Evolution: Science or Faith?
April 24th, 2008
(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.
In the U.K. the Science National Curriculum in England has recently changed so children are now taught evolution as fact. Although virtually all teachers always did this anyway, so it makes little difference. They’re making a big deal of Darwin’s ‘anniversary’ here.
I found it interesting to note, while I was in highschool in the 70’s, when I asked a teacher why he taught evolution, he said he was required to do so, though he did not believe it himself as a Christian.
Broad though this comment will be, it is disturbing how much we, as individuals, do each day based on someone else’s phylosophy rather than our own convictions.
Pat
I don’t think the scientific community would consider the theory of evolution a matter of faith. In fact, even many theists I know have gone ahead and said, “Well, evolution is a fine theory, but God must have created it.” This is, of course, a faith-based statement that still acknowledges that evolution provides a great understanding for the complexity of life, and the benefits as result have been unparalleled for biological research. Many things we take for granted, like vaccinations, medicine, and general health, have benefited greatly from this theory.
Honestly, it’s not even a matter of belief, as you state. There’s nothing to believe in. It’s a series of hypothesis, backed up by tireless efforts and objective trial and error. Since Intelligent Design is not testable, and the community that supports doesn’t seem to be all that interested in objectivism, it can’t be considered an equal or alternative to this scientific theory.
I think you simply display a misunderstanding of the scientific method. “Belief” is not in the vocabulary. Nor will any scientist blindly follow an theory through dogmatic principles. Evidence of evolutionary theory is vast, and is constantly being improved as more evidence builds.
Whether or not there really is a divine creator is not really a concern in this context, and philosophers and apologists are doing a fine job in that respect, but most of them suffer confirmation bias, and therefore, contract with the scientific method.
contract=contradict. I need to learn to proof-read
scarysnow–
Paul Moody Professor of Natural History and Zoology
“Does not science prove that there is no Creator?” Emphatically, science does not prove that! Actually science proves nothing about first causes at all. Introduction to Evolution (1953) p.429-430
How do you understand this statement?
I would disagree with his statement. I wouldn’t say that faith in God is wrong, but rather that faith in God is not scientific.
Of course, I can speculate, based on the evidence, that a Creator is highly unlikely, but I can’t say there isn’t one to a certainty, and no decent scientist would either, unless they were extending some personal bias.
Richard Dawkins in his book, “The God Delusion,” goes out of his way to point this out as well, if you’re interested.
The real crux of the matter is whether or not that slight chance of a Creator is enough to make that giant leap of faith towards our very subjective, specific religious sects we follow today. That’s just something many cannot do, but again, that is up for you to do decide on a personal, non-scientific basis.
Just to clarify, I was responding to the statement “Does not science prove that there is no Creator?”. I don’t know if the analysis that follows was part of his statement.
But if he only said “Science proves there is no Creator” I would disagree with him.
@scarysnow: your comment”Of course, I can speculate, based on the evidence, that a Creator is highly unlikely, but I can’t say there isn’t one to a certainty, and no decent scientist would either, unless they were extending some personal bias.”
Let’s be clear here 1) I encourage science to learn all it can unbiased towards any personal views. 2) I do not condone teaching of theological based views as part of science. 3) But Scientists are people and I think they choose what they believe in - I love the AE comment that he often wondered if God was laughing at him while he struggled with his unification theories.
Scientists want to understand events and the stimulus or causes that leads to events. And ultimately no matter how many theories are put forth the fundamental question is what started it all? In our world something does not come from nothing. Things do not happen without a cause, a stimulus. Science will come to a conclusion that some questions are unanswerable in our framework i.e. What started the big bang? How do we get from big bang to single cell life? How do we get single cell life to have an embedded program that allows for self-modification and oh by the way let’s make every other condition for life as we know it just so to allow the evolutionary vehicle of life to produce balanced eco systems that have lasted by scientific terms for billions of years??? This was all mere chance? What theories do we have that properly address even one of these real topics without requiring a high degree of faith that an incomprehensible amount of conditions had to be just so to get from A to Z? Either we chose to ignore the real questions or current science implies that we take some things on faith. BTW we do exist. Something set all these things into place that science has not even attempted to define.
I can’t wait for someone of stature in science to put forth a statement like “Given the infinity of time, it was possible for the big bang to happen spontaneously”. That sounds oddly parallel to a bible scripture, “With God all things are possible.”
