Flawed argument: “Evolution is a fact.”
Ever since Richard Dawkins penned “The God Delusion,” in which he posited that unguided evolution replaces the need for God, it seems a bandwagon of cheering atheists and agnostics have burst into the streets to declare themselves free from our Creator, His moral accountability, and the purpose and meaning that give us hope in this world.
Sorry, folks, but Richard Dawkins is sorely mistaken. Evolutionary theory falls far short of offering any explanation of the BIG QUESTIONS in life with respect to our origins, meaning, objective morality, purpose, design, and destiny. God (and more specifically, Jesus) gives us those answers and an explanation of why we must all bear our own crosses and how we can better ourselves by following His ways. But beyond that, neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory has other flaws. It’s recently come under fire at The Royal Society for its explanatory deficiencies.
“That such a thoroughly mainstream scientific organization [The Royal Society] should now at last acknowledge problems with the received neo-Darwinian theory of evolution is also obviously notable. Indeed, from our point of view, though presenters ignored, dismissed, or mocked ID [intelligent design], not realizing the number of design-friendly scientists in the audience, the proceedings confirmed something ID advocates, including Stephen Meyer and others, have been saying for years.”
Evolutionary theorist Gerd Muller noted the lack of an explanation for the following items:
a. Phenotypic complexity – the origins of our ears, eyes, body plans and structures.
b. Phenotypic novelty – the way major orders of mammals came into existence more or less without antecedents, particularly in the Cambrian explosion.
c. Non-gradual forms or modes of transition with abrupt discontinuities in the fossil record.
Jim Shapiro noted the presence of “pre-programmed adaptive capacity,” which animals and humans possess, yet which have always been taken as a given. How did beavers come to build dams or birds build nests or develop wings? How did we develop a consciousness or the desire to be honest, fair, empathetic, unselfish, thankful and forgiving?
Those who endorse unguided evolution often consider themselves naturalists (also known as materialists), thinking that everything in life has a natural, or physical, explanation.
“But if naturalism is true, there is no God, and hence no God (or anyone else) overseeing our development and orchestrating the course of our evolution. And this leads directly to the question whether it is at all likely that our cognitive faculties, given naturalism and given their evolutionary origin, would have developed in such a way as to be reliable, to furnish us with mostly true beliefs. Darwin himself expressed this doubt: “With me,” he said, “the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?”
Scientism and naturalism cannot explain many aspects of our lives. In a debate with Peter Atkins, William Lane Craig identified five areas where varous truths cannot be proven by science. I have quoted his points below:
“Logical and mathematical truths cannot be proven by science. Science presupposes logic and math, so that to try to prove them by science would be arguing in a circle.
Metaphysical truths, like there are other minds other than my own or that the external world is real or that the past was not created five minutes ago with an appearance of age are rational beliefs that cannot be scientifically proven.
Ethical beliefs about statements of value are not accessible by the scientific method. You can’t show by science whether the Nazi scientists in the camps did anything evil as opposed to the scientists in western democracies.
Aesthetic judgments…cannot be accessed by the scientific method because the beautiful, like the good, cannot be scientifically proven.
And finally, most remarkably, would be science itself. Science cannot be justified by the scientific method. Science is permeated with unprovable assumptions. For example, in the special theory of relativity, the whole theory hinges on the assumption that the speed of light is constant in a one-way direction between any two points A and B. But that strictly cannot be proven. We simply have to assume that in order to hold to the theory.”
In summary, we cannot simply adhere to scientism and naturalism as they fail to explain many aspects of our lives that we experience. Accordingly, we must search for other answers that extend beyond the simple and the physical.
Meanwhile, back in the evolution ranch…
Over the years, I’ve seen numerous atheists and agnostics replace God with “evolution,” yet evolution cannot speak to the human experience and it does not offer an explanation of our origins. It merely speaks to the adaptation of already existent life to the environment over time. And we’re not even sure it well explains that! We have too many outstanding questions.
Even Richard Dawkins has acknowledged we do not have an adequate explanation of how the first forms of life appeared. He has posited “panspermia,” which is the belief that life on earth originated from microorganisms that came in from outer space. Such a position is based on faith, since we have no scientific support for his assertion. It’s the “anything but God” position, which fails to give our Creator His due.
 Anonymous. (2016). Why the Royal Society meeting mattered, in a nutshell. https://evolutionnews.org/2016/12/why_the_royal_s/
 Platinga, A. (1994). Naturalism defeated. http://www.calvin.edu/academic/philosophy/virtual_library/articles/plantinga_alvin/naturalism_defeated.pdf Letter to William Graham, Down, July 3rd, 1881. In The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin Including an Autobiographical Chapter, ed. Francis Darwin (London: John Murray, Albermarle Street, 1887), Volume 1, pp. 315-316.