Evolution's Phony Chasm Between Science And Christianity - Evolution Debate (Part 1)

Many of my friends are aware of my recent debate with a Danish biology teacher on the subject of creation vs evolution. I have been asked a lot about this event and plan to discuss it over the coming weeks. Today, I thought a good start point would be to examine the true relationship between science and Biblical Christianity. Because there are a lot of "educators" who don't want you to know this! Highly decorated anthropologist, educator, philosopher, and natural science writer Loren Eiseley wrote that science "demands some kind of unique soil to flourish." Eiseley went on to reluctantly concede that this unique soil was in fact "the Christian world which finally gave birth in a clear, articulate fashion to the experimental method of science itself".

The scientific method is built upon presuppositions, all of which, cannot be verified by this scientific method. These presuppositions include the reality of the universe, the knowability of nature, the uniform laws that nature is subject to, the predictability of its behavior, and that measurable causes underlie all observable effects. It would seem that the modern world of evolutionary science is heavily invested in concealing the fact that all these presuppositions find their sole affirmation within the pages of the Biblical Text.

This has become a nasty form of historical revisionism because the truth of the matter is that the scientific endeavor was pioneered by Christians like Copernicus, Johnannes Kepler, and Jean-Baptiste van Helmont. These men saw science's ultimate goal as the pursuit of greater knowledge of the Creator, and they considered this a God given calling! What the modern "guardians" of evolutionary science veil behind all their empty rhetoric is the reality that theology was established in institutes of higher learning as the "Queen of the Sciences". Michael Patton says that theology was "understood to be the first among pursuits of knowledge, since it was believed that all other pursuits were vitally linked to its dictates. Morality was dictated by it. Philosophy was called its handmaiden. Why was it held in such high esteem then? Because theology itself provides a foundation for your philosophy and worldview, which in turn sets inclinations for your heart, actions, and decisions in all situations." Many Americans would be surprised to know that universities like Yale, Harvard, and Princeton (to name a few) were all established to train missionaries and Christian ministers.

Richard Dawkins leads the brigade of "modern scientific" gurus who pit science and religion (more specifically Biblical Christianity) as warring factions for the hearts and minds of humanity. It would seem that Dawkins does not ascribe to theology as "Queen of the sciences" when he rhetorically asks "What has 'theology' ever said that is of the smallest use to anybody? When has 'theology' ever said anything that is demonstrably true and is not obvious? What makes you think that 'theology' is a subject at all?". Yet when Professor Dawkins continually refers to Darwin's theory of evolution as "the fact of evolution" he exposes himself as an apologist for his own religion, not a good scientist. True science is measurable, testable, repeatable, and observable - all of which have no connection to Darwin's theory of cell to creature evolution. Darwin's theory is still called a theory because it is not a fact! The "missing link" is still called the "missing link" because no one has ever found it! And the creation is still called creation because it has a Creator!

This all points to the first chapter of Romans where Paul says:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse (Romans 1:18-20).

This is the great big cosmic "no-brainer" which Dawkins unwittingly affirms when he says that:

The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully (The God Delusion p51).

This is not an argument against God's existence, it is an argument for Dawkins' hatred of the God he denies (it would seem that Richard Dawkins has learned a way to make a good living from being a bad theologian which just goes to show that this is not exclusively the domain of prosperity preachers on TV).

This brings us to ground zero of the atheistic evolutionary worldview. That their main objection to God's existence is not based on their knowledge but is rather driven by their morality. The Lord Jesus affirmed this just after the most famous verse in the Bible when He said:

And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed (John 3:19-20).

These verses remind us that the atheist's primary problem with God's existence is that he loves sin and hates God. It is also a humbling reminder of my own condition before God graciously saved me. It also serves to remind us that all evangelism should revolve around the moral issues of sin, righteousness, and judgment rather than the endless rabbit trail of intellectual debate. Because Biblical theology is the "Queen of science" and evolutionary theory is just bad theology.

Go On To Part 2