“As it is written, there is none righteous not even one there is none who understands there is none who seeks for God”
Observing the conversation, I can tell that it is futile to discuss the existence of God with someone that rejects the Lord Jesus Christ. My advice…
repent from your sins and trust in the Lord Jesus Christ because He is the only means to be reconciled to God,who will judge all sin in people.
Q: Evolution: Science or Faith?
A: Both
What does the evidence say? - scientific (”there are bones here”)
What does the evidence mean? - faith and presuppositions
The question being examined is this: Given life, can we explain the diversity we see by using natural means (mechanisms natural to the earth, not outside of it)? That is the only question being considered. Since God is supernatural and exists outside of the earth, He quite naturally cannot be considered as an answer to the question. There also appears to be no Intelligent Designer that is natural to this earth, so He cannot be considered as an answer to that question.
Again, the question is not “who created the universe and life on this earth?”. The question is: given life, can we explain the diversity we see by using natural means? (What does the evidence say? What does the evidence mean?) If you understand this, the apparent one-sidedness of the debate will make more sense. The debate must stay one-sided because of the way the question is framed. The criteria “using natural means” requires that nothing supernatural be allowed as part of the examination process.
God is supernatural. Neither He nor His works can be adequately apprehended using the tools we have at our disposal. Therefore, whether and how God created the universe and life on earth can never be a proper subject for scientific inquiry. We don’t have the means to inquire properly.
(This is part of what I wrote at the “Expelled” topic)
re: Pastor Steve
So am I “expelled” from this blog?
I know this blog is probably meant for a pastor’s community, so it’s probably a little odd that you’d have atheists commenting here, though you’ve all been courteous and have asked good questions.
I think its about time we all tried to pull together instead of dividing apart. Yes, the scientific community can seem closed off. So can the religious community (re: your comments).
I can only say this: science is not out to get you. Its purpose is not to disprove God, or create an immoral society. Some of you have spoke about the implications of evolution. While I acknowledge evolution as a working theory, I do not say it provides any assertion on how I ought to behave.
It’s ironic because the religious community seems to circle their wagons around right-wing politics, which I think enacts evolutionary principles in their politics (if you can’t help yourself, we’re not going to)
But I don’t consider science a guide to morality. I use my judgment, common sense, and advisement from friends and family when making decisions, and attempt to be as moral of a person as possible. For me, religion had mostly muddied my concept of right and wrong in the first place, when trying to justify the laws of the Israelites and so forth. It might have been fine to stone children at one time, but no longer. This is a decision we’ve made, not from religious advisement, but something else…and we at least have that in common.
But my point is simply that I’ve been offended by the mis-characterization of scientific principles on this blog, and I think that’s what has led to this apparent “fight” we see today. I have not seen a true understanding of science from many here, almost as if some of you have shunned it completely (whilst also reaping its benefits at the same time.)
Perhaps if you knew more about the scientific theories you address, you might be able to critique them better, but it seems most of the attacks here are based on false assumptions and anecdotal evidence, no doubt from your parish’s. What you don’t know is that the theory of evolution is challenged every day by its own practitioners. That’s what science is.
But I would never make a comment that “we just shouldn’t have a discussion because he’s not a scientist” or “he’s not a Christian” because that, in my opinion, is very immoral, and practices the very close-mindedness that you seem to be against with this ‘Expelled’ movie.
Enough said, I suppose. Any of you can feel free to ask further questions, but I think I’ve said my piece. Best.
scarysnow
The quote I asked you about contained no analysis. The author (Paul Moody) is answering the question about a Creator. Wouldn’t you agree that the first cause of life is unobservable and unrepeatable? How we explain what happened after the first cause is another debate. Since neither the creation/ID community nor the naturalist/evolution community can repeat/observe (and thus PROVE) the first cause, the explanation of a first cause must be taken on supposition or “faith.”
Re: Scott G
Thanks for making that clear.
It depends on what your definition of faith is. A believer might have faith, and therefore, “believe”, that an omniscient being created life and humans “in his image” by design.
A non-believer doesn’t have faith in any such thing. We can speculate, sure, but it’s not necessarily scientific to do so. In fact, I’m not sure that science provides any explanations…only ideas that may be true, might not be true, but might help to eventually find truth.
There are plenty of speculations in the science community, but nothing comparable to believers who consider that scripture does tell us how life began, as truth. And nothing that would qualify as a testable theory.
