The world and the way it functions cannot be accounted for in the atheistic world. Atheists are bound by laws of the uniformity of nature. There is no escape from this reality. Scientists know that an experiment performed today under specific conditions will function in the same way tomorrow under the same conditions because that’s the way the world was made to work. It didn’t evolve to work the way it does. It was made to work that way because of the sovereign nature of God.
So-called Darwinian science is a myth by scientific standards alone.
The idea of Darwinian molecular evolution is not based on science. There is no publication in the scientific literature—in journals or books—that describes how molecular evolution of any real, complex, biochemical system either did occur or even might have occurred. There are assertions that such evolution occurred, but absolutely none are supported by pertinent experiments or calculations. Since there is no authority on which to base claims of knowledge, it can truly be said that the assertion of Darwinian molecular evolution is merely bluster.[1]
All that evolutionary biologists have in response to how the world works the way it does are theories as to how complex systems could have evolved. There is no empirical evidence for the “could have.” In addition, there is nothing in a biologist’s experience where either the origin or the process of evolution can be seen to take place. Remember what an evolutionist must prove: Nothing became something and that something organized itself into what we see today in the complexity of life on this or any other place in the cosmos.
Against All Opposition
The starting point is the God of the Bible. The Bible begins with this foundational presupposition: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Gen. 1:1). Against All Opposition lays out the definitive apologetic model to help believers understand the biblical method of defending the Christian faith.
Buy NowRep. Rush Holt, a New Jersey congressman from 1999 to 2015, wanted to give Charles Darwin a special birthday celebration on February 12, 2013, to acknowledge the atheist icon’s 204th birthday. He wanted to call it “Darwin Day.” Holt made the following misleading claim in his resolution: “Without Charles Darwin, our modern understandings of biology, ecology, genetics, and medicine would be utterly impossible, and our comprehension of the world around us would be vastly poorer.”
This is nonsense. He would have to believe that no science was ever done prior to 1859. A person does not have to believe in evolution to be a great biologist, work in the field of genetics, or advance in the field of medicine. In fact, the opposite is the case. The uniformity of nature, the lack of any observable evidence of one species evolving into another, and the impossible claim that life can spontaneously appear from non-life, worse, from nothing, are three indicators that evolution is impossible.
Rodney Stark writes the following summary in his chapter “Science Comes of Age.”
[A]dvances in both science and technology occurred not in spite of Christianity but because of it. Contrary to conventional wisdom, science did not suddenly flourish once Europe cast aside religious “superstitions” during the so-called Enlightenment. Science arose in the West—and only in the West—precisely because the Judeo-Christian conception of God encouraged and even demanded this pursuit.
In Stark’s book The Victory of Reason we find that without a Christian worldview there would not have been the rise of modern science:
Real science arose only once: in Europe. China, Islam, India, and ancient Greece and Rome each had a highly developed alchemy. But only in Europe did alchemy develop into chemistry. By the same token, many societies developed elaborate systems of astrology, but only in Europe did astrology lead to astronomy. Why? Again, the answer has to do with images of God.
*****
In contrast with the dominant religious and philosophical doctrines in the non-Christian world, Christians developed science because they believed it could be done, and should be done. As Alfred North Whitehead put it during one of his Lowell Lectures at Harvard in 1925, science arose in Europe because of the widespread “faith in the possibility of science … derivative from medieval theology.”[2]
Not only is their understanding of the origin and development of cosmos unsound, but they cannot derive morality from the physical attributes of the cosmos. Viktor E. Frankl, a Jewish-Austrian Holocaust survivor wrote the following:
If we present a man with a concept of man which is not true, we may well corrupt him. When we present man as an automaton of reflexes, as a mind-machine, as a bundle of instincts, as a pawn of drives and reactions, as a mere product of instinct, heredity and environment, we feed the nihilism to which modern man is, in any case, prone. I became acquainted with the last stage of that corruption in my second concentration camp, Auschwitz. The gas chambers of Auschwitz were the ultimate consequence of the theory that man is nothing but the product of heredity and environment; or as the Nazi liked to say, “of Blood and Soil.” I am absolutely convinced that the gas chambers of Auschwitz, Treblinka, and Maidanek were ultimately prepared not in some Ministry or other in Berlin, but rather at the desks and lecture halls of nihilistic scientists and philosophers.[3]
Frankl spent three years in concentration camps during World War II, including Auschwitz and Dachau. The cosmos was and is indifferent to such atrocities. Some would say the same for God. Where is He when unspeakable evil takes place? It’s only because God exists that we can designate something as evil.
It’s remarkable that the purveyors of Darwinian everythingism did not see the relationship between its fundamental principles and its ethical implications. “Cesare Lombroso, the famous Italian psychiatrist who founded criminal anthropology, built his ideology on Darwinism. He argued that criminals were atavistic creatures, throwbacks to ancestors in the evolutionary process. He was most famous for promoting the idea that criminality was hereditary, not formed through environmental influence.” If we inherit our impulses, who’s to say that anything we do is moral or immoral.[4] Science can’t say.
If Evolution is Right Can Anything be Wrong?
Atheism cannot account for rationality, love or morality. This does not mean that atheists are always irrational, unloving and immoral, but it does mean that they can't account for rationality, love and morality given their assumptions about the origins of the universe and our accidental place in it. In this audio series, Gary DeMar forces the evolutionist to live consistently with his stated materialist assumptions.
Buy Now[1] Michael J. Behe, “Intelligent Design Theory as a Tool for Analyzing Biochemical Systems,” Mere Creation: Science, Faith, and Intelligent Design, ed. William A. Dembski (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1998), 183. [2] Rodney Stark, The Victory of Reason: How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism, and Western Success (New York: Random House, 2005), 14. [3] Viktor E. Frankl, The Doctor and the Soul: From Psychotherapy to Logotherapy (New York: Vintage Books, 1986), xxvii. [4] Richard Weikart, “The Dehumanizing Impact of Modern Thought: Darwin, Marx, Nietzsche, and Their Followers,” Discovery Institute (July 18, 2008): https://www.discovery.org/a/6301/