Evolution: An Inconsistent Worldview

Most people who reject creation as a viable explanation for our origins tend to describe themselves as "scientific." Often they will say that they only believe in what can be demonstrated scientifically, hence their rejection of creation as a valid explanation for our origins. This assertion, of course, is quite wrong. There are many things we regard as true without demanding scientific proof.

For example I work with a chemical called acetone. This chemical looks exactly like water but according to the warning label, is deadly poisonous. I've never seen anyone die from drinking it, nor has anyone I've ever talked to seen someone die from drinking it. I believe the labels are telling me the truth. This, no matter how reasonable, is still faith.

Have you ever gone to a doctor for a prescription? Think about how many things you take on faith. You must believe your doctor has prescribed the right drug, that is written it correctly, that the pharmacist has read it correctly, put the right thing in the bottle, and labeled the bottle correctly. Most of us accept that all of the above has been carried out, and we do so without having it demonstrated scientifically.

Judging a Truth Claim

Without actual scientific investigation, all we have to go on oftentimes is the testimony of others. Some claim claims turn out to be false, some deliberately so. How can we discern truth from error?

In order to determine the truthfulness of a claim, we may subject the claim to several tests, all of which the claim must pass if we are to regard it as true. A claim must be 1) Logically consistent, 2) be supported by empirical evidence, and 3) must apply meaningfully to my life (for example, if one was to use "zipperzaps" as a unit of measure in their statement, it would be impossible for me to gage the statement's truthfulness as "zipperzaps" is a meaningless term based on my experience).

Logical Consistency

Any claim that contains contradictions must be false. The evolutionary worldview contains several such contradictions:

Evolution's Unscientific Nature - One Step Away From the Goods

The evolutionist rejects creation as a viable explanation for our origins, adopting evolution because it's "scientific." As we noted above, no one lives demanding scientific proof of absolutely everything - this would be impossible. With respect to evolution specifically, the first logical inconsistency is that fact that the evolutionist must believe in the truth of something unobservable in real time, unpredictable, and unrepeatable. He may study the fossils, which are facts pertaining to the original event, but without being there to witness the event itself, he is one step away from the actual process he professes to study.

The Witness' Testimony - Written Reports

The second logical inconsistency arises when we consider that in order to cite evidence for evolution, the evolutionist must believe, without scientific investigation, the testimonies of others.

Scientists place a great deal of faith in each other. For the most part, the actual fossil evidence may only be "studied" through written descriptions by other scientists equally committed to the evolution story. This places us yet another step away from the actual process of evolution. These descriptions are taken as accurate often without confirming them scientifically. What we have in a written description then, is an eyewitness account of the fossil's physical attributes. But without seeing the actual fossil for ourselves, how can we be sure the description is accurate?

Consider Leakey's earlier statement:

p. 16 "One experiences a powerful sense of awe in holding a hominid fossil, a piece one one's past, a piece of the past of all of Homo Sapiens. It never fails to thrill me, and I know I'm not the only one in this profession to react this way. My colleagues and I don't talk about it much, because it doesn't sound scientific, but it's a very real part of this very special science, the search for the identity of all mankind. Maybe that's what drew me on."

Phillip Johnson discusses the lack of objectivity in the interpretation of human fossil by referring to Roger Lewin's description of the 1984 "Ancestors" exhibit (a large display of "Hominid" fossils in New York). According to Lewin, the paleoanthropologists were in awe as they held their fossil ancestors in their hands. Lewin described how moving and emotional the experience was.

From Phillip Johnson, "Darwin on Trial", 1991, p. 81:

"Lewin is absolutely correct, and I can't think of anything more likely to detract from the objectivity of one's judgement. Descriptions of fossils from people who yearn to cradle their ancestors in their hands ought to be scrutinized as carefully as a letter of recommendation from a job applicant's mother."

Logical Consistency in Answering the Basic Questions:

Both the evolution and the creation worldviews offer answers to the basic questions of life listed below.

• The Question of where we ought to look for the answers
  
• The Question of Our Origins
  
• The Question of Life's Meaning
  
• The Question of Morality
  
• The Question of What Lies Ahead
  

The Creationist worldview answers the questions of life:

• Revelation from God, the Creator, alone can provide answers to these questions.
  
• We are here as a result of God's deliberate creative effort.
  
• Our creator determines life's meaning.
  
• Our creator dictates what is right and wrong. He establishes a binding moral code.
  
• We will exist forever, either in God's presence, or banished from it.
  

It must be acknowledged that just because a claim is logically consistent, this logical consistency does note immediately denote that the claim is true. The point to be made here is that no logically inconsistent claim can be considered truthful.

