Matthew 1:21-23 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.
Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,
Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
Talk about serendipity! I literally had the following post already queued up to go when I got into a conversation with Creation Reformation and we decided to do a letter exchange. The subject of the exchange is ‘How to Attack Evolution’ or, in its long form, “What is the best way to attack evolution in our modern age?"
I think I will end up giving several answers (at least one of which will definitely be about marriage Andrew | Dad Explains ) but this one is a head-on direct attack on what you might call well-educated but naive-on-evolution people such as Konstantine Kissin and Jordan Peterson. People who believe that Evolution is some sort of alternative to special creation.
To put some of my cards on the table (the whole deck would take far too long) I am a ‘philosophical creationist’. Never heard of it? Well, I made it up, although I think there are a lot of us. I believe in creation not only because I am well-educated on evolution (more so than most evolutionists) but because I approach the issue from a philosophical/religious standpoint.
Some people like to claim that ‘modern science has disproved…” creation, or miracles, or the virgin birth, or the existence of God. Not only is this not true, it cannot be true. And it cannot be true because one of the cornerstones of modern science is ‘methodological naturalism’.
Methodological naturalism is the guideline insisted on in modern science where any research must begin with the statement ‘Supernatural causes will not be considered’. They are ruled out of bounds in the beginning.
Let’s give an example. Let’s pretend that a cop brings a body to the morgue, and he tells the medical examiner, “We found this body. We want you to determine the cause of death. But you are forbidden from considering the option that he was killed with a bullet.”
Then let’s say the medical examiner examines the body. It’s got a small hole in the front, and a large hole in the back. The small hole looks like it was caused by an object traveling at a high velocity, and the large hole in the back looks like an exit wound from same. On and on he examines… you get the picture. It *looks like* the guy was shot with a bullet, but that option has been ruled out from the beginning.
So the M.E. presents a series of guesses. Stuff that, if a bullet didn’t kill the guy, are lesser options. Maybe he fell from a height and impaled himself on a piece of rebar. That doesn’t really fit all the evidence but… it’s better than his second best, which is a really, really strong David with a sling.
He presents his report and the cop gives it to the prosecuting attorney, who then stands up in court and says, “I would point out that in this report, from the M.E., the idea that the victim was shot by a bullet was *not even on the list*! The M.E. has ruled it out as a possibility…”
What nonsense! He was told to rule it out. He was required to rule it out!
This is literally what is going on with modern science and the supernatural. In his book The Blind Watchmaker, Dawkins wrote: “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose”.
In other words the most likely, obvious, explanation for biology is design. But modern scientists are forbidden from accepting that as a hypothesis for their studies! It is ruled out from the beginning.
…this notion of something smooth and slow, like the ascent of a slope, is a great part of the illusion. It is an illogicality as well as an illusion; for slowness has really nothing to do with the question. An event is not any more intrinsically intelligible or unintelligible because of the pace at which it moves. For a man who does not believe in a miracle, a slow miracle would be just as incredible as a swift one. The Greek witch may have turned sailors to swine with a stroke of the wand. But to see a naval gentleman of our acquaintance looking a little more like a pig every day, till he ended with four trotters and a curly tail, would not be any more soothing. It might be rather more creepy and uncanny. The medieval wizard may have flown through the air from the top of a tower; but to see an old gentleman walking through the air, in a leisurely and lounging manner, would still seem to call for some explanation.
Yet there runs through all the rationalistic treatment of history this curious and confused idea that difficulty is avoided, or even mystery eliminated, by dwelling on mere delay or on something dilatory in the processes of things. There will be something to be said upon particular examples elsewhere; the question here is the false atmosphere of facility and ease given by the mere suggestion of going slow; the sort of comfort that might be given to a nervous old woman travelling for the first time in a motor-car.
GK Chesterton What’s Wrong with the World
Konstanine Kissin (hereafter KK cause who can spell that? And I say that as someone whose name people can’t spell :) ) says in a post:
Dawkins wrote terrific books like The Selfish Gene and The Blind Watchmaker which made evolutionary theory simple to understand and debunked unscientific claims about the nature of our world.
Now having grown up in the Soviet Union I can’t really blame KK for these kind of statements, but anyone interested in truth needs to read this and see the completely circular reasoning involved here. In long form, throwing in the principle of methodological naturalism, it would read:
Dawkins wrote terrific books like The Selfish Gene and The Blind Watchmaker which made evolutionary theory simple to understand and [beginning with the assumption that the material world is all that exists, determined that the material world is all that exists].
Evolutionary theory has been debunked as literally impossible any number of times.[1] However as the evolutionists themselves have said on occasion, it is the only game in town if you deny the supernatural.
Now, much of the rest of his article is interesting, as is his journey toward faith, which we can all hope he completes. (Which, of course, is entirely in the hands of God). I recommend reading it.
But in the end his criticism of the new atheists and the capitulation of the west in the light of Islam rests on sand. You cannot believe Christianity because it is helpful, you must believe it because it is true. Little children can spend an amusing afternoon playing ‘let’s pretend’, but you cannot build a society upon it.
He lives in a society which believes in nothing real, nothing permanent, nothing worth dying for. Such a society will, as he himself is pointing out, be washed with the waves of every passing idea until it fades into history… possibly with a whimper but, more likely in my opinion, with a conflagration.
Modern, atheistic, materialistic Science cannot disprove religion, because Science has ruled religion out of bounds before its inquiry ever began. It has castrated and thus cannot bid the geldings be fruitful. The result of the gelding is ever visible in the destruction of the most basic human understandings. A society which cannot answer the question “What is a Woman?” cannot stand.
To return to our regularly scheduled program, the above post was written before the idea of this letter exchange existed. But I think it is a good contender for the title of ‘The best way to attack evolution’ if your intended audience is well-educated but naive believers in evolution; perhaps ones which, as KK and JP, are beginning to see the value in a belief in God.
As I listen to their podcasts and read their articles, the idea of methodological naturalism is not an idea I ever see them address, let alone honestly deal with the fact that it completely undermines any concept of ‘science’ being able to deal with concepts such as evolution or miracles.
I love comments, especiallywell-writtenn comments by those who disagree. And I’m totally open to letter exchanges with those who disagree with me.
[1] Not by Chance, for example
Thanks brother. Can’t wait.
Hey Von, is their more info then your post above somewhere? I will be working tomorrow but will chime in as able. Do you have any questions or specifics you want to go over? Can you provide a link here to the thing tomorrow or tell me where specifically?