6 February 2005
It seems self evident that if everything came from God or Nothing, it must have come from God. God or Nothing leaves only one real choice—God.
It would seem that if God has no competitor, but Nothing, he has nothing for competitor. "God or Nothing" and "only God" are synonymous expressions.
From the mind of Jonathan Edwards
A 1996 New York Times editorial states that “this whole issue might make for an amusing academic debate were it not for the potentially grave consequences for society at large. If we are unwilling unilaterally to brand scientific nonsense as just that, regardless of the sensibilities might be offended—religious or otherwise—then the whole notion of truth itself becomes blurred…. Our democratic society is imperiled as much by this as any other single threat…”
I agree! This is an important issue that we as a church must take proactive steps in combating! The only problem with the quote above is that the great threat to society is a belief that God created the cosmos.
G. K.. Chesterton observed in 1908, in his book Orthodoxy that “The Christian is quite free to believe that there is a considerable amount of settled order and inevitable development in the universe. But the materialist is not allowed to admit into his spotless machine the slightest speck of spiritualism or miracle.”
I can tell you from experience that this is an important session. If you grasp the message of this session you'll be much more effective in your witness and you'll save yourself a lot of needless frustration.
This series of lessons is about the intelligent design movement. What is Intelligent Design (ID)? According to William Dembski, “ID is a biological theory that holds that a designing influence is required to account for the complex information-rich structures in living systems." These lessons are also about the “big tent” of the intelligent design movement; while we all have our disagreements; we are all united in of what we are opposing.
What is our main target? Is the main target the chemical origin of life? It's not biblical; it is not supported by the evidence. Yes, origin of life must be the target. In fact, the lack of evidence of the chemical origin of life and the incredible complexity of the simplest living things played a major role in converting Anthony Flew. However there is a bigger target.
Is it Darwinian evolution? Darwinian evolution is not biblical either; it is not supported by evidence. Yes, that must be the target but Darwinian evolution is not the main target we need to focus on. In intelligent design there is a bigger target.
What is this bigger target? In the words of Phillip Johnson it is “metaphysical naturalism” or “materialism” or just plain old “naturalism”; it is the idea that nature is all there is. Modern science today is totally based on naturalism. In all of intelligent design's arguments against both Darwinian evolution, and the chemical origin of life, it is their naturalistic base that is the ultimate target. The important aspect of Darwinian evolution is its naturalistic claim that all life is a result of purposeless, unintelligent, material causes.
Darwinian evolution and ID stand in a complete antithesis; ID requires a designing influence to account for all the complexity of life, whereas the Darwinian Theory common descent claims that life spontaneously arose all by itself.
And why is intelligent design considered a “big tent”? It is because anyone opposed to naturalism is welcomed into the movement. All of us, progressive creationists, recent creationists, old earthers, and young earthers are welcomed in this tent. Intelligent design here at Grace Bible Church is a smaller tent than the intelligent design movement itself. We are all biblical literalists and believe the Bible to be inerrant. It is good to remember that the intelligent design movement is a bigger tent. There is no reason to attack one another over our disagreements, though we should rigorously examine our Bible, and see how our views fit the Scriptures and how coherent a creation story they tell. Remember, naturalism is the main target.
Also, it is crucial for us to realize that the naturalist is constantly filtering what we say through a naturalistic grid. They totally misread what we have to say. We can assert empirical evidence but all they hear is us expressing is subjective bias. We say there is scientific evidence for design, they think "there goes the religious right on another power grab."
Even when we marshal all the great facts and all the evidence and we go into a debate, it never goes anywhere. I know this for a fact as I have experienced it. As a member of the Texas State Board of Education we adopted biology books in November 2003. After hearing hundreds of people testify I can assure you that the naturalistic side did not hear one single word we said or was moved by one single line of evidence by the intelligent designers; it was utterly amazing. This is what you call a classic case of a clash of world views.
Check out the latest Time magazine and the article "Stealth Attack on Evolution." The naturalistic bias of the magazine is in plain view. Legitimate empirical scientific evidence and arguments are quickly dismissed as a secret, subversive attempt to force religion into science.
But what is this naturalism? It is the idea that nature is all there is. Philosopher William Halverson states “Naturalism asserts, first of all, that the primary constituents of reality are material entities. By this I do not mean that only material entities exist; I'm not denying the reality the real existence—of such things as hopes, plans, behavior, language, logical inferences, and so on. What I am asserting, however, is that anything that is real is, in the last analysis, explicable as a material entity or as a form or function or action of a material entity.” Theism says “in the beginning God” naturalism says “in the beginning matter.”
