The Gaping Holes in the Evolutionary Worldview
by Dan Tsouloufis
Recently, I was having a cordial debate with someone regarding their belief in the evolutionary view of reality. In my exchanges with this individual, as well as my exchanges with others who hold to the Darwinian theory of evolution, it has always struck me that they rarely debate Christians on a level playing field.
What I mean by this is that the starting point in these debates is rarely at the beginning with regard to origins (of the universe, of earth, of life, etc.). Instead, the starting point in these debates is typically much further down the road in the timeline of earthly, and human, history.
You see, it is one thing to observe the way nature typically works today, based on the laws of physics. But it’s quite another thing to address the following 4 areas and the series of questions that pertain to them.
1. Where did the universe come from? Did it spontaneously generate? What was its cause? Or is the universe eternal? Keep in mind that the origin of the universe cannot be tested or recreated in a lab.
2. Is there a spiritual component to reality? Or is reality purely matter? Do human beings have souls? Keep in mind that spiritual reality cannot be tested or recreated in a lab.
3. Was there a time when the laws of physics didn’t exist? If so, what was governing the universe when there were no laws? How did order evolve from chaos? Or, are the laws of physics eternal? But if everything evolved, then so did the laws of physics. As we can see, both of these scenarios present gaping holes in the evolutionary worldview.
4. Where did living organisms come from? How did life originate from non-life? It is not enough for evolutionists to demonstrate in natural history museums that apes evolved into humans. That’s child’s play. Instead, they need to demonstrate how non-living matter evolved into living organisms in the first place. Yet this mystery has always eluded the evolutionists, thereby dealing them a crushing earthquake in the foundation of their evolutionary worldview.
This debate has been going on for a long time, yet there’s not one agnostic/atheist scientist who’s able to provide a cogent answer to the 3rd and 4th questions. It’s not going to happen. This is because there’s a gaping hole in their naturalistic worldview, and they can’t fix it. They can only try to explain it away using philosophical assumptions (which is contrary to the scientific method).
Moreover, as people seek to explore and wrestle with these 4 areas, their responses will ultimately shape and establish their worldview. If one chooses to accept a naturalistic worldview, then obviously Christianity is out of the question.
As a Christian, I acknowledge that the essential tenets of Christianity do require a step of faith. But here’s the deal: the naturalistic evolutionary worldview also requires a step of faith. It is not neutral. One must choose to accept the tenets of the naturalistic worldview (such as: no transcendent Creator, no special revelation, no miracles, no resurrection, etc.). However, making such a choice is an act of faith, since the assumption of a naturalistic universe is based on a philosophical precommitment (again, in contrast to the scientific method).
In other words, with regard to the origin of the universe and the origin of life on earth, all of their scientific reasoning is grounded in a philosophical precommitment to naturalism. Thus, it is their faith that is informing their subsequent reasoning.
Recently, someone wrote to me saying: “I’ve seen many Christians debate scientists about evolution vs. intelligent design, and about Christianity vs. agnosticism/atheism. I’ve been a Christian before (for many years) but the debates I’ve seen and heard are always won by the scientist, in my opinion, even the debates I’ve seen while I was a Christian. I’ve not seen an argument that was more convincing than the scientist’s argument, even when I was a Christian.”
In response to this, I don’t doubt that in his experience, the scientist’s argument may have been more convincing than the Christian’s argument. But there’s likely a reason for that.
First, the Christian is often debating within the framework of the scientist’s prior philosophical assumptions, yet assuming their reasoning is purely scientific. Thus, the philosophical underpinnings of the scientist’s argument may go undetected. Advantage, scientist.
Second, most of the time when Christians are debating an agnostic/atheist scientist, the typical debates around evolution start with these 3 observable realities: 1) the universe exists; 2) the universe seems to be governed by physical laws that are precise and consistent; and 3) living organisms exist. As such, the Christian is trying to argue with both hands tied behind their back (metaphorically speaking) since the Christian and the scientist are not playing on a level playing field. Again, advantage scientist.
Now, let’s level the playing field and revisit those 3 observable realities, but let’s start from the beginning, where the argument ought to start: 1) the universe does not exist; 2) when the universe does come into existence, there are no physical laws, because they haven’t evolved yet, therefore the universe can’t produce order from chaos; and 3) life does not exist, because living organisms do not exist.
Can you see the difference regarding the nature of the argument? Both sides are now playing on a level playing field. Unfortunately, many well-meaning Christians either miss this point altogether, or they keep trying to argue at a significant disadvantage, where the scientist doesn’t have to explain things from the actual beginning. It is at this point where the naturalistic philosophical assumptions of the scientist become exposed (as they should be). Advantage, Christian.
