotes with references.

All of what I currently am looking at comes from the above book and this one by an OEC:-

The Naked Emperor: Darwinism Exposed: Amazon.co.uk: Antony Latham: Books

Latham makes a lot of good points.

The problem re teleology is that they deny it on the one hand and smuggle it in on the other. Which makes one wonder what they really believe in their heart of hearts. 

Does it show that they know that there's purpose in creation, however much they may deny it, just as they know the God of Creation, however much they may deny it?


----------



## bemer (Dec 21, 2009)

*"overall purpose"*

Your first proposition is incorrect. Evolutionists do not say that the "overall purpose" is survival of the fittest. They say that observable nature shows that the most "fit" (ie, best adapted to the environment), on the whole, survive. They make no argument as to "purpose": they expressly deny it. Since your first proposition is an inaccurate statement, your whole argument is irrelevant and fails.


----------



## DeborahtheJudge (Dec 21, 2009)

"The problem re teleology is that they deny it on the one hand and smuggle it in on the other. Which makes one wonder what they really believe in their heart of hearts."

Yes, I think you can reformulate your argument to account for this discrepancy:

1) Atheistic materialists speak of teleology in their writings posing as 'scientific' (or if its a friend, you can elucidate/point out their personal tendency)
2) The discipline of EB does not account for a teleology. (need to explain)
---->Implication: these are not scientific views, but philosophical views. 
3) Critique the philosophical view (probably materialism) with regard to teleology/'purpose' [see Van Til  ] 
4) The true foundation for purpose: the Triune God. Go into verses explaining purposes of God for creation and why our hearts intuitively understand this but suppress it. Share the Gospel.

1-4 can be done in a different order, and shaped to the situation. Obviously, they need some fleshing out and fitting rhetoric.


----------



## Peairtach (Dec 21, 2009)

*Quote from Bob*


> They say that observable nature shows that the most "fit" (ie, best adapted to the environment), on the whole, survive.



I agree that my original argument was not formulated correctly, particularly because even atheistic evoloutionists, not just deistic or theistic evolutionists, smuggle in teleological language when it suits them and seem quite comfortable with it.

On the other hand, atheistic evolutionists do say that the most "fit" (i.e. best adapted to the environment), on the whole, survive. 

Leaving aside teleology for the time being, how do atheistic evolutionists account for this law, or any scientific law, in the random chance universe of atheism?

Evolutionists say that they observe a law in flora and fauna. They might say - sometimes - that there's no purpose behind this law, but they still say that there is a law which isn't just in their fevered imaginations.

So they are once again on the horns of a dilemma. 

If they are positing evolution, they will need a God who is intelligent, powerful, knowledgeable, present and reliable enough to account for the survival of the fittest.

On the other hand such a God is taught in the Bible, although the theory of evolution as presently posited is not.

Whether or not the atheistic evolutionist believes in the God of Scripture, he needs to acknowledge that a God, is necessary for the survival of the fittest. 

In a universe governed by pure chance, how does such a predictable law exist. If he denies that such a law exists, he has denied evolution.


----------



## Nate (Dec 21, 2009)

Richard Tallach said:


> *Quote from Bob*
> 
> 
> > They say that observable nature shows that the most "fit" (ie, best adapted to the environment), on the whole, survive.
> ...



Evolutionary theory, including survival of the fittest, is based on the laws of physics. Evolutionists likely account for survival of the fittest in the same way they account for the law of gravity.


----------



## bemer (Dec 21, 2009)

*adaptation*

Based on my limited understanding of the theory (stress limited) I think evolutionists would say that the fit, ie better adapted to the environment, leave more offspring, and therefore as a matter of differential reproduction rates survive "better" or "more" over time. They would find your arguments completely irrelevant. We would disagree, of course; but unfortunately your thesis would do nothing to convert an evolutionist.


----------



## Peairtach (Dec 21, 2009)

*Quote from Nate Lanning*


> Evolutionary theory, including survival of the fittest, is based on the laws of physics. Evolutionists likely account for survival of the fittest in the same way they account for the law of gravity.



In the pure chance conditioned world of the atheist neither the law of the survival of the fittest nor the law of gravity can be accounted for.

*Quote from Bemer*


> Based on my limited understanding of the theory (stress limited) I think evolutionists would say that the fit, ie better adapted to the environment, leave more offspring, and therefore as a matter of differential reproduction rates survive "better" or "more" over time. They would find your arguments completely irrelevant. We would disagree, of course; but unfortunately your thesis would do nothing to convert an evolutionist



That would depend upon the soundness and cogency of my argument, whether I was a good debater, and, crucially, whether the Holy Spirit was blessing the said argument.

Can any law of science, including the evolutionary one, be accounted for without God?


----------



## Nate (Dec 21, 2009)

Richard Tallach said:


> *Quote from Nate Lanning*
> 
> 
> > Evolutionary theory, including survival of the fittest, is based on the laws of physics. Evolutionists likely account for survival of the fittest in the same way they account for the law of gravity.
> ...



OK


----------



## bemer (Dec 22, 2009)

*pure chance*

Playing the devil's advocate, I would answer that the evolutionist would say that both gravity and survival of the fittest are observable phenomena for which at least partially testable hypotheses can be raised. For scientific purposes, they would regard this as enough; arguments as to ultimate causes would be completely irrrelevant.


----------

