Introduction
1) In the debate over origins, it is a lot like a debate over the existence of air.
2) If two individuals were arguing about the existence of air, what would the critic
of air say?
3) Whatever the arguments might be, one thing is for sure, they would have to use
air in order to make them.
A) Air would be crucial for the individual to survive
B) More importantly, the critic would have to use air in order to make their
argument heard and understood.
4) In this case, would it not seem strange for someone to argue against the existence
of air, while simultaneously breathing, and expecting their arguments to be heard as the sounds travels through the air.
5) In order for the critic of air to be able to make an argument, it would of necessity
have to be wrong.
6) In this sense, the evolutionist must use Biblical creation principles in order to argue
against Biblical creation.
A) In order for their argument to make sense, it would of necessity, have to be
wrong.
B) The fact is that evolutionists are able to argue against creation proves that
creation is true.
C) Just as the critic of air has to use air in order to make their argument heard,
the evolutionist has to assume the preconditions of intelligibility in order
to make any argument whatsoever.
D) Yet these assumptions do not comport, or go well with, their world view.
The fact is they only make sense if creation were true.
7) Biblical creation MUST be true because if it were not, we could not know anything
at all.
8) Objection to this fact
A) The critic may say something like this, “Creation doesn’t have to be true in
order for us to know things. After all, I do not believe in creation; and I know
lots of things!”
B) This response is fallacious. It is just like the critic of air saying, “We do not
need air to breath. After all, I do not even believe in air; and I can breath just
fine!”
C) The argument is not breathing requires a profession of belief in air, but it does
require air.
D) Like wise, knowledge does not require a profession of belief in Biblical
creation, but it does require that Biblical creation is true.
9) In order to illustrate this concept, we will be concentrating on 3 specific examples.
These preconditions only make sense in the Biblical creation world view, yet
they are required in order for us to learn anything about the universe.
A) The are as follows;
1) Laws of logic
2) Uniformity of nature
3) Absolute morality
B) There are others that we could examine, but these three are the most easily
understood and commonly used.
C) Clearly, for us to reason logically, there must be laws of logic.
D) In order for us to study nature, the universe must have an underlying
orderliness: it must have some regularity in time and space, which is
uniformity.
E) Morality may seem odd for a rational world view. But it is centered in the
idea that we SHOULD be rational, which is a moral obligation. So morality
is required if we are to argue that people OUGHT to have a rational basis
for their world view.
I) Morality
1) This is a very difficult problem for the evolutionist.
2) We are not stating that the evolutionist is some how less moral then anyone else. In
fact most do adhere to a code of behavior. They do believe in the concepts of right
and wrong.
3) The problem for them is that they have no rational reason to believe in any sort of
moral imperative within their world view.
4) In their world view, right and wrong can be nothing more than electro-chemical
reactions in the brain, it is the result of time and chance.
A) The concepts of right and wrong are Christian concepts that go back to
Genesis.
B) By attempting to be moral, the evolutionist is being irrational, for they must
borrow biblical concepts that are contrary to their world view.
5) The Bible teaches that God is the Creator of all things (Gen. 1:1; John 1:3). All things
belong to God (Ps. 24:1), thus God has the right to make the rules. So an absolute
moral code makes sense in a Biblical creation world view.
6) But if the Bible were not true, If all human beings were merely the outworking of
millions of years of mindless chemical processes, then the question can be asked,
“Why should we hold to a universal code of behavior? Could there really be such
concepts as right and wrong if evolution were true?”
A) These are perfectly valid questions that need to be asked.
B) But we need to listen to the answers in order to see the irrationality of their
world view.
7) Some responses to the questions
A) “That’s true, Morality is just relative. There’s no such thing as absolute
morality, and therefore you should not try to enforce your personal moral
code on other people.”
1) The key thing to listen for when someone asserts that there is no
absolute moral standard is things such as “you should not”
2) In making this kind of remark, they are doing just what they are
telling you not to do, they are enforcing their personal moral code
on other people.
