The Scientific Argument against Evolution, Complete Artical

A few weeks ago, at the end of May and beginning of June, I had written a series of articles on the issue of science and Evolution. Recently, I took those individual postings and edited them to read like a single essay. A PDF copy of the revised essay is now available on the Grace Life Bible Church web page. Discover that Evolution is a religion which requires more faith to believe than Creationism.

If you would like a copy of The Scientific Argument against Evolution, please click here.

2010 Teen Summer Camp

Last week, my family and I had the honor of being involved in the 2010 Summer Teen Camp at Forth Faith Camp in Morely, MI. This camp was a collaborative effort on the part of Shorewood Bible Church, Grace Life Bible Church, and Canton Grace Fellowship. Mike and Marlene Taylor, of Shorewood Bible Church, did an excellent job of planning and running the camp. About 15 teens form the churches listed above enjoyed the week's festivities. There were many different activities including paintball, river tubing, capture the flag, basketball, and the 300 foot water slide.

Brother Alex Kurz taught during the morning chapel sessions on basic issues regarding salvation and right division. I spoke during the evening session on The Four Freedoms of Grace. The teens really seemed to enjoy the Bible teaching and by all accounts were challenged to grow in their faith and dig deeper into God's Word.

I promised the teens to make the PowerPoints I used available on the Internet. A PDF copy of my notes as well as the PowerPoint presentations are now available on the Grace Life Bible Church web site. Please use the following links to access the notes. Please disregard any typos or grammatical mistakes in my personal notes.

• The Freedom to be Different (PDF)
• The Freedom to be Vulnerable (PDF)
• The Freedom to be Vulnerable (PowerPoint) After you click here scroll down and click.
• The Freedom to be Candid (PDF)
• The Freedom to be Candid (PowerPoint) After you click here scroll down and click.
• The Freedom to Make Mistakes (PDF)
• The Freedom to Make Mistakes (PowerPoint) After you click here scroll down and click.

Thanks to all the counselors who took time out their busy lives to spend time with the teens. I am already looking forward to next year. Thanks to everyone for a great week.

The Scientific Argument against Evolution, Part Four

Darwinism, like all nontheistic worldviews borrows from the theistic worldview to make its own position intelligible. How so? Darwinists continually emphasize the superiority of reason over faith. Reason requires that the universe is reasonable, which presupposes order, logic, design, and truth. But order, logic, design, and truth can only exist and be known if there is an unchanged objective source and standard of such things.(1) "To say something is unreasonable, Darwinists must know what reasonable is. To say something is not designed, Darwinists much know design is. To say something is not true, Darwinists must know what truth is, and so forth."(2)

    Many currently believe that "science is the only sourse of objective truth." While a statement such as this claims to be objective, it is certainly not scientific. The statement is philosophical in nature and cannot be proved scientifically. Therefore, it is self-defeating. In fact there are many truths that cannot be proven scientifically that all rational people accept:

1. Mathematics and logic (science can't prove them because science presupposes them)
   
2. Ethical judgments (one can't prove by science that the Nazis were evil because morality is not subject to the scientific method)
   
3. Aesthetic judgments (the beautiful, like the good, cannot be scientifically proven)
   
4. Science itself (ironically, the belief that the scientific method discovers truth can't be proven by the scientific method itself).(3)
   

This leads us to one of the most important lessons we can learn from considering the scientific arguments against evolution. Science is built on philosophy. In fact, science is a slave to philosophy.(4)

    "Bad philosophy results in bad science, and good science requires good philosophy."(5) Norman Geisler and Frank Turek, co-authors of I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist, offering the following to substantiate this point:

1. Science cannot be done without philosophy. Philosophical assumptions are utilized in the search for causes, and therefore, cannot be the result of them. For example, assume (by faith) that reason and the scientific method allow us to accurately understand the world around us. That cannot be proven by science itself. One can't prove the tools of science—the laws of logic, the Law of Causality, the Principle of Uniformity, or the reliability of observation—by running some kind of experiment. You have to assume those things are true in order to do the experiment.
   
