Monday, September 19, 2011

Evolution's Phony Chasm Between Science And Christianity - Evolution Debate (Part 1)

Many of my friends are aware of my recent debate with a Danish biology teacher on the subject of creation vs evolution. I have been asked a lot about this event and plan to discuss it over the coming weeks. Today, I thought a good start point would be to examine the true relationship between science and Biblical Christianity. Because there are a lot of "educators" who don't want you to know this! Highly decorated anthropologist, educator, philosopher, and natural science writer Loren Eiseley wrote that science "demands some kind of unique soil to flourish." Eiseley went on to reluctantly concede that this unique soil was in fact "the Christian world which finally gave birth in a clear, articulate fashion to the experimental method of science itself".

The scientific method is built upon presuppositions, all of which, cannot be verified by this scientific method. These presuppositions include the reality of the universe, the knowability of nature, the uniform laws that nature is subject to, the predictability of its behavior, and that measurable causes underlie all observable effects. It would seem that the modern world of evolutionary science is heavily invested in concealing the fact that all these presuppositions find their sole affirmation within the pages of the Biblical Text.

This has become a nasty form of historical revisionism because the truth of the matter is that the scientific endeavor was pioneered by Christians like Copernicus, Johnannes Kepler, and Jean-Baptiste van Helmont. These men saw science's ultimate goal as the pursuit of greater knowledge of the Creator, and they considered this a God given calling! What the modern "guardians" of evolutionary science veil behind all their empty rhetoric is the reality that theology was established in institutes of higher learning as the "Queen of the Sciences". Michael Patton says that theology was "understood to be the first among pursuits of knowledge, since it was believed that all other pursuits were vitally linked to its dictates. Morality was dictated by it. Philosophy was called its handmaiden. Why was it held in such high esteem then? Because theology itself provides a foundation for your philosophy and worldview, which in turn sets inclinations for your heart, actions, and decisions in all situations." Many Americans would be surprised to know that universities like Yale, Harvard, and Princeton (to name a few) were all established to train missionaries and Christian ministers.

Richard Dawkins leads the brigade of "modern scientific" gurus who pit science and religion (more specifically Biblical Christianity) as warring factions for the hearts and minds of humanity. It would seem that Dawkins does not ascribe to theology as "Queen of the sciences" when he rhetorically asks "What has 'theology' ever said that is of the smallest use to anybody? When has 'theology' ever said anything that is demonstrably true and is not obvious? What makes you think that 'theology' is a subject at all?". Yet when Professor Dawkins continually refers to Darwin's theory of evolution as "the fact of evolution" he exposes himself as an apologist for his own religion, not a good scientist. True science is measurable, testable, repeatable, and observable - all of which have no connection to Darwin's theory of cell to creature evolution. Darwin's theory is still called a theory because it is not a fact! The "missing link" is still called the "missing link" because no one has ever found it! And the creation is still called creation because it has a Creator!

This all points to the first chapter of Romans where Paul says:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse (Romans 1:18-20).

This is the great big cosmic "no-brainer" which Dawkins unwittingly affirms when he says that:

The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully (The God Delusion p51).

This is not an argument against God's existence, it is an argument for Dawkins' hatred of the God he denies (it would seem that Richard Dawkins has learned a way to make a good living from being a bad theologian which just goes to show that this is not exclusively the domain of prosperity preachers on TV).

This brings us to ground zero of the atheistic evolutionary worldview. That their main objection to God's existence is not based on their knowledge but is rather driven by their morality. The Lord Jesus affirmed this just after the most famous verse in the Bible when He said:

And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed (John 3:19-20).

These verses remind us that the atheist's primary problem with God's existence is that he loves sin and hates God. It is also a humbling reminder of my own condition before God graciously saved me. It also serves to remind us that all evangelism should revolve around the moral issues of sin, righteousness, and judgment rather than the endless rabbit trail of intellectual debate. Because Biblical theology is the "Queen of science" and evolutionary theory is just bad theology.

Go On To Part 2


Andrew said...

Is it just me or did that video look like a really bad dubbing job?

Cameron Buettel said...

Andrew, I wanted to use the YouTube footage of Ben Stein's interview with Dawkins but alas, they do not allow anyone to embed those videos. At least in this video you can see that Dawkins faith in evolution is just that - faith!

Andrew said...

That interview with Ben Stein was awesome. You can't embed it but you can link it...

Kristoffer Haldrup said...

A longish and meandering post, with many a logical disconnect, but as I am not that interested in the vagaries of philosophy I´ll let it pass;)

However, I do look forward to read your accounts of the debate and the arguments you think you have against evolution and a naturalistic world view. -Especially, I look forward to engage you on these points and to show you and other readers why evolution is such a well established framework for understanding the living nature around us:)

Oh, one thing that bugged me, or more accurately, again made me wonder how the religious mind works, is this: You claim that I, as an atheist, hate your god. To me, as an atheist, this claim simply does not make any sense, as I do not think that this god (that you claim I hate) exists -- you could just as well claim that I hate Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny...and my reaction would be about the same, a slightly confused smile and a shrug:) -What you can say is, that I find many of the personality traits usually associated with the christian god (and several other gods...) rather unpalatable. And I truly do hate the atrocities committed in the name of religion...-But to say that I "hate god", that simply does not make sense to me as an unbeliever in your particular deity:)

Cameron Buettel said...

Kristoffer, do you live in Denmark? Your name sounds Danish. You are welcome to post opposing views here but just a couple of rules. If you are going to describe the Christian God or Jesus Christ then you must start each word with a capital letter or I will not post them. Also, no swearing either.

You describe me as a religious mind as if you are not. Kristoffer, evolution is a religion. It is not based on empirical science (at the macro level). Yes, I understand that empirical science can be practiced on changes within a species (which is often called micro-evolution) but evolution relies on empirical data of species to species mutation - something never observed or found in the fossil record. When I exposed my opponents transitional form (Lucy) as a fraud during the debate he conceded my point but then said that he "believes" there are others out there. He did the same with mutations as well.

Though I have responded here, and would love to discuss this at length, I will not have much time for discussion over the next several weeks. But if you do live in Denmark then you are welcome to challenge me to a debate.

Kristoffer Haldrup said...

Well, your place, your rules - even if I do find them a bit silly - I hope that sarcasm and irony are not outlawed here, though:)

Further, I would strongly beg to differ on the viewpoint that evolution is a religion. On the contrary, it is based on plenty of factual evidence of how species have diverged and evolved. Personally, I consider the completely indendent and mutually confirming data from the fossil record and molecular biology/genetics a very convincing argument. But you seem to altogether ignore the latter line of evidence?

Finally yes, I am a Danish national...But as I currently live in Chicago, a debate would seem to be somewhat difficult to set up. Even though it could be fun:)