believe in evolution without God). They may or not believe that Adam and Eve existed. If they do, a lot
believe Adam and Eve were just two of many other humans that evolved at the same time. God just
chose them for some reason.
What is wrong with this position? The problems with theistic evolution basically fall into two
camps. The first is that the Bible does not support the big bang and molecules to man. The second
reason is that historical science does not support evolution, period (theistic or atheistic). For now, I will
focus on the former.
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Why am I focusing on the the incompatibility of the Bible and evolution? It is because, in the
end, debating over science doesn’t end anything. There are three reasons for this. The first is that people
are biased. Many think that if they are as unbiased as possible and try to neutrally examine the
evidence, they will come to the correct conclusion. This is impossible. Atheists look at evidence and
will not allow for the possibility of a God. Theists look at the same evidence and will not allow for the
possibility that it came about by random chance. Our bias shows up immediately.
end, debating over science doesn’t end anything. There are three reasons for this. The first is that people
are biased. Many think that if they are as unbiased as possible and try to neutrally examine the
evidence, they will come to the correct conclusion. This is impossible. Atheists look at evidence and
will not allow for the possibility of a God. Theists look at the same evidence and will not allow for the
possibility that it came about by random chance. Our bias shows up immediately.
The second problem with trying to win this debate with science is these little things called
rescuing devices. What are these things? They are basically speculations with no evidence to support
them. Why do they exist then? Well, they have to exist if a position (such as theistic evolution or
creation) is to be true.
For example, there are certain comets that are very young. This is a problem for evolutionists,
because they believe the world to be billions of years old. This means that the comets were not created
from the big bang; they had to have been created afterwards. Why is this a problem? This is a problem
because now evolutionists have to find where they came from and how they were created. To solve this
problem, evolutionists created something called the Oort Cloud. This hypothetical cloud exists just
outside the reach of the best telescopes (how convenient), and it is an icy mass. From this mass, comets
are broken off and enter our orbit.What is the problem with this? There is NO evidence that the Oort
Cloud exists. It is a rescuing device that has to be true if evolution is to be true. In a debate, evolutionists
will invoke it.
On the creation side, one rescuing device I have to invoke involves light. I will post on this
later, but the problem is that if the world is only 6,000 or so years old, how did the light from all those
stars reach earth? It would take us many, many light years (more than 6,000) to get to certain stars, yet
we can still see the light they emit. There are several answers that I won’t get into now, but if one wants
to answer that problem naturally (i.e. without invoking God), he has to invoke a rescuing device.
Whenever a side thinks thinks he or she has presented irrefutable scientific proof for his
position, the other side can simply say, “Well, you see, (rescuing device). So there.” And there goes
that.
The third problem pertains to theistic evolutionists and not to atheists. Whenever a creationist
has a theistic evolutionist in the corner with the whole “there is no evidence for the big bang or life-
from-non-life” argument, they can invoke God. “Oh, God did it. So you see, we don’t have to have any
observational evidence that it happened, because God made it happen.” That has happened to me and it
drives me nuts. But oh well, they do it.
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
If all these things are true, how can I debate theistic evolutionists at all? What I do is move the
debate from science to the Bible. Theistic evolutionists believe the Bible is the Word of God just like
creationists do. In this debate, it is important to show them that the Bible is not compatible with
evolution. There are several problems that I will post about. Leave them with these two options: 1)
evolution is true, 2) the Bible is true. They won’t like it, but that is the ultimate question. The following
posts will be about how the Bible does not fit with evolution.
No comments:
Post a Comment