2. Philosophical assumptions can dramatically impact scientific conclusions. If a scientist assumes beforehand that only natural causes are possible, then probably no amount of evidence will convince him that intelligence created the first one-celled or any other designed entity. When Darwinists presuppose that intelligent causes are impossible, then natural laws are the only game in town. Likewise, if a creationist rules out natural causes beforehand, then he also risks missing the right answer. However, a scientist who is open-minded to both natural and intelligent causes can follow the evidence wherever its leads.
   
3. Science doesn't really say anything—scientists do. Data is always interpreted by scientists. When those scientists let their personal preferences or unproven philosophical assumptions dictate their interpretation of the evidence, they do exactly what they accuse religious people of doing—they let their ideology dictate their conclusions. When that's the case, their conclusions should be questioned because they may be nothing more than philosophical presuppositions passed off as scientific facts.(6)
   

The evidence simply does not support the Darwinian worldview or Darwinists would not have to borrow from the theistic worldview to make their case. "Intellect, free will, objective morality, and human rights as well as reason, logic, design, and truth exist only if God exists."(7) Evolution assumes some or all of these realities when articulating their naturalistic view. In short, Naturalists cannot have it both ways.

Endnotes

1. Norman Geisler. I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist. (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2004), 130.
   
2. Ibid., 130.
   
3. Ibid., 126-127.
   
4. Ibid., 127.
   
5. Ibid., 127.
   
6. Ibid., 127-128.
   
7. Ibid., 132.

2010 Great Lakes Grace Bible Conference

This past Memorial Day weekend, Becky and I had the privilege of attending the Great Lakes Grace Bible Conference in Wilmot, Ohio. This meeting sponsored by Ohio Grace Ministries was an excellent weekend of scenery, food, and fellowship around God's Word. In addition, to seeing old friends, I had the privilege of meeting many saints who are new to "right division" from all over the country.

I had the honor of preaching twice on the subject of Prayer for Today. Brother David Reid, one of the conference organizers, gave me challenging task of discussing how we should pray today during the dispensation of grace not how we should not pray. As I prepared for this conference it became apparent that it is much easier to tell someone how not to do something (negative) than it is to give clear instruction on how it should be done (positive). The fruit of my studies on this topic is summarized in the notes and PowerPoints I used to present these messages. I am pleased, as promised, to make these notes available for further study on this important topic. Please select from the following links.

• The Pauline Prayer Paradigm (PDF)
• The Pauline Prayer Paradigm (PowerPoint)
• The Pauline Prayer Paradigm Practically Applied (PDF)
• The Pauline Prayer paradigm Practically Applied (PowerPoint)
• The Index of Pauline Prayer

While Becky and I were in Ohio, the saints of Grace Life Bible Church in Grand Rapids, Michigan put on a yard sale to raise money for our upcoming Bible conference in October. I am pleased to announce that through their hard work we raised almost all the money we need to cover the expenses of the conference. My heart rejoices to be part of a Grace Church where there is life and vitality. I love all the members of my church family.

Finally, if you have not already done so please consider attending the 2010 West Michigan Grace Bible Conference in Grand Rapids, Michigan. This year's theme is The Grace Life at Home. Study with us as we seek to practically apply Grace doctrine to all aspects of family life. Even if you aren't married or don't have kids, you will not want to miss this weekend of practical application and edification. Please visit the conference website for complete details.

