# What Evolutionists Fear Most



## Dr. Bob Gonzales (Apr 8, 2009)

A good friend of mine, Dennis Bills, Pastor of Winifrede Presbyterian Church, writes, 
"Evolution is an intimidating theory.... However, the massive heft of evolutionary theory depends upon one simple presupposition: the God-option must be excluded from the discussion at all costs.... As long as creationists fail to recognize this simple ploy, evolution will continue to intimidate and claim the faith of many who give in to its weight. Evolutionists will continue to assert their exclusive distinction between religion and science and by that means will appear to dominate the discussion." ​To read more, let me commend Pastor Bills' insightful essay, "What Evolutionists Fear Most," which you can access by clicking on the following link: *What Evolutionists Fear Most*

Your servant,


----------



## Zenas (Apr 8, 2009)

I had a discussion a few weeks ago where I immediately challenged the naturalistic presuppositions of evolutionary theory and demanded an explanation of why everything must be proven by naturalistic standards. 

The reply was "Well, that's the only way we can prove anything (natural that is)." 

I pointed out that he was assuming his conclusion (that things must be proven), in order to wholly exclude anything immaterial from the realm of science. 

The discussion immediately ended. 

Challenge materialism, naturalism, whatever you want to call it, and the evolutionary paradigm will crumble because its worldview cannot sustain the attack. Without its underlying worldview, it cannot exclude the immaterial or ethereal as alternate and compelling understandings of reality.


----------



## steven-nemes (Apr 8, 2009)

Are there any positive arguments for materialism? or naturalism? It seems people just take them as a given in their work.


----------



## BrianLanier (Apr 9, 2009)

While I'm sure the essay has some good points, I'm affraid that what evolutionists *don't* fear are fundamentalist-type Christians. Being in academia, I can tell you, and I am sure many of you can confirm this, that evolutionists aren't the least bit bothered that some Christians don't hold to evolution. In fact, they'll be quick to point out that the "best" educated Christian theists, e.g., Christian philosophers, scientists, philosophers of science, *do* hold to evolutionary theory. And the thing is, they are *right*--the majority of the most educated theists do. This is of course not an argument for the *truth* of biological evolution.

-----Added 4/9/2009 at 03:35:20 EST-----

Actually, nevermind, I just read the essay and there really aren't any good points. In fact, the main thesis of the argument is simply false: many Christian scientists and philosophers hold to evolution AND theism. This is a strikingly bad essay in my opinion.


----------



## OPC'n (Apr 9, 2009)

I know zip about evolution...I'm not a good debater with my atheist friend on this matter.


----------



## Zenas (Apr 9, 2009)

Can you name them? I find it difficult to categorize a Christian theist as a "good" one if they hold to evolution.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon (Apr 9, 2009)

Zenas said:


> Can you name them? I find it difficult to categorize a Christian theist as a "good" one if they hold to evolution.



It depends on the type of evolution. Every Christian should believe in the basic principles of evolution, because they are clearly observable around us every day. Mechanisms of evolution were implemented by God as a way of sustaining and diversifying His creation.

On the other hand, extrapolating those principles to explain the origin of all life on Earth is absurd at face value, and should be rejected by everyone, Christian or not. So I agree, Andrew, I certainly wouldn't call any theist good if he or she believed in a Darwinian "origin of species."


----------



## Zenas (Apr 9, 2009)

Do I really need to constantly clarify regarding micro-evolution? Macro-evolution is the absurd dogma of modern science.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon (Apr 9, 2009)

Zenas said:


> Do I really need to constantly clarify regarding micro-evolution? Macro-evolution is the absurd dogma of modern science.



Well, there are valid aspects of macro-evolution as well. I guess I reject "Evolution" that has a capital E - that's the Darwinian theory that seeks to explain all of existence apart from God.


----------



## Marrow Man (Apr 9, 2009)

BrianLanier said:


> I'm affraid that what evolutionists *don't* fear are fundamentalist-type Christians. Being in academia, I can tell you, and I am sure many of you can confirm this, that evolutionists aren't the least bit bothered that some Christians don't hold to evolution.



Perhaps in your own particular setting this is true, Brian, but it does not seem to be the case elsewhere, at least among popular atheists/evolutionists. Just listen to how miffed someone like a Samuel Harris or Richard Dawkins is that there are folks who _still _don't tow the line here. The lawsuits, newspaper articles, etc. by evolutionists blasting against creationism and ID seems to indicate that at least some (perhaps only the squeaky wheels) _are _bothered by it. And in the blogosphere, there are plenty who are bothered by it, from the armchair evolutionists launching ad hominems at Christians to academics like P.Z. Myers who, well, pretty much do the same thing.