3) If there is no absolute moral code, then nothing is actually
fundamentally wrong: not lying, stealing, or murder. Yet people
cannot live consistently by such an amoral standard.
B) “Well, I do believe in right and wrong, and I also believe in evolution, so
obviously they can go together.”
1) This does not follow. People can be irrational; they can profess to
believe in things that are contrary to each other.
2) The question is not about what people believe to be the case, but what
actually is the case.
3) Can the concepts of right and wrong really be meaningful apart from the
Biblical God? Is morality JUSTIFIED in an evolutionary world view?
C) “Of course. People can create their own moral code apart from God. They can
adopt their own standards of right and wrong.”
1) This is arbitrary and will lead to absurd consequences.
2) If everyone can adapt their own moral code, then no one could argue
that what others think and do is actually wrong since other people can
also invent their own personal code.
3) A person might adopt the moral code that it is perfectly acceptable to
murder someone. This may seem upsetting to us, but how could we
argue that it is wrong for others to murder if morality is nothing but a
personal standard?
4) If morality is a subjective personal choice, then Hitler cannot be
denounced for his actions since he was acting in accord with his chosen
standard.
5) Clearly this is an unacceptable position.
D) “Right is what brings the most happiness to the most people.”
1) This is arbitrary to.
2) The question can be asked “Why should their be a selected standard as
opposed to some other view?”
3) Also, this view borrows from the Christian position. In the Christian
position, we should indeed be concerned about the happiness of others
since they are made in the image of God.
4) But if other people are simply chemical accidents, why should we care
about their happiness at all?
5) Concern about others does not make sense in an evolutionary universe.
E) “Well, morality is what the majority decides it to be.”
1) This view has the same defects as the others. It merely shifts an
unjustified opinion from one person to a group of people.
2) It is arbitrary and leads to absurd conclusions.
3) Just like the others, we are unable to denounce certain actions that
we know to be wrong. Hitler was able to convince a majority of his
people that his actions were right, but that does not really make them
right.
8) Only in the Biblical creation world view can we have right and wrong
A) Without the biblical God, right and wrong are reduced to mere personal
preferences.
B) In an evolutionary universe, the statement “murder is wrong” is nothing more
than a personal opinion on the same level as “blue is my favorite color”.
C) If others have a different opinion, we would have no basis for arguing with
them.
D) When an evolutionist talks about morality as if it were a real standard that
others should follow, they are being inconsistent with their own professed
world view.
9) Evolutionary Inconsistency
A) When an evolutionist makes the comment,”We cannot teach creation in the
classroom because it is wrong, you are lying to the children!” they are being
inconsistent.
B) This begs the question since the truth of falsity of creation is the concern at
issue: we are convinced that creation is true, and evolution is the lie.
C) The truly absurd thing about such evolutionary arguments is that they are
contrary to evolution.
D) In an evolutionary world view, why shouldn’t we lie, particularly if it benefits
our survival value?
E) If we are merely chemical accidents, why should we be so concerned about
what we do? We do not get mad at any other chemical reactions that we
observe?
1) Baking soda and vinegar react violently when mixed.
2) Does the teacher of chemistry get upset that this happens?
3) Why not? It is just what chemicals do.
F) So why would an evolutionist be angry at anything one human does to another,
if we are all nothing more than complex chemical reactions?
G) If we are simply evolved animals, why should we hold to a code of conduct?
H) What one animal does to another is morally irrelevant. When an evolutionist
attempts to be moral, they are “borrowing” from the Christian world view.
10) Understanding the Evolutionary Position
A) It is the Christian world view that accounts for morality, but it also accounts
for why evolutionists behave the way they do.
B) Even those who have no basis for morality within their professed world view
nonetheless hold to a moral code.
C) This is because they really do know the God of the Bible despite their
profession to the contrary.
