Darwinian Evolution

Darwinian Evolution; Scientific Theory, or Religious Philosophy?

Chapter Five: “Darwin meets the Berenstain Bears,” pp. 154-178 in Total Truth

II. Naturalism’s claim to provide a material explanation for all phenomena (including human origins and behavior) is a philosophic endeavor; not a scientific endeavor. The impact of Darwinian evolution was not in the details of mutation and natural selection; but in something far more significant—a new criterion for what qualifies as objective truth. Darwinism led to a naturalistic view of knowledge. Thus, if naturalism is valid; then philosophic and theological absolutes such as Goodness, Truth, and Beauty are fraudulent; or merely symbols of human aspiration (Total Truth, p. 154).

A. Darwinism sought to debunk Christianity’s truth claims. Naturalism has relegated Christianity to the realm of the non-objective. Prior to Darwin, most thinkers in America assumed the unity of knowledge based on the conviction of a single universal order established by God—encompassing both natural and moral order. Darwinian evolution shattered this unity of knowledge. Religion and morality were relegated to upper story, non-cognitive, categories (p. 155).

B. Secularism pits ‘science’ against the Bible; making the two appear to be mortal enemies. The Bible and the history of science show that this is a false dichotomy. For some 300 years after the scientific revolution, Christianity and science were thought to be completely compatible and mutually supporting. The stunning complexity of the created world was not viewed as a challenge to belief in God, but as confirmation of His wisdom and design—researchers ‘thought God’s thoughts after Him’. Kepler (

1571-1630
), Newton (
1642-1727
), and Boyle (1627-1691) felt called to

use their

scientific gifts

in praise to God and in service to humanity.

The application of science in medicine and technology was justified as a means of reversing the effects of the Fall by alleviating suffering, toil, and tedium and to assist man in fulfilling the dominion mandate—Ps 8; Gen 1:26-28. Darwinism explained life’s origins strictly by natural causes (naturalism). As a result, science and religion were increasingly depicted as mortal enemies (p. 155).

Darwinism functions philosophically like a

universal acid . It is so corrosive; it dissolves all

other worldviews and all other universals. It corrodes away all traces of transcendent purpose and morality. As author Daniel Dennet says, “[it] eats through just about every traditional concept and leaves in its wake a revolutionized world-view.” Dennet informed his audience (PBS 8 part series, “Evolution”) that Darwin’s great accomplishment was to reduce the design of the universe to a product of “purposeless, meaningless matter in motion.” No lab test could affirm Dennet’s assertion; it not a scientific theory at all; it is a personal religious philosophy (p. 156).

C. The ‘Icons’ of evolution are debunked by empirical science, but still found in textbooks. There are four sets of illustrations (“Icons” of evolution) that used most frequently in high school and college textbooks. Our children are no doubt familiar with them. We need to know how to evaluate these illustrations. It is heartening to know that these “Icons” of evolution do not provide evidence for Darwin’s theory.

1. Darwin’s Beaks -- Darwin found that during drought; the beaks of Galapagos Finches increased slightly in size; enabling them to access a wider variety of foods during dry spells. During normal rainfall the beaks returned to normal size. Was this “evolution happening before our very eyes,” as one scientist hailed? No, the change turned out to be nothing more than a cyclical fluctuation. The change in no way put the birds on a path to evolving into another kind of bird.

It was simply an adaptation that increased survivability in dry weather. Rather than making a new bird; the minor adaptation allowed the finches to stay finches. Evolutionists distorted the findings; claiming proof of evolution. In reality there was no permanent alteration in the finches; the change was reversed when normal weather patterns returned (pp. 159-160).

2. Dysfunctional Fruit Flies – Fruit flies reproduce a very high rate. Thus changes can be observed in a relatively short amount of time. When exposed to radiation and toxic materials; mutations were induced (larger wings; smaller wings; extra sets of wings; shriveled wings). In each case none of the mutations proved to be a design improvement; and probably none of the mutated fruit flies would have been able to survive in the wild. None the less; evolutionists cited one of the mutations as an apparent evolutionary advance—one fly had two sets of wings. But the extra set of wings was not an improvement; the mutated wings did not move; they were dysfunctional. They hung there; weighing down the fly. After a half century of mutating fruit flies; geneticist Richard Goldschmidt summarized the experiment by saying that even the accumulated mutations would only produce an extremely odd, and dysfunctional fruit fly. Accumulated changes do not fill in the details necessary to make a new kind. Instead you need an overall design. Variations within a kind bump up against a ‘wall’—a genetic barrier of fixed limitations that prevents evolution (pp. 160, 161).

