Confronting Atheism in a World That is Not How It's Supposed to Be

Every time I receive a notification on my phone saying, "Breaking News," my first inclination is to cringe. Lately, breaking news has been nothing less than tragic news - horrifying news about how one person has murderously taken the life of (at least) one other person. It's "breaking news" because it has a tendency to get the attention of the masses. Most people will follow the link out of a deeply strange curiosity - out of a desire to understand why things like this happen.

The Christian faith provides a moral framework by which one can look upon such actions as wrong and inherently evil. Christians can rightly and, without arbitrariness, say, "This is not the way things are supposed to be."

There is another worldview, however, at work in our day. It is the atheistic evolutionary worldview whereby its proponents seek to answer the questions of human existence and experience. Science alone is sufficient to provide us with these answers (given we simply observe the evidence through a naturalistic lens).

To the naturalist, our universe is nothing more than the product one "thing" bumping into another "thing" a long time ago, and producing another "thing" which produced another "thing" when it bumped into some"thing" else (whew!). After billions of years, these chain reactions produced the organism we call human.

For the naturalistic atheist, people are nothing more than the product of genes trying to survive. Staying alive and reproducing other bodies that are good at staying alive is the only purposeful mechanism of cellular life in the world. This is the process of nature to winnow out less-than-efficient molecular organisms. The strong survive. The weak die off. This is just the way things are.

I wonder, however, what the naturalist thinks when he receives the type of "breaking news" I spoke of before. What goes on in his mind when he hears the news of a six year old little girl who was video taped by her father as she was forced to perform oral sex on him (this happened, by the way, a few years back - the man is now, thankfully, in prison).

Do they see it "scientifically" as the cause and effect process of molecular survival? Will they go to straight to the scientific method in an effort to figure out what is going on in this poor girl's sphere of the universe? I wonder if they will begin with a hypothesis before they jump to a judgment. I wonder if their initial deepest problem lies in the question "What is this?" rather than the judgment, "This should not be!"

I doubt it.

The naturalistic, evolutionary world view has no category at all for the repulsive feelings every image bearer feels when they hear such a story. A person like Richard Dawkins can only make observations about "what is". He has, however, absolutely no basis for making assertions as to "what ought to be." He can only state that the father did this to his little girl; not that the father should not have done it.

And this is the danger of atheistic naturalism. It reduces humanity to the product of mindless molecular reactions. It handcuffs these "products" from making moral judgments about what "ought" and what "ought not" be. In a society in which this worldview pervades, and where objective morality is reasoned away, only the strong survive. The weak are left to die off.

This world, for the evolutionist, is nothing more than natural selection taking its course - the genetic quest for survival. Some genes are not so efficient (like the father mentioned above), and consequently die off.

Am I saying all atheists condone what this father did? No. I'm not. I know atheists who would deeply desire the man's judicial punishment. All I am saying is, given their worldview, they have no basis for those judicial desires. The fact that they jump to judgments faster than hypotheses, is evidence that people are more than the product of mindless molecular reactions. The deep conviction they have, that "this is not how things are supposed to be," is evidence of the very God they seek to deny.

Picking Out Errors in Evolutionary Arguments

Both Christians and atheists find evolution highly problematic and troublesome. The inconsistencies and errors are so profound and obvious that those who promote the worldview are forced to hide behind a mirage of rhetoric while they depend on the inability (and unwillingness!) of their audience to see the fallacy behind the facade.

With this in mind, I have found a few books on logic to be extremely helpful, not only in pointing out the fallacies in evolutionary and atheistic arguments, but also in my own.

The first book is Biblical Logic: In Theory and Practice by Joel McDurmon. This is the more thorough of the two as it gives a richer context to logic and right thinking.

The second book is Discerning Truth: Exposing Errors in Evolutionary Arguments by Dr. Jason Lisle. This is a small and easy read. I suggest this book for those who have little time and who are relatively unfamiliar with philosophical language and work.