----------



## Zenas (Apr 9, 2009)

Yeah, I'm just not remotely convinced that they aren't threatened. Who writes horribly reasoned book after horribly reasoned book to convince people they're right if they don't actually believe the other side actually has something valid or believable to say?


----------



## August (Apr 9, 2009)

When engaging with evolutionists there are a couple of routes to take: 1. Either you engage with them on their own level, i.e. assume for the sake of argument that their assumptions are valid, and proceed from there; or 2. Point out the fallacies around methodological naturalism.

I normally do 1. just for fun and to see them squirm, and 2. for a quick smackdown. (Methodological naturalism cannot be proven using its own assumptions)

However, I do want to point out that we must not be careful to deride science too much. Not because some do not claim that science has killed God or some other nonsense like that, but because we as Christians admit to primary and secondary causes, and science is (or should be) primarily the study of secondary causes. Whenever it attempts to move into the arena of primary causation, it becomes as metaphysical as any other faith.

EDIT: As to whether evolutionists feel threatened or not, they normally start out full of bravado and excitement, and then progress to trying some type of intellectual argument, and then proceed to full meltdown mode. I don't know if meltdown=fear, but it is fun to watch anyway.


----------



## PresbyDane (Apr 9, 2009)

This is always a good topic for a "short" discussion


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales (Apr 9, 2009)

BrianLanier said:


> > While I'm sure the essay has some good points, I'm affraid that what evolutionists *don't* fear are fundamentalist-type Christians. Being in academia, I can tell you, and I am sure many of you can confirm this, that evolutionists aren't the least bit bothered that some Christians don't hold to evolution.
> 
> 
> Interesting. In my experience, I find that many evolutionists are quite bothered by Christians who take the Bible seriously whom they label "fundamentalists" because the term in our society often has negative connotations. Indeed, I find so-called theistic evolutionists are often more bothered by Christians who don't hold to evolution and are likewise fond of slinging the "fundamentalist" mud-ball to smear those with whom they disagree.
> ...


----------



## Dbills (Apr 9, 2009)

One of these responses is an inauspicious introduction to the puritanboard for me. I hope it is better than this.

I did not say that evolutionists fear fundamentalist type Christians or that it bothers them that Christians do not hold to evolution. 

My point was that evolutionists exclude the God-option. Evolutionists in general. Is there really any debate that evolutionary theory, by and large, is a godless enterprise? Does the occasional, "respectable" evolutionary-creationist really require us to say that the generalization is false? In the laymen's arena, it does not. 

The layman needs the point that I have made (though some others apparently may not), because they face the weight of evolutionary theory and their faith is challenged. Evolutionary theory presents itself as having scientifically evaluated the options and put forth the best one. The layman is left wondering to himself, "what is lacking about my theory that it has failed the test? They looked at all the evidence didn't they? Does the evidence really overturn my beliefs? These are brilliant people. How can they be wrong?" And the layman struggles. 

The layman needs to realize that, no, they did not look at all the evidence. There is a category of evidence that is excluded from consideration. Therefore, the evolutionists (forgive me--the Godless ones) have put forth a theory, as if it were true, that has failed to take into consideration what the Bible says. Brilliant people, who should otherwise be able to come to the correct conclusions, will NOT, when they refuse to consider all the evidence. 

It is helpful for some who struggle with their faith under the weight of evolutionary theory to realize evolutionists have not considered all the facts and that, therefore, their conclusions are at best incomplete, and at worst, wrong. 

Now, that was the main point, title notwithstanding, that the poster missed. The question remains, why must evolutionists exclude the God-option? I have called it "fear." No doubt other reasons enter in, but any of them will have this in common--Depraved man is bent against God and his truth. Fear, hatred, arrogance, self-sufficiency. They all have this common denominator. I picked the one I believe to be most consistent with Romans 1.

As the author writing for some people with a real need, I really do not know what is so strikingly bad about it. Is it simply that it lacks the nuances and technicalities of the language of philosophy? Forgive my simplicity. It comes from having to minister daily to the commoners. 

Dennis
Teaching Elder, PCA
Winifrede WV


----------