Last week, Jaime showed that Christianity that gave birth to modern science. At that time, most scientists were theists. There were very few atheists because, how could you be an intellectual without a story or narrative of how the world came to be the way it is. After 1859 Charles Darwin provided a plausible mechanism for a totally naturalistic creation story. Darwin's theory, to quote the words of contemporary evolutionist Richard Dawkins, “made it possible to become an intellectually fulfilled atheist.” The Darwin creation story marks the triumph of naturalism and the arrival of naturalism as the dominant philosophic base of science. It is now not only OK to be an atheist, but it is awkward to be a theist. The creator is not only superfluous but the creator is unemployed. Darwin's theory made it impossible to have any meaningful theism.
Naturalism and Darwinism are mutually dependent. Naturalism needs Darwinism’s creation story and Darwinism needs naturalism's philosophy. A key point to remember is that Darwinism collapses if naturalism is demonstrated to be false!
The option of theistic evolution is a very poor option, because Darwinism doesn't allow God to do anything. Consider natural selection of random mutations: if there are random mutations, they can't be God directed, and if they are naturally selected, you can't have them God selected. No one in our group represents theistic evolution. The “big tent” of ID does not include theistic evolutionists because ID is opposed to evolution; theistic evolutionists embrace it.
Naturalism dominates our culture. Francis Schaefer, in his 1968 classic, The God Who is There, describes the impact of the Naturalistic worldview. "It is like suffocating in a particularly bad London fog. And just as fog cannot be kept out by walls or doors, so this consensus comes in around us, till the rim we live in is no longer distinct, and yet we hardly realize what has happened..." Back in 1923 J. Gresham Machen stated that "the great redemptive religion, which has always been known as Christianity is battling against a totally diverse type of religious belief… and the root of the movement is … naturalism.”(Liberalism and Christianity p. )Therefore the engagement with naturalism will also be a great opportunity for other Christian apologetics.
But Naturalism has enslaved our society’s mind! David Kupelian in World Net Daily makes an interesting comparison; he observes that Naturalism/evolution is very much like the movie The Matrix.
“Remember in the "Matrix" story when the hero, a young man named Neo, meets Morpheus for the first time? Morpheus is the leader of the tiny remnant of rebels who know the truth about the matrix and are fighting to free mankind from its enslavers ...
Morpheus: Let me tell you why you're here. You're here because you know something. What you know, you can't explain. But you feel it. You felt it your entire life. That there's something wrong with the world. You don't know what it is, but it's there. Like a splinter in your mind – driving you mad. It is this feeling that has brought you to me. Do you know what I'm talking about?
Neo: The matrix?
Morpheus: Do you want to know what it is? (Neo nods his head.) The matrix is everywhere, it is all around us. Even now, in this very room. You can see it when you look out your window, or when you turn on your television. You can feel it when you go to work, or when you go to church or when you pay your taxes. It is the world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth.
Neo: What truth?
Morpheus: That you are a slave, Neo. Like everyone else, you were born into bondage, born inside a prison that you cannot smell, taste, or touch. A prison for your mind. (long pause, sighs)
'A prison for your mind'
Everyone has heard a little bit about mass manipulation, mind control, …
Nevertheless, we're never quite sure how much of this mind-control stuff is objectively real, and how much is just psychobabble or science fiction. Right?
Let me help you out here. It's not only real – it's the fabric of our lives.
To demonstrate the real-life matrix programming we consider … one of the most stunning and audacious real-life matrix programs currently running. I'm referring to what we call "evolution."
In the days prior to the evolution matrix program – that is, from the beginning of human life until Darwin came along in the mid-19th century – human beings would step outside their homes and survey with their eyes and minds the wonders of nature. They'd see majestic 400-year-old redwood trees, hummingbirds that were able to hover, and honeybees that somehow knew how to do a special figure-eight dance …
Looking in every direction, we humans beheld not only fantastic complexity, diversity and order, but also the supreme intelligence behind creation, as brashly evident as the noonday sun.
This ubiquitous natural wonderland caused man to acknowledge and honor the Creator of creation, …. Isaac Newton: "When I look at the solar system, I see the earth at the right distance from the sun to receive the proper amounts of heat and light. This did not happen by chance."
Did not happen by chance?
Ever since Darwin and his successors succeeded in loading the evolution matrix program on mankind – a fantastic theory for which there is no proof, and many serious problems – when we now walk outside and look at the created universe, what do many of us see? Chance!