3. Doctored Moths – The case for evolution has been seriously damaged in recent years by reversals in ‘key evidence’. Nonetheless, these “Icons” continue to appear in textbooks as ‘proofs’ of evolution. The case of the peppered moths of England has been one of the most touted ‘proofs’ of evolution. During the industrial revolution, coal soot stained the trees in urban England. The speckled grey moths lost their natural blended camouflage; against the now dark tree trunks. The moths became easy pickings for the birds. In a short time the peppered moths showed a population increase of a darker phase that blended with the sooty tree trunks. Is this a showcase for natural selection as evolutionists claimed? No, it came to light that the dark phase moths have always existed; and that the moths underwent a population shift (the lighter moths on the sooty trees dropped in number because they could be easily spotted by birds). A population shift is a far cry from evolutionary change (pp. 161-162).

4. Haeckel’s Embryos: Most Famous Fake – Depicts stages of a human embryo side by side with embryos of fish, amphibian, reptile, and bird. The point is that similarity between embryos is intended to show common ancestry. Darwin himself stated that Haeckel’s embryos constitute “by far the strongest single class of facts in favor of his theory.” Darwin was misled. The idea that each embryo ‘replays’ all the prior stages of evolution (ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny) has proven to be bogus. The ‘fake’ factor is that Haeckel intentionally fudged on his sketches. His colleagues rightly accused him of fraud. But only recently has the scientific community begun to expose the drawings as fraud—yet the same and similar drawings continue to appear in textbooks! Biologically speaking it is incorrect to say that we start out as something less than human. The human embryo is human from day one. Our genetic code is there from day one. Haeckel supported race-based eugenics (pp. 163-165).

D. The bankruptcy of gradualism is illustrated by the systematic gaps in the fossil record. God created living things to reproduce ‘after their kind’, not to evolve into another kind (Gen 1:12, 21, 24-25).

Darwin predicted that paleontology’s examination of the fossil record would yield the evidence for gradualism (an ‘infinite’ number of intermediate forms between species). The exact opposite has occurred. Since 1980, the ‘Macroevolution’ conference in Chicago’s Field Museum of Natural History paleontologists told biologists what they least wanted to hear. Namely that the fossil record does not, and never will, support the Darwinian scenario of a smooth continuum of life forms from simple to complex (Evol ‘tree’). Instead the fossil record shows a pervasive pattern of gaps between kinds; with no transitional forms. The lack of evidence in the fossil record sent scientists scurrying to find an alternative mechanism; the new mechanics (punctuated equilibrium) suggests that evolution occurred rapidly in small populations thereby leaving no trace in the fossil record. This is wild and reckless speculation with all the fossil evidence standing against it (pp. 165-168).

Genetic Entropy
Mutation
Geologic Column
Geologic Column
Cambrian Explosion
No intermediates or Ancestors to early Vertebrates
Morphological Distance (no evidence of Darwin’s tree)
Below the Line: Blind unproven Speculation

E. Darwin tried to prove that things only ‘appear’ to be designed (Rom 1:18-20).

Because of a religious and philosophic pre-commitment to naturalism; the results of scientific investigation (for Darwinians) was restricted to natural causes alone. These scientists are not free to follow the evidence where it leads; even when it points away from naturalism to intelligent cause and design. Evolutionist Richard Dawkins notes, “Even if there were no actual evidence in favor of the Darwinian theory . . . we would still be justified in preferring it over all rival theories.”

A prior commitment to philosophical naturalism demands that nature be considered as operating in a closed system of cause and effect. This unquestioned dogma concerning the definition of science permeates the public education system. One high school textbook says, “By attributing diversity of life to natural causes rather than to supernatural creation, Darwin gave biology a sound scientific basis.” Notice how the textbook equates “sound” with philosophic naturalism. Once philosophic naturalism is adopted as the ‘lens’ to view all of life; then it follows that in order for one to be consistent; he must get rid of the concept of divine creation. Darwinism is not really based on empirical finding; it is a deduction from a naturalistic/materialistic worldview (pp. 168-170).

