Hey guys! So this particular post is going away from the previous post series I started but this subject I will write on is something that has, for the second day in a row, been coming up in my life. Yesterday after church, a fellow brother in Christ was asking me about how to refute, or argue the evolutionary stance. Then today, in my Religion and Values class we had to briefly write up arguments based off a video between Richard Dawkins and John Mackay. So, this is my “in a nutshell” argument and defense against evolution. You will see I only addressed the main arguments presented in the videos an, but like everything, it leads back to an issue of their heart and what they were pre-supposed to. If you have any additions to this, or have found a specific argument or tactic that would help others out, please post away! I would also love to hear your thoughts.
Below is my response to the question in my class Evolutionary Theory vs. Creationism, from this video:
This is actually really quite remarkable, that we are beginning this class with talking about the Evolutionary theory vs. Creationism as I was just discussing it this week to a friend of mine. The videos you posted were very helpful in seeing the two different sides to the arguments, but one thing I believe we need to take into account, however, is both Dawkins and Mackay's worldview and belief in a "higher power." They are both presupposed to their own beliefs, hence drives what they believe and why they believe it. Because of this, neither one of them are coming into this debate as a "neutral" party. Dawkins is a self-confessed atheist while Mackay is a self-proclaimed, protestant Christian. Both of them are coming into this with their own beliefs that they were raised to believe, and also somewhat of an understanding on what the other believes.
The argument is focused mainly around whether or not evolution is able to be observed. Now with evolution, we have two different formulas that you can look at which is gradualism and punctuated equilibrium. Gradualism is the belief that things and beings tend to change or evolve gradually over a period of time in which it should be observable. Punctuated equilibrium basically says that these mutations rely on a specific instance of unique circumstances. A good example is that the world became engulfed underwater and us humans began to evolve into humans with lungs. Now one thing I would have to say on the observation of evolution (and Dawkins admits it as well) is that it is unobservable. Mackay then pins him to that statement which then contradicts evolution as factual, instead of a theory. Dawkins then responds with saying you can't see electrons etc... However, we can run tests and diagnostics in which we can see the atoms, electrons, and other substances un-observable to our eyes. Now let’s look at fossils, which most evolutionists use to support their theory (note that we have not noticed any change in the fossils.) The only thing that fossils could support is the punctuated equilibrium; well, this is a no-brainer. So if we looked at a fossil or a greyhound, and then today we were to mate a greyhound with a Chihuahua, would that dogs fossils not look a lot different than a pure-bred greyhound? So yes, we have seen change in cross-mating species and such, but eventually, if those species were to continue down with mating with each other they would become inbreed, and eventually die out.
The underlying issue with this argument is that by being in a believer of the Theory of Evolution (which is just that a theory not factual) you ultimately believe in naturalism. Naturalism is the belief that nothing exists outside the means of this universe, or that it does not affect the universe. This belief means that there is no God, that we humans happened by chance, and everything we see is of no consequence to what we do. With this, I would then respond to someone who claims all of the above with three premises using logical syllogism, that argues if naturalism is in fact true than objective moral values do not exist.
1. If objective moral values do not exist, then God does not exist.
2. Objective moral values do exist.
3. Therefore God exists.
Objective moral values are something that is understandably morally wrong, such as rape, or child molestation. As a naturalist, you are saying that everyone holds their own truth and values within themselves given by nature. If that is indeed true, then that would mean if I were a serial killer and I see no problem with murdering people, according to you that is ok because that is what my inner conscience is saying is correct. However, if you agree that rape, murder, or child molestation is in fact wrong, then you are agreeing with my second premise that objective moral values do exist. And if objective moral values do exist, therefore God exists and is the reason for our nature and our world.
I apologize if I went a little long, however this is a very tough nut to crack in just a few short paragraphs online. Whether you agree or disagree, please comment below and let me know your thoughts.