D) Romans 1:18-21 tells us that all know the Biblical God but they suppress that
knowledge in unrighteousness.
1) Those who are in this position do, in fact, know the truth.
2) The key to understanding this is in the fact that they suppress the truth.
3) How can someone suppress something that they are not in contact with?
4) In water polo, The teams sometimes try to hide the ball from the
opposing team by suppressing it in the water. The player must be in
contact with the ball in order to accomplish this. They cannot do this
without contact.
5) We can see the same type of logic with those suppressing the truth.
They must be in contact with it in order to suppress it in unrighteousnes
E) Nearly everyone believes that people ought to behave in a certain way, a moral
code.
F) In order for morality to be meaningful, biblical creation must be true.
1) God created human beings, therefore He determines, in line with His
nature, what is right and wrong.
2) Therefore we are responsible for our actions, whether good or bad.
G) Therefore we must conclude that evolutionists are being irrational when they
talk about right and wrong , for such concepts make no sense in an
evolutionary world view.
II) Laws of Logic
1) Rational reasoning requires using the laws of logic.
2) Since this is the case, a rational world view must be able to account for the existence
of such laws.
3) Example; Law of Non-Contradiction
A) This law states that any contradiction is false; you cannot have A and not-A
at the same time and in the same relationship (the letter A represents any
claim).
B) “My car in the garage and it is not the case that my car is in the garage” is
necessarily false by the law of non-contradiction.
4) All rational persons accept this law.
5) Yet we can and should ask why, “Why is this law true? Why should there be a law of
non-contradiction, or for that matter, any laws of reasoning?”
6) It is only in the Christian world view that these questions can be answered.
A) For the Christian there is an absolute standard for reasoning; we are to pattern
our thoughts after God’s.
B) We know, in a finite way, how God thinks as revealed in his word.
C) We are made in His image (Gen. 1:26), we are to follow His example
(Eph. 5:1)
D) The laws of logic are a reflection of the way that God thinks, and thus the
way that He expects us to think.
E) The law of non-contradiction is not a personal opinion of how we ought to
think, rather it stems from Gods’ self-consistent nature.
F) God cannot deny Himself (2 Tim. 2:13), all truth is in God (John 14:6;
Col. 2:3), therefore truth will not contradict itself.
G) Since God is constantly upholding the universe by His power (Heb. 1:3)
we expect that no contradictions will ever occur.
7) Laws of logic are contingent upon God’s unchanging nature and they are a
prerequisite for logical thinking. Thus, rational reasoning would be impossible
without the Biblical God.
8) Laws of logic only make sense in the Christian world view. Apart from this
world view, how can we know that contradictions are always false?
A) We could only say that they have been false in our experience.
B) But our experiences are very limited, and no one has experienced the
future.
C) If someone asserted that they have discovered two contradictory claims
that are both true, the non-Christian has no basis for dismissing such an
assertion.
D) Only in a Biblical world view can we know that contradictions cannot occur.
E) Only the Christian has a basis for the laws of logic.
9) Possible responses
A) “Well, I can reason just fine, and I do not believe in the Bible.”
1) This is not a rational response.
2) Logical reasoning (and the other things that are required for knowledge)
requires the biblical God, not a profession of belief in Him.
3) The evolutionist can reason, but that is only because God created the
human mind and given mankind access to the laws of logic. That is
the point.
4) Logical reasoning is possible because Biblical creation is true.
5) The evolutionist can reason, but within his own world view he cannot
account for his ability to do so.
6) Therefore the evolutionist world view is arbitrary and irrational.
B) “Laws of logic do not require biblical creation. They are simply conventions
made up by human beings.”
1) This type of response will not suffice.
2) Conventions are (by definition) conventional. That is, we all agree to
them and so they work, Like driving on the right side of the road.
3) If laws of logic are conventional, then different cultures could adopt
different laws of logic (like driving on the left side of the road).
4) In some cultures it might be perfectly fine to contradict yourself. In
some societies truth could be self-contradictory.
