Is it fact or is it belief?

It is widely known that Darwinian evangelist, Richard Dawkins says that evolution (on the macro level) is a fact. I’ve often wondered how he came to such a conclusion because I’ve never considered macroevolution to be a fact. I have always considered it merely a theory that claims life as we know it evolved from other life forms over millions of years. The reason I have never considered macroevolution a fact is because the theory lacks the necessary criteria that a fact requires in order to be a fact. I’ll explain.

It can be said that a fact is one of two things. It is either something that is evident to virtually everyone (the Grand Canyon is in Arizona) or it is something that is not evident to virtually everyone but can be proven scientifically. If we hold to a position that doesn’t fall into these two categories then it is a “belief” or an act of faith. (I owe this thought to Timothy Keller’s book Reason for God).

A scientific theory is accepted as “verified” if it organizes and explains evidence better than any other theory. And this is where Darwinists rest their case for the supposed fact of evolution. Even though it is merely a theory, evangelist Dawkins proclaims it as fact and thousands of his disciples follow his lead.

It is appropriate to ask why Darwinists believe that their theory better demonstrates any other explanation of life as we know it, including the highly plausible Intelligent Design science. The reason this occurs is because virtually everything a secular scientist observes must be explained by natural causes. He presupposes naturalism and automatically rules out other logical explanations. But notice here how the secular scientist quickly moves his science into the area of philosophy. When he asserts that “no supernatural cause for any natural phenomenon is possible,” how does he demonstrate his assertion scientifically? He cannot place his assertion in a test tube and show us that it is naturally true. Secular scientists simply cannot be consistent with their claims.

Most rational people would likely agree that macroevolution does not and never has fallen into the two “fact” categories. Macro evolution (fish turning into humans via the transitional forms) is not evident to anyone and it is not provable scientifically. It is a theory, and in my opinion a bad one. The very best evidence scientists use for evolution is shaky at best. I would need an entire post to show that to be the case. But for our purposes here, what do we make of those who think of evolution as a fact?

As I’ve very briefly shown, evolution should not seriously be taken as fact by anyone and I’ve shown in a concise way why this is the case. So with that said, we have to be able to articulate clearly that their evolutionary assertions are based in faith. They have formed a belief that evolution is true, but they can’t show that it’s actually true. We need to learn how to recognize language the Darwinists use and not be afraid to counter their assertions and do it with boldness and rationality.

Keep in mind that the Darwinist can claim that Christians do not have facts to back up our claims on the rise of human life. He would be partially correct. We cannot show all our claims on life to be true scientifically. Christians simply follow the evidence where it leads without any presuppositional naturalism to get in the way.

We have great evidence (historical, archeological, extra-biblical, etc.) for the reliability of the Bible. If we can demonstrate the reliability of the Bible then we have good reason to follow its teachings. It’s like believing the reliability of history books. No one says that George Washington was not the first president even though they were not there to witness it. We follow where the evidence leads. (If you want to know more about the reliability of the Bible, contact me. I can help).

Christians don’t often attempt to prove claims about God’s existence or His teachings on human life. Again, we follow where the very best evidence leads, and we think that the Bible coincides with the best scientific and natural revelation available to man. Because neither Darwinists nor Christians can make factual claims on the matter of origins, Christians simply seek to follow the most probable route. And in my opinion, the Biblical teachings on this matter are by far the most probable route.

The Bible states that we all have knowledge of God and the truth and that many will suppress it. The Bible and Christianity has the answers for all areas of life if we are not bigoted and closed-minded but if we open our minds and follow where the evidence leads.


Where do morals and human rights originate?

This is a quick blog, so let’s jump right into it!

No kind of human “rights” can be created. True rights are always discovered. Think about it: if rights are simply created by majorities in the populace or majorities in legislative bodies or high and mighty judges, then we are admitting that human rights are subjective.

On this view, what happens to those “rights” when someday they are legislated out of existence by a new majority? What one generation considers a “right,” another generation may consider illegal, and vice versa.

It’s ridiculous to believe this way. Why? Because humans abide by objective, moral human rights in our daily lives. We know it’s wrong to torture babies for fun. Babies have a right to live free from torture and everyone knows it. No one has to legislate the immorality of that kind of behavior. But if rights and morality are simply created, then it may be ok for some other cultures to torture babies. Even if some strange people group adopts a culture of torturing babies, is it still objectively wrong? Of course it is.

What if in Nazi Germany, the majority of Nazis desired the right to eliminate the Jews? (Which they did!) Did the will of the majority make their actions commendable? Of course not. That’s not a true human “right.” It’s a desire to do what you please. Likewise, no matter what a specific individual may think about killing Jews or torturing babies, it’s still objectively wrong. Every. Single. Time.

Rights and morality are not something that came about by natural forces. For instance, take members of the animal kingdom. Is it wrong for them to kill to survive? No, it’s not wrong. Animals are amoral beings that do not have the ability to submit to obligations of “rights” and “morals.” But why do humans not follow the same “natural” behaviors like animals do? Why do humans have a sense of morality, altruism, and justice? It’s because we are a higher being made by God, in his image. These obligations to morality and rights can only be explained fully through the teachings in the Christian Bible. They make no rational sense whatsoever based on a naturalistic worldview.

Rights and morality are based on something far greater than the cultural trends of our time. True rights are not arbitrarily created based on current, trendy volitions. True rights and morality do not conform to human desire because human desire is flimsy. Instead, humans should conform to the objective morals and rights we know to be solid and true.

It’s important to think about the origination of true rights and morality before we can understand how to respond to laws imposed on us against our will. Christians need to know how to formulate rational positions for their worldview. Going around telling people they’re going to Hell isn’t always the best way to reach people with the truth. But having a rational, coherent reason (given in love) for the hope that is in you can be very effective.