The one fallacy that I come across most often is the fallacy of reification. Reification is attributing a concrete characteristic to something abstract. Not a few times have I heard someone say, "Science says..." or "The evidence says evolution is true." Evidence and Science are abstract entities that are unable to speak. They do not have an authoritative voice but are subject to the presuppositions, viewpoints, biases and agendas of those who do.

Science does not say anything, scientists do. And most who say that science says this or that, have never really conducted the science themselves, but are merely reading the written words of scientists. They are trusting the words of another.

See any irony here?

By pointing out the fallacy of reification, their position is reduced to a matter of faith. But can the object of their faith be ultimately and absolutely trusted? I will take Christ over Dawkins any day.

You Can't Have Your Cake And Eat It Too

Cornelius Van Til once wrote, "Modern science holds not only to the idea of pure contingency or indeterminacy, but also to that of pure determinism."  In saying such, CVT is referring to the deep inconsistency of the unbeliever's position when attempting to formulate a coherent scientific argument for his atheistic case.

To rely heavily upon strict laws such as uniformity of nature, laws of gravity, and the speed of light, while making a case for the evolutionary view of chance, randomness, and openness is deeply contradictory, making such an argument completely incoherent and even absurd.

An example of this can be found in the common argument against the creation account found in Genesis.  I'd like to step back and say that the point of this example is NOT to defend a young-earth view, but to show how common arguments against it are logically inconsistent, thus proving to be no argument at all.  Until a consistent argument is put forward, the Genesis account remains not disproven.

Many unbelievers dismiss the biblical creation account by saying that we know that the earth is millions of years old.  The fact that there are galaxies and celestial bodies millions of light years away makes it empirically obvious that the universe that contains those bodies is at least millions of years old.

The formula is pretty simple: the light that radiates from those bodies travels at a constant speed; it takes millions of years for that light to reach our eyes (via regular sight or telescope, etc.); it follows then that those bodies, and the universe that contains them, are at least millions of years old.

Therefore, the Genesis account, they say, is incorrect.

But I see huge problems with this argument.  In my experience, many who dismiss the Genesis account because of this type of argument are deeply committed to an evolutionary theory of nature (one of "pure contingency or indeterminacy" and openness).  There was/is no creator, and thus everything happens and has happened by chance - a product of randomness.  Lifeless matter evolved over time to be what it is now.  And the evolutionary process continues.  Change is constant.

But why are the strict laws, upon which every single scientific argument is based, not subject to the evolutionary process?  Why is the speed of light somehow protected against evolutionary change?  I wonder if it is empirically possible to prove that the speed of light has remained a constant over millions of years, as well as under atmospheric conditions millions of light years away.  Further, why isn't the uniformity of nature called also into question by his evolutionism?

It seems to me that if evolution is embraced, then every so called constant is constantly subject to that change - even evolution itself!

These questions are frustrating to the unbelieving position.  If he remains committed to his worldview, the study of the historical universe becomes highly problematic; and what he "knew" must now be degraded from fact to mere unjustified, false belief.

Here we see CVT's observation in action - the unbeliever's deep commitment to unchangeable laws which form the basis for his argument that the universe is and has always been open, changeable, and random.  Unfortunately, it is impossible for an unbelieving position to have it's cake and eat it too.

Evolution is Not a Scientific Theory

In his lecture series, Defending the Christian Worldview Against All Speculation, the late Dr. Greg Bahnsen, critiques the evolutionary worldview.  In my opinion, this lecture series is a must have for all who desire to defend the faith; but this lecture in particular gives a death-blow to those who use evolution as a means to disprove Genesis 1:1, “In the beginning God…”  Most of what follows will be my notes from the lecture.  I will add a few comments, but the points themselves were made by Bahnsen. 

Those who embrace the theory of evolution will tell you that you cannot trust the Bible b/c it teaches creation.  They say that we now know from science that man came from the evolutionary process, a process that took place over billions and billions of years.

Proponents of the theory have been very evangelistic and aggressive - inserting their agenda into the culture; especially in the educational system.  Many say that they only want their children to see “both sides of the story," but that simply is not the case.  The Christian worldview is forbidden, while evolutionary theory is almost universally accepted and promoted.