F. Richard Lewontin admitted that “We are forced by our a prioi adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and set of concepts that produce material explanations.” He admitted that Darwinians have ‘stacked’ the deck in favor of materialism lest we let a “divine foot in the door.”

G. Christianity’s truth claims encompass all reality. The essential issue in the initial clash of worldviews comprises the following question: Is the universe made by intelligent design; or by blind, non-cognitive forces? To which shall we direct our energies? This is the ‘Christian wedge of truth’ that wonderfully streamlines the debate. Since God’s ‘fingerprints’ are everywhere in creation; the evidence for intelligent design is ubiquitous (Ps 19; 33).

H. Don’t reduce religion to non-cognitive categories; God’s revelation is addressed to total reality; to reason, and to faith (Ps 8; Ps 139; Ps 145; Eccl 7:13, 14; Is 40).

The effect of Darwinism was to switch religion as knowledge of the truth to religion as a faith leap (God has no purpose in the world; He only exists for the psyche; the subjective; the artificial). Today’s students have absorbed the fact/value split—that science is about ‘facts’ and religion is about values. And values are only subjective, personal, or social preferences. The goal of naturalism is to give everything a materialistic explanation (pp. 176-177).

Christianity does make claims about the origin of the cosmos; the character of human nature; the events of history. Therefore it is totally unfair to place Christianity’s truth claims in the upper story (the non-cognitive realm). When we talk about the Christian worldview; we must speak about objective values; moral truth; not personal values because the latter is used of the upper story. God’s revelation is addressed to reason. Don’t move onto the unbeliever’s turf by reducing religion to non-cognitive categories disconnected from truth or evidence (p. 178).

Chapter Six: “The Science of Common Sense,” pp. 179-205 in Total Truth III. “In the Beginning was Information” (Creation book title by Werner Gitt).

A. God’s ‘fingerprints’ of design are everywhere in creation (Ps 104).

Darwin never denied the evidence for design, but his goal was to show that the evidence for design could be accounted for by purely natural forces: things only appear to be designed.

Once we entered the computer age; it became evident that information is never an accident. It requires a programmer; it must be stored, retrieved, read, and protected from corruption (viruses). Then, with the discovery of DNA; someone in science dared to ask, “Who put the information in the nuclei of cells?” Francis Crick, discoverer of DNA described a cell as a minute factory, “bustling with rapid, organized chemical activity. Nature invented the assembly line some billions of years before Henry Ford.” Biologists cannot even describe the cell without resorting to the language of machines, programming, design, and engineering.

Intelligent design proponent Michael Behe coined the term, “irreducible complexity.” It refers to the minimum level of complexity that must be present before such a tightly integrated system can function at all. The mouse trap is Behe’s favorite illustration of irreducible complexity. One cannot gradually improve the function of a mouse trap by adding parts. All the parts must be there in order to catch mice at all. Countless structures in nature demonstrate the truth of irreducible complexity; the entire system has to be present from the beginning in order to perform at all.

Darwin’s theory fails his own proposed test, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” With the explosion of knowledge from molecular biology, it appears that Darwin’s theory has indeed broken down. The universe gives evidence of being well-designed; bodies and cells all give evidence of a pre-existing blueprint.

B. How to construct a case for intelligent design in origins (Job 38-41).

Information does not arise from natural forces within matter but has to be imposed from outside by an intelligent agent. God claims to have designed the creatures, their behavior, and the creation systems spoken of in the book of Job. Learn to use the ‘wedge of truth’ to tear down assumptions.

C. Learn to see the entire cosmos through the lens of biblical worldview (Ps 36:9).

The doctrine of biblical creation (with its theme of divine design) allows us to see the cosmos through the lens of a comprehensive worldview. Biblical creation takes Christianity immediately into the realm of objective truth. The Christian worldview puts us in a position to think God’s thoughts after Him; it puts us in the ‘supernaturalist’s chair’ whereby we view the world with the penetrating awareness of eternal things, and God’s control (2 Cor 4:17, 18). Only the Christian worldview lets a person recognize the full range of reality (pp. 204-205).

D. Naturalism (which birthed Darwinism) is a failed worldview; it cannot explain the nearly infinite examples of design in the universe. Naturalism cannot give understanding of God, the world, or man (1 Cor 1:21; Col 2:8; Prov 1:7). By challenging naturalism in science and origins; biblical creation provides the basis for challenging naturalism in theology, morality, politics, and every other field. How greatly this is needed; for naturalism is making its quest to dominate the remainder of culture—seeking to take over every aspect of human life and society.