5) This will not do.
a) If laws of logic are just conventions, then they are not universal
laws.
b) Rational debate would be impossible if laws of logic were
conventional, because the two opponents could simply pick
different standards for reasoning.
c) Each would be “right” according to his own arbitrary standard.
C) “Laws of logic are chemical reactions in the brain that have been preserved
because they have survival value.”
1) Survival value does not equate to truth
a) My left arm has survival value, but we would not say that it
is true of false; it simply is.
b) So we would have no reason to think that the law of
non-contradiction (or any law of logic) is true, if it is simply
a chemical reaction.
2) If laws of logic are chemical reactions, then they are not laws and they
are not universal; they would not extend beyond the brain.
3) We could not argue that contradictions cannot occur on Mars, since
no one’s brain is on Mars.
4) If laws of logic are just electro-chemical reactions in the brain, then
they would differ somewhat from person to person, because everyone
has different reactions in their brain.
5) If it were just reactions then we could never have a rational debate,
furthermore the evolutionist has no reason to require the creationist
to be rational.
D) “Laws of logic are a description of how the physical universe behaves.”
1) First, laws of logic are conceptual in nature. They do not really
describe aspects of the universe.
2) Rather, they describe the correct chain of reasoning from premises to
conclusions.
3) Second, if laws of logic were descriptions of the physical universe,
then we would expect different regions of the universe to have different
laws of logic, since different regions of the universe are described
differently; but laws of logic apply everywhere.
4) Third, we would have no way of knowing (and therefore no reason to
expect) that laws of logic apply in the future as they have in the past,
since no one has experienced the universe’s future.
5) Finally, conditions in the universe are constantly changing. If laws of
logic were mere descriptions of such conditions, then they would have
to change as well.
E) “Laws of logic are descriptions of how the brain thinks.”
1) They why would we need laws of logic to correct how the brain
thinks?
2) If the laws of logic simply describe how people think, then no one
could ever violate them, since that is how they think.
3) Also, why debate? My brain is not the same as your brain, my
brain thinks differently then does yours. If that is the case we can
never come to any conclusions about anything.
F) “No I cannot account for the laws of logic, but neither can you!”
1) The is fallacious since it merely sidesteps the actual argument.
2) It is called a Tu Quoque fallacy
3) Actually the Christian can indeed account for the laws of logic; we have
a universal standard for reasoning because God has revealed His
thoughts to us in the Bible.
G) “I don’t believe in laws of logic, therefore I don’t need to have a reason for
logic in my world view.”
1) This is self-refuting
2) The critic is attempting to use logic (when they say therefore) in order
to argue that they do not need logic.
3) Also, by giving up logic, the critic has lost the debate.
10) The argument is this, only Biblical creationists have a logical, rational basis for laws
of logic, and thus evolutionary world views are inherently irrational.
11) Laws of logic pose a serious problem for the evolutionist
A) They know that they should be logical in their approach, but they have no
basis for them within their own world view.
B) This is a real problem to the materialistic atheist.
1) They do not believe in anything beyond the physical universe.
2) All that exists in the universe is matter in motion.
3) Laws of logic are not matter; they are not part of the physical universe
4) The laws of logic are contrary to their world view.
5) Therefore it is irrational.
12) Theistic evolution
A) Laws of logic reflect the thinking of God and do not make sense in the
evolutionary world view.
B) Some have tried to compromise to alleviate the tension.
C) They believe in God so they state that they can in fact account for the laws
of logic, without giving up the evolutionary world view.
D) This cannot work
1) Laws of logic reflect how God thinks, but how can we know how God
thinks?
2) He has revealed some of them in His word.
3) God has made mankind in His image according to Gen. 1:26.
4) But the evolutionary world view rejects a literal reading of that very
passage.
5) In their professed world view they have the same problem, if Gen. 1:26
is not literal history, then how do they know that we are able to pattern
our thoughts after God’s.