The state of LA passed a law in the mid 80s that called for equal treatment of evolution and the creationist views (or what they called, “abrupt appearance”).  The evidence for evolution must be balanced with the evidence against it.  The ACLU called for a challenge of that law.  It went to the courts.  Bahnsen was called to be the expert witness in the dept of philosophy on the matter.  

He was initially hesitant, noting that the defense wanted to take the approach that the teaching of non-evolutionary origins and evolutionary origins were not religious in nature.  For them, it was all secular science. 

Bahnsen asserted that this was not true.  The teaching of origins, or anything foundational to man’s reasoning and science is  religious.  In other words, evolution and creation science are on equal footing in terms of their theoretical nature.  Evolution is not scientific and the others are religious. Whatever you want to call the Christian view - that is what the evolutionary view is as well.

Again, evolution is not a scientific theory.  That was his point.  Evolution does not have scientific credentials. It is a philosophy.  The way to refute evolution is to compare the two worldviews in a philosophical way.  

And this is where Bahnsen [and I would argue, all Christians] camped out.  As a philosophy, evolution has no scientific credentials.  There is no empirical evidence to support it.  And as a matter of fact it carries no traits of the scientific theory.  

Here are some of Bahnsen’s arguments for the previous assertion:

1.  Mathematical Arguments.  He quotes a book published in 1967 called Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution.  He is quick to note that it was not written by Christians, but by people who were trying to be honest with their assumptions.  The editors were Morehead and Kaplan.   In it there was an article written by Murray called Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory.  

Murray wrote, “It is our contention, that if the word "random" is given a serious and crucial interpretation from a probabilistic point of view, the randomness postulate is highly implausible and that an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery and elucidation of new natural laws.”  

Bahnsen comments on this point.  If you believe that evolution happened randomly, you have to look at the probabilities of things coming together to form life.  The mathematical folks did the probable work and concluded that you would need more natural laws (even new ones) in order to prove evolution. In summary, this book concludes that mathematics has made it impossible to believe in the theory of evolution.  I personally find this interesting considering the fact that many atheists embrace mathematics as the basis for certainty in their worldview. 

Bahnsen then quotes Michael Denton, who wrote Evolution, a Theory in Crisis.  Denton stated that to get a cell by chance (according to the randomness postulate) it would require at least 100 functional proteins to appear at the same time and at the same place.  The probability for each could hardly be more than 1/1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.  When you figure that 100 of these proteins must show up a the same place and at the same time (for one cell!), the equation grows exponentially!  It is something like 1 x 10 ^-12000.

When you go to Vegas, and you are betting your money on the black jack table, you hope that your probable odds are 1/3.  1/10 is a game only a fool would play.  1/100 would be suicide.  If we take Denton’s probabilities seriously, evolution doesn’t even enter the rational map. 

Dr. Bahnsen then quotes Fred Hoil (I may have misspelled the name), from his book, Evolution From Space.  There are 2000 enzymes, so that the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is a chance of 1 x 10 ^-40000.  

2.  Fossil Evidence.  If you look at the fossil record, life appears abruptly.  Not only this, but it appears in complex forms; and there are gaps between various living kinds.  We have hundreds of millions of fossils, and not one of those fossil traces provides an intermediary form.  Much less the "missing link" that may indicated the transition between ape-like creature and man.  

Paleontology is a great enemy of evolution.  In 1970 Lord Zuckerman wrote, Beyond the Ivory Tower, where admitted that there was, in fact, a missing link.  

Stephen Jay Gould, understands that the fossil record is an embarrassment, and has come up with the theory of Punctuated Equilibrium.  The fossil record shows equilibrium or continuity.  There is no proof of a simple form to a more complex form.  So Gould says that evolution must have taken place in short spurts.  If it did, then there would not be enough time to leave fossil remains during the evolutionary "hot" periods.  