But they’re working on it. Again, I think a lot of the brunt of this discovery relies on physics, not necessarily biology.
But I don’t consider science a guide to morality. I use my judgment, common sense, and advisement from friends and family when making decisions, and attempt to be as moral of a person as possible. For me, religion had mostly muddied my concept of right and wrong in the first place, when trying to justify the laws of the Israelites and so forth. It might have been fine to stone children at one time, but no longer. This is a decision we’ve made, not from religious advisement, but something else…and we at least have that in common.
This is probably the most interesting part of the discussion for me. It’s not a new question, but I’ll ask it anyway: By what standard do you define moral?
Well, you would probably agree, that morality is rather ambiguous. It varies based on time and place. I couldn’t give you a book that has all the answers, but there are certain philosophies about morality and the rights of man that certainly pre-date Christianity. The Golden Rule might as well be good enough.
Obviously, scripture provides its own set of challenges in the way of morality. Old Testament laws are no longer practiced; in fact, are rather abhorrent, if not dated or otherwise completely wrong. The New Testament has a few pickles to deal with as well.
So I’ll say again, not even the religious have a monopoly on morality. It’s an idea, a philosophy, perhaps inherent in our genetics, that good will to our fellow man prolongs our species’ survival and allows communities to flourish.
I think Christians would pretty clearly disagree with Scarysnow’s view of morality, while at the same time admiring how well he/she phrased it. We would say that for any thing to be moral, it must by definition transcend time, place, culture and community. For this to happen, there must be a supernatural source. We maintain that the only supernatural source that makes scene is the Scriptures because they point to the crucified and resurrected Christ.
I think this is John’s point in this article. By saying that there is no window or possibility of an outside creator speaking morality into the world, the debate immediately takes on a moral flair. And, I think this is true with today’s post as well—many will refuse to accept the testimony of Scripture because it calls into account what they would otherwise consider to be moral.
By the way, Scarysnow, your comment about being expelled from the blog was easily the funniest thing said today. Unfortunately we have no way to get you your reward.
Jesse
By the way, Scarysnow, your comment about being expelled from the blog was easily the funniest thing said today. Unfortunately we have no way to get you your reward.
I’ll take what I can get.
scarysnow
“Since Intelligent Design is not testable, and the community that supports doesn’t seem to be all that interested in objectivism, it can’t be considered an equal or alternative to this scientific theory.”
OR I could say…
Since the evolution from one species to another is not testable and the community that supports it doesn’t seem to be all that interested in objectivism, it can’t be considered an equal or alternative to creation.
This is not a scientific question, because we all have the same evidence. It’s a worldview issue. As the bible is the infallible word of God, the Creator gave us the history of creation in the bible, and Christians start from that point and interpret the evidence. Atheistic science says there is no God, take the same evidence, and paints a picture of what may have happened from the starting point there is no God.
Separating God and science, you will never find the answers, “but ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.” It is a foolish proposition to say there is no God, and to rule out God, despite of the evidence there is a God shows that there is more here than science, but evolution is a dogmatic religion.
Re: Doug
I disagree with everything you said, but a few of your claims I have already addressed before, so I’ll have to leave them as is.
As the bible is the infallible word of God, the Creator gave us the history of creation in the bible, and Christians start from that point and interpret the evidence.
But this is a faith based model, nonetheless. You don’t know that the Bible is infallible, and actually, it’s not. The Bible says the Earth is flat and the moon produces its own light. Hardly a scientific standard from which to start.
Since the evolution from one species to another is not testable and the community that supports it doesn’t seem to be all that interested in objectivism, it can’t be considered an equal or alternative to creation.
Umm, evolution is highly testable, and there is massive evidence supporting it. We get evidence from every angle: from biology, micro-biology, chemistry, physics, etc. Not to sound rude, but this statement is incredibly ignorant. But if it helps you sleep at night ( I guess?
)
I want to also point out that it’s not as if the Christian community has got a monopoly on truth. Not even they can agree. Of just the Old Testament, other seemingly separate religions have sprouted from it, from Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. From Christianity comes Catholicism, Mormonism, and then the countless sects (Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans, etc.) I am sure that I could delve into the previous posts on this blog and find a lot of argument over the meaning of your scriptures, and I’m sure each of you have been drawn to the specific sect that most fits your preconceptions.
This variable shows to me that even within faith, nothing is certain.
