Saturday, October 3, 2009


We wouldn’t need to speculate about our origins or about the origin of the universe if we could access accurate information from an observer who was there in the beginning. But what would we do with such information were it available to us? Would we discard it out of hand because it does not fit our presuppositions about ourselves or about the universe in which we live? Would we adjust it by adding to and taking away from the information as our presuppositions determine? Or would we accept the information and continue to seek a greater and a deeper understanding of the information given?

In every court of law when witnesses are called to testify they are cross-examined as to their character: character lends to the credibility of their testimony. We have information about our origins and the origin of the universe given us by an observer who was there in the beginning: the Triune God.

Because it does not fit with his presuppositions about biological life the Darwinian Evolutionist rejects even the very notion of revelation from God – rejecting therefore what the Bible has to say about the creation of the universe and biological life. Thus the Darwinian Evolutionist begins his study of biological life by an outright rejection of God and the revelation God has given in His written Word.

Upon this Atheistic premise then the Darwinian Evolutionist relegates God and His Word to some nefarious realm he derogatorily calls ‘faith’ (by which he means anything that does not fit his own set of Naturalistic presuppositions!) The Darwinist alleges that he deals only in facts. Thus, when considering the creation around him, the Darwinian Evolutionist does so with a total disregard of the input of theology – though paradoxically he finds he needs to expend a lot of time and effort attacking the theology he bars from influencing his worldview!

Jonathan Sarfati explains a little the method of interpretation based on assumption as used by Naturalists such as Evolutionists:

"It is a fallacy to believe that facts speak for themselves—they are always interpreted according to a framework. The framework behind the evolutionists’ interpretation is naturalism—it is assumed that things made themselves, that no divine intervention has happened, and that God has not revealed to us knowledge about the past.
"Evolution is a deduction from this assumption, and it is essentially the idea that things made themselves. It includes these unproven ideas: nothing gave rise to something at an alleged ‘big bang,’ non-living matter gave rise to life, single-celled organisms gave rise to many-celled organisms, invertebrates gave rise to vertebrates, ape-like creatures gave rise to man, non-intelligent and amoral matter gave rise to intelligence and morality, man’s yearnings gave rise to religions, etc."[1] Thus Safarti.

Because Darwinian Evolutionist assumptions are based upon the philosophy of Materialism the supernatural is vehemently denied. Thus Naturalists believe (i.e., have faith) that the natural is all there is – that the physical universe is the sum total of all things. Then the Darwinian Evolutionist reads back into the very origins of the universe what he considers to be the process of Natural Selection on earth – assuming that the process of Natural Selection is a true and accurate copy of the original. But in the final analysis Natural Selection is a mechanism or a process, and as such, cannot be at the same time that which originated itself. A process must have a means other than itself in order to come into being.

For the Darwinian Evolutionist the primary question therefore still remains: How could the Natural Selection process come into being from nothing? How can something come from nothing? Evolution is a philosophy with no platform of support. The Evolutionist has no soapbox to stand on while he preaches his Materialistic doctrines. This is what happens when philosophy divorces itself from theology – as Evolutionism has done.

[1] Jonathan Sarfati, Refuting Evolution, Internet.

No comments:

Post a Comment