Although our eyes survey the same wonders of God's creation that inspired faith in our predecessors, in our minds today we see only the meaningless result of millions of years of random, chance mutation. That's what our minds "see" – the eternal dance of purposeless recombination of ever-more-complex forms, but all without meaning, without spirit, without love. And by direct implication we also "see" that man is not a fallen being needful of God's saving grace, but merely the cleverest, most evolved animal of all. Since evolution by definition always results in improvement and advancement, man and all of his violent and lustful and selfish drives are perfectly normal and natural and … advanced. There is no good and evil, no Heaven and Hell – and man, as a highly evolved monkey, has no sin and no guilt – as these are logical impossibilities from the evolutionary point of view. “
I believe Mr. Kupelian makes a very valid comparison. In the analogy of evolution as the Matrix, the scriptures give us the Truth.
Psalm 100:1-3 is very relevant to this discussion:
Make a joyful noise unto the Lord, all you lands
Serve the Lord with gladness,
Come before his presence was singing,
Know ye that the LORD he is God:
It is he that hath made us, and not we ourselves;
We are his people, and the sheep of his pasture.
(Notice, that this Psalm is address to “all you lands”, i.e. all the nations, i.e. all people. This Psalm is not addressed solely to Israel. I don't believe there's a more emphatic, concise statement in the Scriptures than this that refutes the idea of evolution—“and not we ourselves”; and it is written to all people. And what is their response to be? It is to "Know ye that the LORD he is God”.)
Also, in Job 38-41 we have an entire speech by God himself, where he articulates the Truth that Naturalism is false and he created all things.
Very shortly, we will all be entering back into this Matrix-type world. As soon as you go home, or you go to your dorm, or turn on your TV, or watch the Super Bowl, you'll be entering back into the world where naturalism has blinded "all ye lands" from the truth. You'll be back in a world where people don't care about "the LORD he is God". To effectively get this truth out to a world that has been blinded from the truth, we must prepare ourselves and train our minds. How can we do this? How can we, as Christians, train our minds?
(A Trained Mind)
And for a very brief rabbit trail excursion, I have a little nugget out of like to share with you from a great Old Testament scholar Dr. Bruce Waltke. He tells us that we have a book—the book of Proverbs—that has been given us to train our minds. Proverbs 1:2 is a summary statement for the book. “To know wisdom and instruction; to perceive the words of understanding;” “To know wisdom and instruction” shows us how to live our lives had a have moral wisdom, but “To perceive the words of understanding” means to train your mind, to develop you to think. This is the book of the Bible to develop your mental skills. That is why they are put into maxims, they are very symbolic; you have to wrestle with them; they are very challenging to a mental discipline; they are to develop a way of thinking and to develop your mind to think clearly; that is "to perceive the words of understanding."
I believe a well-trained mind, a well disciplined mind is the first step we must take as we confront naturalism. Philip Johnson sees the great hope of the future of the intelligent design movement to be with talented young people that will be able to rise to the intellectual level it takes to take on the future talented naturalists that will be on the scene. Johnson's states:
"To get the intellectual world discussing a new and possibly unwelcome question, it is not enough just to write a book or make an argument. We have to inspire a lot of people to start doing intellectual work based on the right questions, work of such high quality and persuasive force that the world cannot avoid discussing it. These thinkers have to produce books and articles that explore in detail what happens when you call materialism into question rather than take it for granted. As the discussion proceeds, the intellectual world will become gradually accustomed to treating materialism and naturalism as subjects to be analyzed and debated, rather than as tacit foundational assumptions that can never be criticized for. Eventually, the answer to our prime question will become too obvious to be in doubt. When philosophy conflicts with the evidence, real scientists follow the evidence.” (Signs 37-38)
I would now like to focus on the reason why we live in a matrix type world, a world that has been blinded from the truth. Why are so many intelligent people blinded to the idea of the creator? Part of the answer has to do with the power of the deductive argument. Valid deductive arguments must be true. The syllogism upon which Darwinism is built is as follows:
Nature is all there is.
Life exists.
Therefore, natural processes brought forth life.
No matter what the evidence shows, no matter what arguments you present, no matter how weak, their arguments are and evidences are, Darwinism must be true. There has to be an explanation somewhere, we just haven't found it yet. So where's the fallacy in their argument? It's in the initial premise that "nature is all there is".
No arguments on behalf of intelligent design can possibly succeed against naturalism on naturalism's own terms. Let me repeat, no argument can possibly succeed against naturalism on naturalism's own terms.