6) Nor do they believe that God has accurately recorded His thoughts in
the scriptures, since they reject many portions of them.
7) One other problem with this view is that it exalts man’s mind above
God’s. Man determines what is and what is not God’s word
It is the problem of man to God instead of God to man.
13) Biblical creation can account for logic
A) Since God is immaterial, sovereign, and beyond time, it makes sense to have
laws of logic that are immaterial, universal, and unchanging.
B) God has revealed Himself to man, we are able to know and use logic
C) God made the universe, God made our minds, it makes sense that our minds
would have the ability to study and understand the universe.
D) If the universe and our minds are simply the results of time and chance as the
evolutionist contends, why would we expect that the mind could make sense of
the universe? How could science and technology be possible?
E) Rational thinking, science, and technology only make sense within the Biblical
creation world view.
F) We have a basis for these things while the evolutionist does not.
G) This is not to say that the evolutionist cannot be rational. They can be because
they to are made in the image of God and have access to God’s laws of logic.
H) The point is they have no rational basis within their professed world view for
them.
I) The evolutionist is a walking bundle of contradictions. They reason and do
science, yet they deny the very God who makes reasoning and science possible.
J) An illustration can be stated as such.
1) A child is sitting on their father’s lap.
2) The child is constantly slapping the father in the face, ridiculing him,
and even denying that he exists.
3) All the while the father is supporting the child.
4) This is exactly how the evolutionist acts, just like the child.
5) They constantly slap the Father in the face all the while the Father
is supporting the evolutionist since God has given to all men the
preconditions of intelligibility.
III) Uniformity of nature
1)The information for this particular segment is attached.
2) It is an article written by Dr. Jason Lisle
3) It explains the idea quite well and so I decided to have it as class material.
4) Saves me time.
5) http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v3/n1/evolution-anti-science
IV) Why so inconsistent?
1) When we consider the concepts of morality, logic, and the uniformity of nature,
we find that evolution cannot account for why these things are so.
2) The problem that they have is in the fact that they do believe in them.
3) Again the question is simply this, ‘How do they account for them?’
4) How are we to account for such inconsistency with in the evolutionist world view?
A)It is the Bible that gives us our answer.
B) Not only does the Bible account for these things (a rational reason), it also
informs us of why the evolutionist is so inconsistent.
C) Romans 1:18-25
1) God has revealed Himself to all mankind
2) All people have an innate knowledge of Him but they have rebelled
against Him.
3) Because of this they suppress what they know to be true.
V) Conclusion
1) In logic, no one is allowed to be arbitrary, or to simply assert assumptions that have
no foundation whatsoever
A) Otherwise, why not assert the exact opposite?
B) If people are allowed to be arbitrary the logical debate would be impossible
since each person could “prove” his position by simply arbitrarily assuming it.
C) A rational person has a reason for what they believe.
2) The consistent Christian has a good reason (I would argue that they have the only
reason) to believe in the preconditions of intelligibility.
A) They are consistent with Biblical creation
B) The Biblical world view provides a basis for those things that we take for
granted.
C) No other world view can account for these.
3) Psalm 111:10
A) It is in the knowledge of God that we can begin to understand the reality of
this universe.
B)This is the starting point in knowledge
C) Without the correct starting point it becomes impossible to actually know
anything.
D) We have no reason to rely upon our assumptions, they could be wrong.
4) Yet evolutionists believe that they do know things about the universe.
A) This is true, it is irrational to say that they do not
B) What they fail to realize is that in order for them to know things about
the universe and reality, God must necessarily exist and His word must
necessarily be the truth.
C) If these two conditions were not so, we would then and only then actually
not know anything about the reality of the universe.
5) There are many other examples that we could cover, dignity of mankind, freedom,
concept of beauty, etc... these will suffice to show the only rational world view
is the Christian world view.
6) Next we will explore how to use these in rational dialogue with others
No comments:
Post a Comment