The Scientific Argument Against Evolution, Part Three

Whether one is discussing the origin of the universe, origin of the first life, or new life forms, there are fundamentally only two options. Either everything came to be as the result of natural causes as evolution teaches or an intelligent supernatural cause is responsible for all things. For the sake of brevity, let us consider the origin of new life forms as a means of proving our overall point. Evolution maintains that new life forms developed through natural selection without any intelligent intervention. Conversely, the Bible teaches that all life forms came into existence by special creation through the work of an intelligent designer (God).[i]

In order to prove his hallmark doctrine of natural selection, Darwin compared the selection that supposedly occurred in nature and which was devoid of intelligent intervention with the artificial selection practiced by breeders.[ii] Take for example the breeding of dogs. While there can be no doubt that breeders are able to selectively mate dogs to achieved a desired outcome, this by no means proof that one species becomes a totally different species. A breeder’s ability to mate a Golden Retriever with a Poodle to create a Golden Doodle, which does not shed and is hypoallergenic, is an example of artificial selection. As elementary is it may seem, one should note that the result of this type of selective breeding is still a dog. When the discussion is framed in these terms, it is clear that the human action of selective breeding is not analogous to the blind action of natural selection but directly opposite.[iii]

Man has an aim or end in view; natural selection can have none. Man picks
out the individual he wishes to cross, choosing them by the characteristics he
seeks to perpetuate or enhance. He protects them and their issue by all
means is in his power, guarding them thus from operation of natural selection,
which would speedily eliminate many freaks; he continues his active and
purposeful selection from generation to generation until he reaches, if
possible, his goal. Nothing of this kind happens, or can happen, through
the blind process of differential elimination and differential survival which we
miscall natural selection.[iv]

Once again, anywhere design can be observed, as in the case of the breeding of dogs, one should always look for intelligent causes.

Over three centuries ago, Isaac Newton stated, “This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being.”[v] Christian philosophers and theologians for centuries have long held to the Teleological Argument for the existence of God. Steaming from the Greek word telos, which means design, the Teleological Argument states:

1. Every design had a designer.
2. The universe has highly complex design.
3. Therefore, the universe had a Designer[vi]

William Paley (1743-1805) popularized the argument through his common sense observation that every watch requires a watchmaker.[vii] “Imagine you’re walking along in the woods and you find a diamond-studded Rolex on the ground. What do you conclude is the cause of that watch: The wind and the rain? Erosion? Some combination of natural forces?”[viii] God forbid! There would be no question in your mind that some intelligent being made the watch and some unfortunate person accidently dropped it on the forest floor.[ix]

There can be no doubt that the universe resembles the design found in our misplaced diamond-studded Rolex, only infinitely more complex. Scores of examples could be provided to document the highly ordered design that is present within creation. For time’s sake, consider just one. If someone took apart a watch and threw all the pieces in their dryer, what are the chances that after one hundred cycles the parts would have reassembled themselves into a fully functioning watch? About the same chance that 1,000 monkeys with typewriters have of writing Romeo and Juliet. The greater and more intricate the design, the greater the intelligence of the designer.

In the end, the ordered and complex nature of the world around us leads to only one plausible conclusion, God, an intelligent primary cause, is creator of all things. One need not read even one verse of Scripture to know that it is totally absurd to believe that nothing made something. God is the uncaused cause who created the universe out of nothing by the word of his power. The words of Romans 1:20 rings powerfully true, “For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.” Man does not suffer from a lack of evidence. Rather, it is man’s sinful heart that wishes to escape accountability before almighty God. “The fool hath said in his heart there is no God.”[x]

Endnotes
[i] Norman Geisler and Ron Brooks. When Skeptics Ask: A Handbook of Christian Evidences. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1990), 227.
[ii] Ibid., 227.
[iii] Ibid., 227.
[iv] Ibid., 227-228.
[v] Isaac Newton. “General Scholium,” in Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy (1687) in Great Books of the Western World. (Chicago, IL: Encyclopedia Britannica), 369.
[vi] Norman Geisler. The Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1999), 714-720.
[vii] Norman Geisler and Frank Turek. I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist. (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2004), 95.
[viii] Ibid., 95.
[ix] Ibid., 96.
[x] Psalm 14:1