(And that doesn’t even speak of the thousands of independent faiths, from Native Americans to Greek Mythology, of whose Gods you are all surely atheists of.)
Evolution is testable? Interesting, where is the testable ‘massive evidence’ supporting it or proof of macroevolution? Observation shows changes with in a species, but where is the massive evidence of a change from a species to another?
Evolution is still a theory because you can not test your hypothesis by doing an experiment. That is fact. Your whole-hearted belief in evolution and rejection of a creator is not based on scientific evidence to prove otherwise, but your world view. You don’t believe in God, so you reject any and all evidence that proves such. That is a mighty faith in your religion.
Despite the evidence of a creator, despite the evidence of God, despite the evidence of the bible (which by the way is indeed infallible, and the bible does not say the moon produces it’s own light nor does it say the earth is flat) you still deny the evidence over your religion and your faith. How can you claim to be objective when you dismiss anything that goes against what you believe?
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.
Scarysnow —–”Not to sound rude, but this statement is incredibly ignorant. But if it helps you sleep at night ( I guess? ) ”
My sleep has nothing to do with what I don’t know, but what I do know. “I will both lay me down in peace, and sleep: for thou, LORD, only makest me dwell in safety. ”
My sleep is fine because of the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, keeps my hearts and minds through Christ Jesus, not the prejudiced word of men of science.
I sleep well, because I have rest in Christ in the forgiveness of sins.
Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.
I know you were trying your best to be clever and your remarks were ad hominem. Your greater concern is the state of your soul. God has given us His word, and we are required to abide by it. What you think about it doesn’t change it’s authority. That word declares us all sinners and in need of a Saviour. This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners. Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved
Well, I guess since the conversation has derailed into conversion attempts, that’ll be the end for me. I thank you all for being patient and some asking relevant questions of me. You won’t have to worry about this atheist spamming up your blog.
Take care, and best…
Scarysnow,
You said, “The Bible says the Earth is flat and the moon produces its own light. Hardly a scientific standard from which to start.”
If you would care to show me where in the Bible this is stated, I would appreciate it.
You said, “Umm, evolution is highly testable, and there is massive evidence supporting it.”
By saying that something is testable you are saying that it can be seen taking place. Evolution cannot be observed. I am going to ask you the age old question against evolution: were you there? Did you or Darwin, or anyone else that you know, see this evolution happen?
You said, “This variable shows to me that even within faith, nothing is certain.”
I would disagree. The truth of the Bible is absolute. Only our limited understanding leads to disagreement.
I hope you are still reading these comments because I would like to show you, on a purely logical basis, how that evolution cannot be true.
Looking at logic alone, there are only three possible options for the origin of the universe. 1) It is self-existent, meaning that it has always been there. 2) It is self-created, meaning that it came about from nothing by no outside intervention. 4) It was created by an inteligent outside force that is self-existent.
By using logic we can narrow this down a bit. First #2 is false because of the law of causality. For an effect to take place, there must be a cause. Using the law of causality we can and must agree that the effects, which we see today in the form of you and me, were caused by a previous cause. And that cause was the effect of a previous cause. And so on. We must logically trace all these causes and effects back to an uncaused cause. There cannot logically be an effect that caused itself. (Hence, the argument that God created Himself is unlogical.) Evolution is false because its basic belief is that the universe created itself. This defies the law of causality.
We are now left with two options: Either the universe itself is the uncaused cause (and I would add, an uninteligent cause) of all things, or an inteligent designer is the uncaused cause of all things. Which of these two is more logical? To say that the universe is the uncaused cause is illogical because something would have to cause life to begin. An inanimate object, such as the universe, would have to be acted upon in order for life to begin. Even in saying the universe is an uncaused cause we would have to logically admit the fact of an inteligent designer. There is no other logical explanation for the starting of life. The law of causality rules out the option that life began on its own, even if the universe was always there. The only logical explanation of the universe is that an inteligent designer, as the first cause of all things, created life.
It would be foolish to say that He created life as we see it today, however. Even in saying this, I am not saying that species evolved into what we see today. Species do experience mutations, however, a dog will always be a dog no matter how many mutations it goes through. A dog will never be a cat. Mutations do not cause an animal to change species, rather they cause an animal to change within its species. Mutations can be observed, as we see even in humans. However, mutations are not evidence of evolution because of the following fact: your children will all be humans. And guess what: so will their children. And so will their children. Etc.