Bahnsen responds, Gould says therefore that evolution must have taken place in such a way that there could not be evidence for the evolutionary process!  This is strikes directly at the heart of empirical evolutionistic theory. 

evolution is not believed by the professor or anyone else b/c of credentials of science.  It is philosophically implausible at best, and is embraced because of a biased view against the Christian worldview.  Now Bahnsen begins to compare the worldviews.

3.  Living Organisms.  Which worldview makes better sense out of the human eye? Or, the fact that humans have a heart and lungs that function together in order for life to take place.

Evolutionists maintain that organisms form gradually over time.  But we know that it wont do any good if the human has a heart but not lungs (or kidneys or a vascular system).  In order for one to work, you must have others with it, working in tandem..  But the theory is that the heart and all other organs must gradually develop!  How could you have a heart gradually developing if it has to have lungs in order to function at all? 

Evolutionists argue that very change in a living organism is preserved b/c of its favorable interaction with the environment - it provides some advantage for life.  Let’s use the human eye as a case in point.  Let’s say that the human eye developed over billions of years.  Take the first step of the formation of the human eye...what is that proto-eye worth to a living organism?  A fully functional eye is helpful; but not a proto-eye that is not working for sight at all.  In other words, the proto-eye, if we were consistently evolutionistic in our logic, would have been immediately dismissed as unfavorable (or useless) in its interaction with the environment.  

What about sex?  You know that human babies come through the process of intercourse, or copulation.  If we supposedly evolved in a puddle of slime, and billions of years ago our grandparents were amoebas who did not copulate.  This method of reproduction was simpler than copulation.  Not to mention that many other sorts of things multiply by cell division.  

What is it that led to the change from cell division to copulation in the reproductive process? And explain how that happened gradually!  What is the value of a partially developed genital - that will be preserved over billions of years, and will one day lead to a functional copulating device?

According to Evolutionary Theory, there was once nothing but disorder.  And then the world as we know it became ordered, and exploded.  The explosion created an ordered realm that was inorganic. So we went from disorder to order.  Now the philosopher has the right to ask, "Why did disorder become order?"  How did this ordered inorganic world begin to live?  How did this happen?  

This is contrary to every pattern of reasoning in the scientific process.  Simply (and scientifically) put, you cannot have more in the product than what you had in the cause - and if there was not life to begin with, how did life happen in the conclusion?  

That which was first living was identical.  Now we have to start getting diversity, producing varied forms of life?  What caused the diversity?  

I would like to add that no scientist goes to the lab expecting diversity in their inductive inferential conclusions.  In other words, no scientist (I would assume) experiments with two non-living things expecting to get a living thing.  No consistent scientist expects randomness in their conclusions.  This would fly in the face of scientific law.  But creation happened randomly!  How then can they provide a basis for any uniformity in their science?  They cannot.

To continue, eventually something developed that was intelligent and articulate.  What happened to make that?  And this language using life form, which did not have any morality whatsoever, all of the sudden came to have moral inclinations.  It derived, from “that which is”, a “that which ought.”

Are we really supposed to believe that, step-by-step, there were irrational changes that brought about the transformation from inorganic to organic; from unified to diversified; from unintelligent to intelligent; and then from amoral to moral man?  No, we are not.  Even empirically speaking, we cannot.

Bahnsen notes that we must be careful when dialoging with evolutionists who will give evidence of change within life forms; but not between life forms.  Moths, for example, whose wings have changed over time to make them more camouflaged, are a prime example.  No one doubts micro-evolution (within life forms).  But what about between life forms (macro-evolution) – no evidence whatsoever.  

4.  Conclusion.  Jay Tindall, 1874, professor at Harvard, said, "The basis for the doctrine of evolution consists, not in an experimental demonstration, but in its general harmony with scientific thought."  In other words, Evolution is not a scientific theory, but simply harmonizes with the spirit of science.  

Gould even states, "the general preference that so many of us hold for gradualism, is a metaphysical stance embedded in the history of western cultures. It is not a high ordered empirical observation induced from the objective study of nature."  It doesn’t get any clearer than this.  Evolution is a philosophical stance, not a scientific one.