Take Away Principles:

1. For a mutation to be beneficial, it must add information. There are no examples from nature of non-created codes. DNA is designed to prevent things from evolving. A mutation is a loss of information.
2. The ‘Icons of Evolution’ (which science has debunked still appear in textbooks), rather than supporting the theory, reveal the dearth (absence) of evidence for Darwinism.
3. Darwinism is philosophical; not empirical. When science attempts to answer ultimate questions, it is functioning as a religious philosophy.

4. The ‘Wedge of Truth’ can be applied to the unbeliever’s faulty worldview to show him that he has no basis for morals, meaning, and truth.
5. Darwinian scientists pretend that they operate in a ‘philosophy free’ zone. In reality, they do not want their faulty presuppositions and philosophies examined.

How does Darwinism affect our Culture?

Chapter Seven: “Today Biology, Tomorrow the World,” pp. 207-225, Total Truth

I. Have we been ‘fooled’ by our selfish genes? Darwin’s bankrupt explanation of human behavior destroys rationality. Schaeffer saw that everything hangs on one’s view of origins. If you start with impersonal forces operating by chance (naturalism); then, in time you will end up with naturalism in moral, social, and political philosophy. Naturalism, when taken to its logical conclusions for morality, suggests that our genes deceive us into thinking that there is “disinterested objective morality binding upon [us], which all should obey” (pp. 208, 209).

A. If all behavior is adaptation (the consequence of ‘selfish genes’); then there can be no such thing as objective morality (Eph 4:17-19). “Religion is a brain malfunction that kicks in at a certain level of evolutionary advancement” (Atran and Boyer). The above can only take us deeper into absurdity and ethical darkness. Evolutionary psychology suggests that maternal love is nothing more than genetic self-interest; and infanticide is as ‘normal’ as maternal instinct (pp. 210-212).

B. No one can live a worldview of

total determinism
(with man a mere
biological machine
—and

every decision determined by the forces of evolution). But, if the very possibility of objective truth is undermined by evolution; then evolution itself cannot be true. Do Darwinian ideologues really think their own ideas evolved? If all ideas are not really true; only ‘useful’ for survival; then evolution is not true either; why should the rest of us pay any attention? Another way to evaluate a theory is by submitting it to the practical test; Can we live by it? If one is testing naturalism; the answer is, ‘No!’ for if man is nothing more than a biological robot; then moral freedom and human dignity have no rational basis. EX.“There are absolutely no moral absolutes,” is a morally absolutist statement. A philosophy that is self-referentially absurd is a sure sign that it is fatally flawed (pp. 216-217). Regarding inability to live one’s worldview, see also pp. 220, 221.)

C. Evolution fails as a moral guide (Darwinian psychology suggests that human values are a product of natural selection; morals are but ‘mental mutations’). Author Robert Wright (The Moral Animal) indicates that the things we believe about morality, personal worth, and objective truth lead to behaviors that get our genes into the next generation. According to Wright and his cohort who buy into determinism; human (free) will is an illusion; part of an “outmoded worldview.”

If we are but ‘survival machines’ utterly dependent upon our genetic masters; then what is the source of freedom? Dawkins’ answer: “rebel against the tyranny of our selfish replicators.” But where does the ‘power’ to rebel come from—is it the only thing about us that is not determined and genetically programmed? How could we make an ‘un-Darwinian’ decision? Dawkins has discomfort about offering a genetic excuse for immorality. His view of freedom and responsibility that is clearly stolen from the Christian worldview!

D. Our Gospel message ought to be set in the context of ultimate reality; Christianity is completely consistent as a ‘Total Truth’ worldview. What’s ironic is that Christianity is often dismissed as irrational—yet it does not require any irrational, self-contradictory leap of faith as evolution does. Because biblical theism begins with a personal God; Christianity provides a consistent, unified worldview that holds true in both the natural and the moral realm (pp. 219, 220).

E. We must teach our children why they may have confidence in the Christian Worldview; it is the only way they will be able to survive the cognitive warfare. Naturalism has attempted to craft “a single grand naturalistic image of man.” The only way to stand against such a comprehensive naturalistic worldview is by articulating a Christian worldview “of equally comprehensive and far-reaching power.” A total truth, all-encompassing worldview is the only way to survive the cognitive warfare (pp. 223-225).

