Previous
Page
Back
to
Table of Contents
Next
Page
Debunking Christian Circular Arguments and Assumptions
Creationist
Arguments
Against Evolution
I realize
that this book
does not address the big
subject of “Creation vs. Evolution”. While I am no
expert in the "Creation
vs. Evolution" debate, I will say that the Creationist arguments that
try
to prove that the story of Genesis in the Bible is literal truth is
based on
the obvious fallacy, mentioned before, that the Bible is the word of
God and is
an infallible source of authority.
But that
doesn’t
mean that the theory of Evolution doesn’t
have its flaws, erroneous assumptions and unexplained gaps. I am one of
those
with the middle position that Evolution did happen, but that forces
beyond the
physical had some intervention in it. After all, no Atheist or
scientific
materialist has ever been able to answer the question of how something
could
come from nothing, or why anything even exists at all, or how the first
cell
become self-replicating, etc.
Also, for
the Atheist to ask
"If God created the
world, then who created God?" is a circular argument that gets
nowhere. Such questions cannot be resolved since the answers
probably lie
beyond the physical and beyond our comprehension. But they do not erase
the
evidence of design in creation, nor the fact that we have conscious
awareness
beyond the mind and brain.
Evolution
has only been
proven at the micro level, not the macro level. While small changes
within a
species have been demonstrated and observed, the theory that one
species can
transition to another has never been proven in any way.
The truth
is, there are huge
gaps and missing links in the current model of Evolution. No
transitional
species have been found that links humans to the prehistoric hominids
or
primates. And the transitions that allegedly took place, if it did, was
way too
quick to be natural.
Humans are
also not equipped
to survive in the wilderness of nature and cannot compete with the wild
animals
there in terms of physical strength and adaptability. Thus they could
not have
evolved naturally in the wild through Evolution alone. Our biological
human
physique is obvious evidence of this. Furthermore, no human fossils
dating back
beyond 200,000 years has ever been found. Moreover, the makeup of our
genes
contain many clues and bits of data that does not fit into the
Evolutionary
model. (see the presentation below by Lloyd Pye for details) And of
course,
science cannot explain how life began at all or how the first cell
became
self-replicating. Even Richard Dawkins, the most famous staunch
advocate of
Evolution, admits this. (see the end of the Ben Stein film below for
Dawkins’
confession)
These
unexplained mysteries
and discrepancies have never been solved by the scientific
establishment.
Instead, they are just brushed under the carpet, denied and given
copout
explanations and leaps of faith arguments. The scientific establishment
has too
much invested in its current paradigm to change its mind or rethink its
theories. They also ridicule and ostracize dissent so that scientists
are
required to tow the party line in order to keep their careers and be
promoted.
In other words, freethought or questioning is not allowed. In short,
they’ve
created a “forced consensus” that is run by
pressure and punishment, rather
than freethought.
To see an
excellent
documentary that explores the suppression of “intelligent
design” in the
scientific establishment and universities, see Ben Stein’s
revealing film
“Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” on YouTube here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fj8xyMsbkO4
Now, I do
not claim to have
all the answers to such mysteries. But there are some researchers who
have
invested a lot of time in this subject that are worth listening to. One
such
example is Lloyd Pye, a tireless anthropology researcher who has
pioneered what
he calls the “Intervention Theory”. Visit his website at: http://www.lloydpye.com or
see his
outstanding presentation at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qNGngZsxAhw
His
book Everything
You Know Is Wrong
Now, even
if micro Evolution
is true, it does not rule out the existence of God or a cosmic
universal
consciousness.
Greg Stone, author of Under the Tree,
put it eloquently on my
discussion list:
“Not
only is there a residue of
feeling, but there is a sound argument that Darwinian evolution is not
big
enough. It is not. Darwinian evolution deals with the specific nature
of the
evolution of biological forms on this planet. And it fails to account
entirely
even for that realm. It does not account for the overall evolution of
complexity within the universe, which then leads to the "special
case" of Darwinian evolution.
It
does not account for the origin of life forms, and most importantly it
in no
way accounts for the existence of the spirit and the spirit's effect
upon the
evolution of forms. Thus, Darwinian Evolution is incomplete when it
comes to
explaining life. And those, like Dawkins, Blackmore, Pinker, etc. who
try to
make Darwinian Evolution do more than it can will be seen in the long
run to
have been quite foolish.”
Some
researchers have argued
that it is mathematically impossible for life to evolve by chance on
its own
because of the astronomical impossibility of the conditions for life
being set
up by chance.
Theist J.P. Moreland
presented the arguments for this, using math and science, in his debate
against
Atheist Kai Neilsen, described in the book Does God
Exist?: The Debate Between Theists & Atheists.
In
his debate with Atheist
Kai Neilsen, Moreland explains with math and science why chance alone
could not
explain how the conditions for life evolved.
One thing
the Atheists can
never explain is “Who
set up the vastly
improbable default conditions for life to evolve in the FIRST PLACE? Where
did the matter to create the universe
and life come from? How did something come from nothing?” It’s
kind of like this: We know the mechanics
behind how and why a pot boils, but that doesn’t tell us
about the person who
put the pot on the stove.
Some
Atheists also like to
point out that the need for belief in God can also be explained by
Evolution.
However, David Marshall, a
Christian missionary and philosopher rebuts that point well when he
stated in
my discussion list:
“To
make the jump from "evolution
can explain belief in God" to "there is no God" without involved
argument would be the generic fallacy, again.
To repeat my earlier example,
even if you can explain the human ability
to do math by evolution, that does not prove math is invalid. In
theory, it should be possible (given your
presuppositions) to show how the human faculty for mathematics arose
through
natural processes.
That does not mean
E=MC2 does not accurately describe real events in the real universe. The
fact that evolution may have created an
awareness of dependency on one's mother on a child's part, does not
mean real
mothers do not exist and do not care for their children.
In
the same way, even if you were able to describe
the evolution of faith in God, it would still remain an entirely
separate
argument, whether God exists in fact or not.”
Previous
Page
Back
to
Table of Contents
Next
Page