The Faith of the Evolutionist
September 6th, 2006
(By John MacArthur)
Thanks to the theory of evolution, naturalism is now the dominant religion of modern society. Less than a century and a half ago, Charles Darwin popularized the credo for this secular religion with his book The Origin of Species. Although most of Darwin’s theories about the mechanisms of evolution were discarded long ago, the doctrine of evolution itself has managed to achieve the status of a fundamental article of faith in the popular modern mind. Naturalism has now replaced Christianity as the main religion of the Western world, and evolution has become naturalism’s principal dogma.
Naturalism is the view that every law and every force operating in the universe is natural rather than moral, spiritual, or supernatural. Naturalism is inherently anti-theistic, rejecting the very concept of a personal God. Many assume naturalism therefore has nothing to do with religion. In fact, it is a common misconception that naturalism embodies the very essence of scientific objectivity. Naturalists themselves like to portray their system as a philosophy that stands in opposition to all faith-based world-views, pretending that it is scientifically and intellectually superior precisely because of its supposed non-religious character.
|
Michael Ruse is an evolutionist who testified in the 1980s at the infamous Arkansas creationism trial (McLean v. Arkansas). During the trial, he claimed that creationism is a religion because it is grounded in unproven philosophical assumptions. But Darwinism is a science, he said, because it requires no philosophical or religious presuppositions. Ruse has since admitted that he was wrong, and he now acknowledges that evolution “is metaphysically based”—grounded in unproven beliefs that are no more “scientific” than the set of beliefs on which creationism is based. See Tom Woodward, Not so. Religion is exactly the right word to describe naturalism. The entire philosophy is built on a faith-based premise. Its basic presupposition—an a priori rejection of everything supernatural—requires a giant leap of faith. And nearly all its supporting theories must be taken by faith as well. (See sidebar.)
Consider the dogma of evolution, for example. The notion that natural evolutionary processes can account for the origin of all living species has never been and never will be established as fact. Nor is it “scientific” in any true sense of the word. Science deals with what can be observed and reproduced by experimentation. The origin of life can be neither observed nor reproduced in any laboratory. By definition, then, true science can give us no knowledge whatsoever about where we came from or how we got here. Belief in evolutionary theory is a matter of sheer faith. And dogmatic belief in any naturalistic theory is no more “scientific” than any other kind of religious faith.
The original comment by Simon has been deleted.
It was deleted because it 1) relied on repeated name-calling rather than substantive argumentation to make its point; and 2) it was marked by an overtly condescending tone that is not in keeping with the type of dialogue we are looking for here at Pulpit Magazine.
We welcome comments on this site, even from those who disagree with the positions published here. But we ask that, in so doing, our commenters maintain a level of professional civility, and that they also interact with the substance of what is posted, rather than simply stringing together long lists of ad hominem attacks. (In this particular case, referring to one of our contributors as “very dim,” lacking “any deeper understanding of anything,” and holding a position that is “utterly false, dimwitted, ignorant, disingenuous, simplistic, idiotic, etcetera,” [without giving any substantive support for such allegations] was deemed inappropriate.)
After sifting through all of the ad hominem smoke, it appears that Simon’s primary contention was that he disagreed with the “idea that evolution is supposed to explain the ORIGINS of life.” We will allow the comments below to respond to this assertion.
Simon,
They should have taught you somewhere along the line that when you hurl insults at someone in the place of actually interacting with their agruments, it typically reveals that,
-Your opponent’s position is strong enough to work you into lather;
-Your lathery defensiveness is highly revealing;
-You have nothing of substance to back your own position up, so you call them names and insult their intelligence.
We expect this from grade 2 kids on the playground, but this is the real world.
(Simon pontificates)
By the way, your idea that evolution is supposed to explain the ORIGINS of life, is so utterly false, dimwitted, ignorant, disingenuous, simplistic, idiotic, etcetera, it is patently futile to attempt to discuss anything above infantile-level science.
(Fred) Dawkins, Dennet and Wilson, to name a few, would disagree with you. It may be good for you to go back and actually read what Darwinians truly believe before you come on to a blog and call everyone a dullard. You are absolutely clueless as to what you are talking about dude.
Fred
Simon,
Your argument that the theory of evolution does not (or cannot) explain the origins of life only strengthens the point that John MacArthur was making in his article.
Darwin himself recognized that his theory demanded that life must evolve from life, and therefore he could not account for the “original spark” from which life came. Thus…
In a letter to Joseph Dalton Hooker of February 1 1871, he made the suggestion that life may have begun in a “warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, lights, heat, electricity, etc. present, [so] that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes”. (Source)
In other words, from a primordial soup (of unknown origin), spontaneous generation took place (as a product of random chance), so that life developed and then evolved (over billions of years) into the complex organisms we have today.
Such far-fetched and statistically impossible notions only strengthen the argument of John MacArthur’s article–that naturalistic explanations of the origin and evolution of life require incredible amounts of faith, and are therefore rightly defined as “religious.”
To assert that life came from non-life (despite the impossibility of spontaneous generation) and then developed over time (despite the laws of entropy) into more and more complex beings requires much more faith than belief in an intelligent Designer.
This, I believe, was the point of the article. And it is a point that stands in spite of your criticisms.
Moreover, it is far from being “disingenuous” to assert that evolutionary theory, broadly speaking, does attempt to account for the origins of life as we know it today. Even the book upon which evolutionary theory is founded is entitled, The Origin of Species.