Chapter Eight: “Darwins of the Mind,” pp. 227-247 in Total Truth II. Are morals a matter of preference; or do they constitute an immutable standard that is built into the very fabric of the universe? Darwin was wrong; Stalin’s murderous campaign proved it. Stalin killed millions of his own people in his attempt to construct an officially atheistic state (secular creeds).

A. Objective truth is only possible and knowable in God’s world -- Ps 36:9 (a world created, upheld, ruled, and interpreted by God—for His glory).

B. God’s world is a ‘book’ packed with information; all men are bathed in light (Jn 3:19-21); they are immersed in a sea of divine revelation (Ps 19). Information does not come from blind, material forces; but only by an intelligent Agent. The organic world really is a book packed with complex biological information. Modern scientists are increasingly faced with the fact that information is just as crucial as matter itself. Some physicists now “regard the physical world as made up of information, with energy and matter as incidentals” (p. 246).

C. The LOGOS doctrine (that Christ is the source of all order and rationality) is the only basis for objective truth and reality (Jn 1:1-18). Darwin reduced ideas to ‘mental mutations’—selected solely for survival value. In so doing he killed truthfulness, morality, and creativity. The reality of the Logos in the material realm underscores the reality of the Logos beyond the material—the Intelligent Agent of design who is the source of creation’s order, information, and rationality.

D. In order to engage our culture; we must be willing to enter a cognitive battle over origins (Rev 4:11; 10:5-7; 14:6, 7). It is commonplace to say that Americans are engaged in a ‘culture war’ over values and conflicting moral standards. But we must always remember that morality is derivative— its stems from an underlying worldview. If we are to effectively engage unbelievers; we must be willing to engage the underlying cognitive war over origins. Creation is foundational to Christian worldview. We teach a ‘single reality’ because it was created by one omnipotent all-wise God.

Given the biblical account of divine creation; it follows that knowledge comprises a single whole. The doctrine of creation supports confidence in the unity of truth. As Christians, called by Christ to fulfill the Great Commission; we will not retreat by allowing Christianity to be shunted aside to the value sphere. We must be willing (under the Lordship and leadership of Christ) to throw off metaphysical timidity (about the nature of reality) and take the offensive.

Take Away Principles:

1. The unbeliever lives in God’s world; NOT the world of their imaginings.
2. The unbeliever’s problems stem from his claim to be autonomous, independent of his Creator.
3. The unbeliever’s system does not correspond to reality because the unbeliever is suppressing the truth in unrighteousness (Rom 1:18).
4. The unbeliever cannot live his presuppositions; his view of reality doesn’t fit the world as it is; so he ‘borrows and steals’ from Christian worldview.
5. Regardless of the unbeliever’s presuppositions; he has to live in God’s world. That means that the unbeliever’s guilt is just as real as the splinter in his hand, or the weeds in his backyard.

6. When the unbeliever attempts to justify his rebellious presuppositions; he is vocalizing his unbelief— he is stating the opposite of what he knows in his conscience. The Holy Spirit works conviction through these points of tension. We use questions and dialogue which employ the laws of logic (the laws of non-contradiction). Why is a runaway teen trapped in prostitution a tragedy? Why was the Jewish Holocaust a moral outrage? If naturalism actually explained reality; how would it be possible to think an undetermined thought? When the unbeliever mentions ‘truth’, ‘ought’ or ‘the way things should be’—we ask, “Why should things be that way?” “What is your authoritative standard?”

7. Press the antithesis (push the worldview collision) by stating that ‘big bang chaos’ is a woefully inadequate first cause of logic, morality, personhood, justice, meaning, unity, beauty, morality, etc. (These universals of human existence (transcendentals) cannot be traced to material causes.)
8. The Wedge of Truth is a methodology designed to show that one cannot account for personalism from a meaningless, impersonal, un-designed, purposeless universe. Remember that most of the unbelievers you speak with will not be dyed in the wool atheists. Most will admit the existence of a deity; but will not define Him according to biblical theism. Ask: “Which is foundational to all reality? Blind, purposeless chance, matter and motion; OR, an Almighty personal God?” “Only one can be ultimate.” “How can the chaos of the big bang be an adequate comprehensive cause of all human existence and experience?”