The fairy tale of evolution tries to explain how species-improvement works. Whatever species is in question, we’re told that the wholly self-oriented yet purpose-free critter is always striving, though unknowingly, to make the species better and better by means of natural selection/survival of the fittest. The supposed process—which is not open to scientific testing—depends on “favorable” chance mutations and random chemical-electrical events within the “accidental sack of molecules.” But mutations, as millions of lab-sacrificed fruit flies will attest, only cause reduced, not improved, function. Or in the case of “sexual instincts,” our sack-critter knows nothing of whether “today’s sexual target” might have slightly better, “on-its-way-to-better-eyesight” genes, for example, than some other handy mating target nearby. If the target happens to be an on-its-way-to-blindness playmate then the chance for “potential family greatness” is lost forever.
Similarly anti-science are any rosy claims that research may someday discover a “special” (DNA-comprised) gene that is always inspiring the thing-mutant purposely to desire that the species be propagated and improved. Note, too, the absurdity of Richard Dawkins, when the famed atheist digs into more conjectural hocus-pocus. In The Selfish Gene, he would have us believe that evolution is less about the species than it is about the “good of the gene.” His gene (we have 30,000 of them) is “ruthlessly selfish,” and “stops at nothing to survive,” while the animal involved (that’s us) is just a “disposable survival machine.” It’s stunning that so many can be taken in by ivory tower quackery.
Equally silly are any research hopes of ever finding a “Golden Rule” gene, or that there might be a “thought” gene or a gene driving the creature to master the piano. (Yes, God has blessed many with pro-musical aptitude genes, but not piano genes.) By evolution’s own God-hostile definition, the “thing” only reacts, it doesn’t think. But if by chance it could, advocates would then have to explain the mechanism by which thought-powers, reasoning-powers, the idea of meaning, purpose, a sense of dignity, and all the rest had found their way into the creature. They’d then be forced to answer; who designed such high-level mental attributes? Who created a beast with such skills? We all know who, but the evolutionist is not going there! In finishing up evolution then, if intellectual integrity is to be upheld and before rational conversation can take place, the challenge of, “on what solid base does knowledge and the quest for knowledge rest?” Or, “what is the unimpeachable starting point for reason and reasoning?” This is the pivotal presuppositional challenge you will be explaining and that your target should eventually want to grasp. The answer is not evolution.
Before advancing to the second “thought province” of metaphysics, there’s a bit more epistemology to tackle. Trying to ask men for the starting point—be they Plato, Descartes or Kant or even Richard Dawkins—is futile. Short of using presuppositional apologetics, man is inadequate to the task. Most everyone, even a Christian, is humanistically trained to believe that the starting point for reason is based upon human reason which tells us nothing and is just ordinary circular reasoning. The person who believes in the ultimate authority of reason must use reason to make this determination thereby assuming reason before he proves the viability of reason as authoritative. If he uses something else to prove that reason is authoritative, then that thing is the starting point. And what is used to prove it? Reason? That’s why our only option is to turn to a transcendent source outside of and superior to man; God himself.
Happily we’re more than free to have perfect trust in God’s transcendence, and not just because it’s “our only hope” or because of the “impossibility of the contrary.” All men possess the soul-deep awareness of general revelation, with Psalm 19:1 being the preeminent passage. There is also Scripture’s special revelation, and incarnational revelation by way of Christ’s historically validated miracles, His fulfillment of hundreds of OT prophecies, and his miraculous resurrection. No other historical figure can say the same, much less having had His deeds so fully documented by respected writers and witnesses, contrary to fanatics who claim Jesus never existed. Compared to the voluminous evidence for Christ, one might say Plato and Aristotle never existed. But thanks to the Orwellian memory-hole tactics of hostile and politically correct (read, “leftist”) mainstream media and the schools, we hear far more about the two famous Greeks than we do of Christ.
Non-believers, as we’ve been showing, have no ultimate epistemological base that accounts for their beliefs. Therefore, they must “borrow” from the Christian point of view. That’s because our view, which refuses to believe man is an evolved blob, is the only one that makes sense. Maybe it’s a small point and I won’t quibble with that “borrowing” line of reasoning, but I think it’s important to stress that non-believers, on their own and without any help from us, automatically use the same mental processes we do when they think, plan, and reason. They are made in God’s image and behave just as we do because that’s what God enabled them to do. Yes, technically, they “borrow” from us if they would honestly account for their abilities, but they don’t first check on how we do our accounting and then secretly copy us. It’s what God gave all men the power to do.
Cornelius Van Til had an excellent way of describing how the “God-hostile” automatically reject the God-given origin of their cognitive abilities. They refuse to give Him credit when it comes to accounting for how and why they’re able to perform intellectually and mentally as they do. In so doing they are like a defiant small child who climbs up onto a parent’s lap in order to gain the access position needed to slap the parent in the face! Kind of a gruesome analogy, but it paints the right picture. Rebelling against the provider is what unrepentant men are best at whether defying their parents, authority in general, or God, the ultimate authority.