The transition from modernity and postmodernity has involved
a radical shift in epistemology. However, within both paradigms, philosophical
naturalism is the dominate metaphysical assumption. Therefore, the Christian’s
need to be able to aptly confront and destroy the stronghold of the
evolutionary hypothesis is always a fore issue.
In my experience, a frustration would often arise. This
frustration was rooted in the nonbeliever's semantic sliding between two
meanings of the term evolution. One the one hand, they will try in vain to
argue for evolution in its etiological sense: Evolution explains the origins
and sustention of everything. On the other hand, when this premise is being
battered, they will quickly invoke some observational variations in a genus or
the like, and then attempt to transfer the Christian’s concession of that point
back into their argument for evolution in the etiological sense, what I call meta-evolution.
They then want to point out that the Christian is anti-science in their
rejection of meta-evolution.
Moreover, I’ve found that it is not always the case that
this is overtly intentional on the part of the nonbeliever. That is, the
nonbeliever is not equivocating the concepts self-consciously. A scanting look
through any public science textbook will reveal the same method of persuasion;
which, on the part of the textbook contributors, we must conclude however that
the use of the equivocation is programmatic. Granting the natural man’s general
enmity against God’s truth, the student takes the propaganda in as a fish does
water. This argument can help in educating the nonbeliever of just how futile
their underlying assumptions are.
Often, then, nonbelievers who have not engaged in the
tough-mindedness required to see through the smoke of the intelligentsia are
simply parroting what a minimum of 12 years of direct indoctrination has given
them.
The only answer to bad reasoning is truth. I’ve found that
the use of the dilemma--a valid form of argument--helpful in defusing this type
of rhetoric.
Formally, the dilemma has the following pattern:
1. Either P or R
2. If P, then Q
3. If R, then S
4. Therefore, either Q or S
From here, one simply demonstrates from the conclusion (4)
that Q and S are either irrelevant, unhappy, or absurd.
This is exactly what I attempt to do with the argument
below. In short, microevolution is irrelevant since it is empirically
demonstrable and perfectly consistent with biblical teaching; meta-evolution,
however, is both a philosophical assumption and philosophically absurd.
Therefore, neither concept presents a threat to the biblical doctrine of
creation.
The next paragraph is a general framework for how I present
my challenge to the evolutionist, though each dialogue must allow for vast
personal variability. The more formal argument after it is incorporates an
example of a redutio ad absurdum for
deconstructing the meta-evolutionary premise. But again, this also requires
some flexibility for viability. I hope you find it helpful.
The Thesis:
The evolutionary exponents are either unconsciously trading
on ambiguity or are guilty of intentionally equivocating the term “evolution”
in order to beguile their audience. Either way, it matters very little, for
whether the evolutionary exponent prefixes the term “evolution” with
“micro/macro” or “meta,”
[1]and their respective connotations, neither
concept threatens, much less circumvents the integrity of the basic biblical
doctrine of creation
ex nihilo.
The Argument:
P1. When evolutionists use the term “evolution,” they are
either denoting micro/macro-evolution or meta-evolution.
P2. If micro/macro-evolution is what is meant; that is,
either minor or radical changes occurring within the constraints of the law of
biogenesis, then surely no one is arguing, biblical creationist or otherwise.
P3. If meta-evolution is being assumed, however, then their
argument is self-referentially incoherent, self-refuting; if they’re right,
then they’re wrong. This premise is not only intuitively true,
[2] but
objectively so, for two major reasons:
If (A) “All that Is” is merely a random, impersonal,
unconscious collision of atoms and their chaotic chemical interactions, then
our brains are simply one minor part in this disorderly, irrational cosmic
dance.
Nevertheless, if our brains are ultimately thus, then what
we imagine to be “thoughts” and/or “reasoning” are only a façade, since the
electro-chemical reactions occurring in our brains couldn’t have any more truth
value and/or rational meaning than any other of our physiological happenings.
[3]
Furthermore, if (B) matter is all that “Is,” then the
fundamental laws that govern our thought—the laws of logic—could not exist. For
such laws (i.e., logic, mathematics, morality, etc.) are immaterial and
abstract (hence, contradicting “Matter is all there Is”); moreover they are
absolute and invariable. (Thus, also contradicting the proposition the physical
universe is all that exists, because the only absolute and unchanging feature
of the physical universe is that it’s ever- changing, thus, never absolute!)
C1. If, therefore, meta-evolution is taken to be the case,
then we have absolutely no reason for believing that it is true, since true
thoughts and logical inferences would be impossible.
C2. When arguing for evolution, therefore, the proponents
mean either micro/macro evolution, which no reasonable biblical creationist is
arguing against; or they are promoting meta-evolution, which means that no
proposition or state of affairs can honestly be called “true,” not least the
proposition “Evolution is true”!
C3. Hence, the evolutionary case against biblical
creationism is that a logical, reasoned case for or against anything is
impossible, which is absurd.
________________________________________________
[1] By “meta”-evolution I am speaking of the
Darwinian/neo-Darwinian garden variety etiology (i.e., founding myth), which is
generally: something creating itself from nothing (or is eternal stuffs); then,
all that “Is” must be understood and explained in terms of an eternal
intercourse of matter, energy, and time, from which everything in human
experience owes its origin, substance, and sustention.
[2] Numerous studies have demonstrated that even in the face
of heavy indoctrination in Darwinian evolution by teachers and even parents,
and apart from being exposed to the doctrine of biblical creation, children are
bent toward understanding the universe to be designed and created with an
ultimate
telos intended by its Creator, God. That is to say, people are
creationists by birth (via God’s general Self-revelation) and made to be
evolutionists, as counterintuitive as that is.
[3] Note: we never stand up from the toilet and turn, point,
and proclaim, “That is true!” If, then, evolutionary mythology is the case,
neither should we point to any proposition about reality or any given state of
affairs or concept and have the audacity to state, “That is true!”