You speak of massive evidence, yet even many prominent evolutionists admit that they only believe in evolution as a means to escape the fact that they are accountable to their creator.
We have now gone through a purely logical reason why evolution is false. If any of the logic shared above is false, then please share that with me. If it is not, then I would hope that the “religion” of evolution will be abandoned.
I recently posted a quote by an astronomer in which he states this,
Makes one wonder what else this can be said about…
Doug and Daniel,
You both refute the claim that there is evidence of “one species becoming another”, correct?
The correct terminology is ’speciation’. Would it surprise you to know that there are many recorded instances of speciation having occurred, both in the laboratory and in the ‘wild’?
Would you like references?
It is an interesting topic to think about. One thing that should be clarified is what is your definition of evolution? In some sense we see change, “evolution” as stated by Steve. The only problem I see is that there is no way to test it (no time machine yet =) Darwinian style. The time needed is just to great to great the data needed.
And the fossil record only shows what was alive, not necessarily that A gave birth to B.
Your definition of a species?
As far as speciation, I don’t believe many people will disagree with you, like what Daniel stated earlier, they all have stated the same, finch to finch, dog to dog
I would be interested in seeing Steve’s references.
I hope no one minds me answering these question, even though they weren’t addressed to me.
“By saying that something is testable you are saying that it can be seen taking place. Evolution cannot be observed. I am going to ask you the age old question against evolution: were you there? Did you or Darwin, or anyone else that you know, see this evolution happen?”
That’s a very narrow definition of science. It’s true that a multi-billion year process cannot be observed within a human lifetime. However, that process still leaves evidence in, e.g., the fossil record, homology of physical traits, molecular genetics, etc. It’s similar to how someone can be convicted of a crime even if there were no witnesses. One can still rely on fingerprints, DNA testting, etc.
By your reasoning, we would have to conclude there is no God, since no one has ever seen him.
“Looking at logic alone, there are only three possible options for the origin of the universe. 1) It is self-existent, meaning that it has always been there. 2) It is self-created, meaning that it came about from nothing by no outside intervention. 4) It was created by an inteligent outside force that is self-existent.”
Your entire argument here has nothing to do with evolution, which says nothing about the origin of the universe. Therefore, this entire section is irrelevent. (It is also wrong, but that’s the topic of a different discussion).
Continuing on:
“Species do experience mutations, however, a dog will always be a dog no matter how many mutations it goes through. A dog will never be a cat. Mutations do not cause an animal to change species, rather they cause an animal to change within its species. Mutations can be observed, as we see even in humans. However, mutations are not evidence of evolution because of the following fact: your children will all be humans. And guess what: so will their children. And so will their children. Etc.”
You are wrongly assuming that evolution requires an organism to give birth to offspring of a different species than itself. To show where you’re wrong, I’ll give an example. However, be aware that this example is just an exaggerated, simplified, cartoon version of evolution. This is not how evolution actually operates.
First, we need to define the term “species.” This is actually more complex that it first seems, but for our purposes it will suffice to define a species as a group of creatures who can breed with one another and produce fertile offspring, but cannot breed with any creatures from outside the group.
Lets arbitrarily say that if there is a 2% or greater genetic difference between two creatures they cannot interbreed i.e. they are of different species (Humans and chimpanzees have about 98% of their DNA in common.)
Now lets imagine a series of generations of creatures, and that in each generation there is a genetic change of 0.0001%. This is a very slight change and would not be noticeable. Each “child”, of course, will not exactly resemble its “parent.” However, the difference would be no greater than that between you and your father or son.
As this process goes on, after 20,000 generations, with that 0.0001% difference accumulating each time, the genome of the 20,000th generation will now be 2% different than the first generation. In other words, a new species will now have arisen. However, this will only be apparent if a member of the 20,000th generation compared itself with a representative of the 1st generation (say, if a fossil specimen existed). Throughout the process, no creature gave birth to a creature who was more than 0.0001% different from itself.
Too many people believe that evolution claims that, at some point, a chimpanzee gave birth to a tall, hairless, bipedal child with a big brain, and hence the human race began. That’s not how it happens at all.
Now, I haven’t presented any evidence that this process actually occurred (or, more correctly, is occurring right now, as we speak), even though this evidence exists (See the comments on the “Is Evolution Compatible with Christianity?” article) That was not my intention. I only intended to show the flaw in the logic of your argument.
As far as instances of observed speciation, here are a couple of (incomplete) lists:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html