Consider the following description of evolutionary theory from an online encyclopedia:
The modern evolutionary synthesis is broadly received as scientific consensus and has replaced earlier explanations for the origin of species, including Lamarckism, and is currently the most powerful theory explaining biology. Because of its potential implications for the origins of humankind, evolutionary theory has been at the center of many social and religious controversies since its inception. (Emphasis mine)
Sorry, but I’d read so many creationist posts yesterday that my patience was tested to the limit.
As long as you’re happy to concede that evolutionary theory does not attempt, and is not concerned with, the actual creation of the first forms of life, and therefore cannot be criticised for failing to provide answers, fine.
“Moreover, it is far from being “disingenuous” to assert that evolutionary theory, broadly speaking, does attempt to account for the origins of life as we know it today. Even the book upon which evolutionary theory is founded is entitled, The Origin of Species.”
Yes, the origin of the SPECIES. Not of LIFE.
If you want to discuss the origin of LIFE, or the creation of the first spark of life, fine. But be specific, or people like me will take you to taks for being vague and disingenuous.
Simon:
Having read “The Blind Watchmaker” (TWICE), I somehow do not get the impression that Richard Dawkins (one of the modern High Priests of Darwinism) beleves evolution only accounts for the origins of species but that it’s kosher scientifically for you to believe that life arose from some Intelligent Designer. Quite the opposite. I challenge to fine any MODERN mainstream evolutionists who says we can ignore evolution in accounting for the origin of life! (A side note: “The Origin of Species” wwold be banned as a textbook by the ACLU if it were written today, since Darwin does mention a “Creator” in the last chapter.)
(Simon continues to ignore his own people)
As long as you’re happy to concede that evolutionary theory does not attempt, and is not concerned with, the actual creation of the first forms of life, and therefore cannot be criticised for failing to provide answers, fine.
(Fred)
Simon, YOU may not think evolutionary theory does not attempt, and is not concerned with, the actual creation of the first life, but I can quote to you Darwinian source after Darwinian source that would say this about evolution and that you are flat wrong. Every major Darwinianist who has actually thought through the ramifications of his worldview, would disagree with you and would not concede your point. You are unique in the realm of Darwinians.
Fred
I think scientists should stick with science, and theologians stick with theology. John McArthur, I don’t believe you have a PHD in science, but are very wise in the Biblical text (which is not a science book).
Evolution is just a theory and needs to be treated as such. However, Natural Selection is proven. There is no doubt about it, because I can repeat it over and over and over again. The white moths and black moths of England is a perfect example.
Anyways, why not stick with what you know.
Rob
Fred, the full title of Darwin’s book is “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life”.
“In it, Darwin makes “one long argument,” with copious empirical examples as support, for his theory that “groups” of organisms, (now called populations) rather than individual organisms, gradually evolve through the process of natural selection—a mechanism effectively introduced to the public at large by the book. The work presents detailed scientific evidence he had accumulated both on the Voyage of the Beagle in the 1830s and since his return, painstakingly laying out his theory and refuting the doctrine of “Created kinds” underlying the theories of Creation biology which were then widely accepted.”
I hope that clears things up.
I work at a major research institution and have shared what Genesis teaches about life’s origins with my scientist co-workers.
They refuse to hear how the general theory of evolution (gte) might not be the ‘rock-solid’ entity they BELIEVE it to be. It almost gets to the point where they cover their ears and shout ‘blasphemy!’
The passion and emotionalism with which they defend the gte belies the fact that it really is a philosophical system instead of a scientific theory based on observable science.
For people who are supposed to be driven by logic and reason some of them sure let their emotions get the best of them.
[…] John MacArthur comments at Pulpit Magazine on The Faith of the Evolutionist: The notion that natural evolutionary processes can account for the origin of all living species has never been and never will be established as fact. Nor is it “scientific” in any true sense of the word. Science deals with what can be observed and reproduced by experimentation. The origin of life can be neither observed nor reproduced in any laboratory. By definition, then, true science can give us no knowledge whatsoever about where we came from or how we got here. Belief in evolutionary theory is a matter of sheer faith. And dogmatic belief in any naturalistic theory is no more “scientific” than any other kind of religious faith. […]
“The Faith of the Evolutionist”
I see two problems already. They are called biologists, not evolutionists. It doesn’t require faith to accept the facts of evolution because those facts have evidence, tons of evidence, powerful evidence, evidence that’s growing every day, evidence that would take a huge library of books to explain it all.
All alternatives to the science of evolution are religious alternatives. For example there is intelligent design, which are code words that mean ‘magically created’. No matter what uneducated people call their creation myth, it’s still magic and of course it’s not science.
This is 2008, not the Dark Ages. There’s no excuse for denying evolution anymore. Anyone who makes an honest effort to study evolution could not possibly deny it.
Creationists should study the evidence from molecular biology and genetics. If they studied it, and if they were able to understand it, they would have to agree all life is related and all life shares common ancestors. For example this extremely powerful evidence has proven beyond any doubt people and chimps share an ancestor. This is a fact that’s been proven countless times. Look it up. Don’t be afraid to do your own research. Don’t be afraid of studying the discoveries of modern science as explained by the scientists who made those discoveries. Unfortunately creationists prefer to get all their information from liars who have never discovered anything.
Creationists have many problems. One of their problems is they think their total ignorance of science is equal to the knowledge of the entire scientific community. Then they wonder why biologists laugh at them.
Rob Auld
“The white moths and black moths of England is a perfect example.”
You do know this experiment was a great fraud. It was proven that the black moths where painted and glued to the threes for the picture that was taken. You should do better research before you build your arguement around a hoax. Well I guess ultimatle evolution in its current incarnation is the greatest hoax being passed as science.
Macro Evolution has no evidence. Evolutionist try to take genetic adaptation or micro evolution as proof to their stance, with no regard to real objectivity or science.