The Evolutionist worldview answers the questions of life:

• The scientific process alone can provide answers to these questions.
  
• We are here through purely naturalistic forces.
  
• We have no purpose except that which we decide for ourselves.
  
• We set the standard of what is right and wrong.
  
• When we die we cease to exist.
  

The contradictions expanded Re. Scientific Method and Intelligent Design:

Problem #1) the evolutionist asserts that the scientific process alone can reveal the truth about our origins. The truth, he asserts, is that God cannot be allowed as a possible cause for our existence. The discovery of this "important truth" however, was not arrived at through the scientific process. By the evolutionist's own criteria, we must reject this "discovery."

Loren Eiseley ("Darwin's Century: Evolution and the Men who Discovered it", 1961) makes this interesting observation:

"The philosophy of experimental science…began its discoveries and made use of its methods in the faith, not the knowledge, that it was dealing with a rational universe controlled by a creator who did not act upon whim nor interfere with the forces He had set in operation…It is surely one of the curious paradoxes of history that science, which professionally has little to do with faith, owes its origins to an act of faith that the universe can be rationally interpreted, and that science today is sustained by that assumption."

Commenting on Eiseley's remark, Jonathan Sarfati ("Refuting Evolution", 1999, p. 25) notes:

"Evolutionists, including Eiseley himself, have thus abandoned the only rational justification for science. But Christians can still claim to have such a justification."

Problem #2) If everything that exists, including the evolutionist's arguments, and even the thought processes at work in order to judge validity of an argument, are merely the result of time, matter and chance, how is it possible for anyone to know what argument is more "valid" than another? The only way to do this would be to "climb out of the chemical dish" for an objective vantage point. In other words, our minds would have to transcend the confines of their materialistic nature. Since the evolutionist cannot claim to have done this, there is no reason to regard the evolution worldview as more valid than that of special creation.

Problem #3) the evolutionist must admit that his arguments against creation have been intelligently designed, else they would have absolutely no validity. The reason for asserting this is obvious. His arguments are specifically complex. For example, the information set forward was selected and compiled based upon relative importance to the topic. It must also be arranged and presented in a manor specific to its intended recipients. If specified complexity denotes intelligent design in the evolutionist's arguments, then it's reasonable to consider that intelligent design was responsible for the specified complexity seen in living things. This possibility has never been refuted scientifically, but merely denied on philosophical grounds by the evolutionist. Again, evolution is not based on hard science but natural philosophy.

The evolutionist's explanation for morals does not cohere with his explanation for our origins. Consider:

The evolutionist must believe that knowing and telling the truth is important, else his fight against creation science is inexplicable. He must assert that spreading falsehood is wrong, but must explain from where this moral standard comes. If this moral standard comes from us, then we must also acknowledge that not everyone adheres to it. Again, to whom do we listen?

If the moral standard (i.e., lying is wrong, refuting error is important) is created by us, then this standard is subject to us, not us to it. It therefore maybe changed as we see fit. Who decides when this is? Why?

If society dictates the moral standard, then to which of the many societies are we to listen? What about those who have stood outside of society and condemned it until change was made? The African slave trade comes to mind. If society decides what is right and what is wrong, then those who condemned the slave trade were by definition "immoral."

If the moral standard to which the evolutionist subscribes is above us and universally binding, then what is it anchored to if not our creator? Without a satisfactory answer such a moral code cannot be considered universally binding.

Moral Absolutes Consistent With Creation Alone

Picture evolution and creation as separate foundations. What is built atop them must cohere with the foundation. Binding, universal moral absolutes sit nicely atop the creation foundation. Murder is wrong, stealing is wrong, lying is wrong, because our creator said so. He alone, as our creator, has the right to establish these types of binding moral absolutes.

In short, the creationist recognizes moral absolutes and is able to explain from whence they came. The evolutionist, however, is caught in a strange place, indeed. He fights for what is "right" but can't explain how he knows it's "right." He fights for what he thinks is true, but can't explain why the fight for truth should be considered moral in the first place!

Conclusion: The Evolutionist Worldview is neither true nor scientific.

The evolutionary worldview cannot be considered a trustworthy way of regarding the world around us based on the logical inconsistencies found within it. Though it may boast empirical adequacy (i.e. the fossil record) and experiential relevance (the terms used are meaningful), these points are moot considering that the basic laws of logic are being violated. The evolutionist explanation of our origins does not cohere with his explanation of moral absolutes. What's more, by subscribing to a worldview, which is maintained on strictly philosophical grounds, contradicts his professed adherence to strict naturalistic science.