The only proper way to address the naturalist is to begin challenging the elements of their naturalism. This has been the goal of the intelligent design movement. Phillip Johnson describes the public debut of the intelligent design movement (By the way, this is not to assert that creationists have never articulated the intelligent design arguments—they have for years.) at a conference held in March 1992 at Southern Methodist University. It was here that he, Michael Behe, Stephen Meyer, and William Dembski debated with Michael Ruse and other influential Darwinists, the proposition that neo-Darwinism depended on a priori commitment to naturalism. Johnson believes that in the long run discussions of this sort would be fatal for Darwinism. He states, "Once it becomes clear that Darwinism rest on the dogmatic philosophy, rather than on the weight of the evidence, the way will be open for dissenting opinions to get a fair hearing. In a nutshell, that is the strategy." (Signs, p.36)
According to Johnson,” the first thing that has to be done is to get the Bible out of the discussion.” (Signs, p.36) Remember, even if you don't bring the Bible into discussion, the naturalist has already put it in the discussion. Again, Johnson:
“It is vital not to give any encouragement to this prejudice, and to keep the discussion strictly on the scientific evidence, and the philosophical assumptions. This is not to say that the biblical issues are unimportant; the point is rather that the time to address them will be after we have separated materialistic prejudice from scientific fact.” (Signs, 36)
In the 2003 biology book adoption, this principle was strictly followed. In fact, not only was religion carefully avoided, ID itself was never brought into the discussion—by our side. The other side, however, railed against religion; they brought in liberal pastors and theologians; and they especially railed against ID. All we did was present, empirical scientific evidence that opposed evolution. We did not argue the materialistic naturalistic base of Darwinism, and we got run over! A question for you to ponder is: "How could the materialistic, philosophical, naturalistic base dependency of Darwinism been brought into the discussion and used for our benefit?”
What about empirical evidence? Which side does it favor? I can guarantee you that the naturalists strongly assert that the evidence supports them. We strongly assert it supports us.
Now back to Johnson:
The question for now is not whether the vast claims of Darwinism evolution conflict with Genesis, but whether they conflict with the evidence of biology. To make this question visible, it is necessary to distinguish between the dictates of the materialist philosophy and the inferences that one might legitimately draw from the evidence in the absence of the materialist bias. So I put the simple question to the Darwinian establishment: What should we do if empirical evidence and materialist philosophy are going in different directions? ..... Should we follow the evidence or the philosophy?” (Signs, 36)
Therefore, we must know our subject. Facts and evidence are crucial. After reading some Richard Dawkins last week, I was struck by his insistence that evolution is a fact because of all the empirical evidence. (In fact, another question to ponder, as we proceed in this class is "Why do they hold on so strongly to evolution? What evidence to do they have that makes them so confidently dogmatic?”)
To be successful in the debate, you must know what evidence the evolutionists hold so dearly. In Dawkins mind, the greatest evil in the world is religious faith. He is so firmly established in his naturalistic beliefs that any argument that makes the case for the need for a designer must be arguing for faith, and in that case, must be evil. Note, he has given away the game by using the word “evil”. There can be no evil in a world where “nature is all there is”, where there is no righteous God.
In the next few weeks of this class, we will get more specific about facts and evidence. The intelligent design movement sees themselves as the true scientific empiricists. Philip Johnson uses the metaphor of a wedge splitting a huge log as the way to win this fight. Next week, the class will be about irreducible complexity—one of the key scientific wedge issues. And the man that is most closely associated with this argument will be on-campus the week after—Michael Behe. It should be worth our while to hear what he has to say.
Conclusion
In conclusion, we have a worldview clash. We need to chip away at the foundation of their worldview by first, demonstrating their dependence on a naturalistic philosophy and second, by demonstrating the weight of evidence that stands against Darwinism.
Remember, keep chipping away with objective empirical evidence, and keep pointing out their deductive reasoning depends on the premise “Nature is all there is.” Remind them that they may be wrong.
1. When engaged in a discussion with an evolutionist, or in the next skirmish in this war, how can you demonstrate their argument depends on a naturalist philosophical assumption, and then bring this assumption into the debate? Also, is this possible without bringing religion into discussion?
2. What evidences do the Darwinists have that make them so confident they are right?
3. Why has the biological community failed to convince the public that evolution can account for full diversity of life? That is, why have they failed to convince the public that naturalism is true?
4. How long before Darwinism enters the trash bin of history?
Let us remember a few points:
· We are not opposing unintelligent people. They are very smart, highly intellectual.
· They have been blinded from the truth.
· They do not claim Yahweh is God.
· They basically think they have made themselves.
· Be prepared; train your mind.
· Engaging naturalism does bring religion into the equation, but it can be a challenge to their religion!
· Their claims, their thoughts are dependent upon an assumption that may not be true. And, they do not allow for that possibility.
· Our claims, our thoughts are also dependent upon an assumption that may not be true. Are we willing to allow for that possibility?
The bottom line is "What fits the evidence?" As we proceed in this class. You'll be given evidence, and arguments, and finally a new paradigm with which to engage the world, to teach your friends and to teach your children.