The course of evolution is only the summation of fortuitous contingencies, not a pathway with predictable directions. [1]

Stephen Jay Gould – Dinosaur in a Haystack

 

THE FALLACIES OF EVOLUTIONARY PHILOSOPHY

 

James M. Percarpio

 

Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is unquestionably the most controversial theory to have come from the field of science. This theory has not only been hotly debated in college lecture halls but in the courtrooms as well, and consequently has caused a heated division between materialistic scientists and Christians. [2] As with all controversies, especially those between science and faith, it is important to understand the underlying reasons and motivations driving them. My goal in this essay will be to reveal some of the presuppositions behind modern evolutionary theory and to demonstrate the self-destructive nature of naturalism as a philosophy.

 

What Does The Theory of Evolution Mean?

The idea of biological evolution has been around for quite some time (actually the idea can be traced back to the ancient Greeks), but it was not formally stated as a theory until Charles Darwin published his landmark book, The Origin of Species, in 1859. In his theory, Darwin proposed that all species of plants and animals were not immutable, as some Christians at that time believed, but had arisen through descent with modification from previously existing species. For Darwin the theory of evolution was an attempt to provide a scientific explanation on how the many species of life he observed during his travels had developed over the course of time. One of the misconceptions in this debate is that Darwin, by proposing this theory, was trying to advance atheistic philosophy, but that does not appear to be the case as indicated by how he closes his book:

 

There is a grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved. [3]

 

Although I don’t believe that it was Darwin’s intent to do away with God with his theory of evolution, many of those who opposed a teleological view of nature seized upon his theory to do just that. For the atheist this theory became the primary weapon used against theistic appeals to design in nature. [4] In the years that followed, the theory of evolution has essentially “evolved” into the belief that all life is simply the result of blind, purposeless accidents directed solely by “nature.”

 

The Motivation behind Evolutionary Philosophy

The theory of evolution does not necessarily have to imply atheism, and actually there are Christians who would even classify themselves as theistic evolutionists. [5] Much of the atheistic rhetoric found in evolutionary thought is due in large part to the fact that a majority of scientists (about 60%) and in particularly evolutionary biologists (over 90%) are atheists. [6] Therefore it should come as no surprise that the anti-theistic conclusions evolutionists develop about the evolution of life support their atheistic philosophy. For atheists the theory of evolution is the only means by which they can give an explanation of how life developed without having to invoke an intelligent designer who created life for a purpose. Phillip Johnson has summarized the naturalists’ position quite well:

 

The more important priority is to maintain the naturalistic worldview and with it the prestige of “science” as the source of all important knowledge. Without Darwinism, scientific naturalism would have no creation story. [7]

 

      Evolutionists believe that their position is true because “science” says so. They believe that science is an unbiased and purely a rational endeavor, which only deals with facts. For example, statements such as “In science, nothing is taken on faith, while in religion, faith is at the heart of belief” [8] are not uncommon. The problem here is that many advocates of naturalism fail to consider the philosophical nature of the issues they are raising. Being a scientific theory, evolution consequently carries all the presuppositions in which science, as a philosophy, must assume in order to progress. This would include such things as the uniformity of nature, the existence of the external world, laws of logic, mathematics, the reliability of the mind and so on. [9] Presuppositions such as these cannot be proven by the scientific method but are accepted a priori for science to be possible. In other words, science itself can not progress unless it adopts a position of “faith” in certain key areas that it cannot verify.

      Albert Einstein’s once said, “The only incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible.” If naturalism is true why believe that our minds are capable of ascertaining “universal truths”? You see all scientific theories are dependent upon our ability to reason, but that leaves us with an interesting conundrum. If the only way to prove something is by reasoning then how can we prove that we are actually reasoning? To try and prove our ability to reason by reasoning would be arguing in a circle. For the naturalist who prides himself as a thinker whom reasons to discover truth, ultimately has no justification for his faith in rational inquiry.

 

The Problems with Naturalistic Philosophy

The most influential presupposition driving evolutionary theory is the concept known as naturalism. Naturalism is the belief that everything we see around us, whether it is the stars in the sky or the “miracle” of birth, is the result of blind, purposeless naturalistic processes. [10] Naturalism rules out a priori such things as miracles, or the possibility that God would intervene in nature. Although naturalism may not be explicitly atheistic, atheism is definitely implied. But the appeal to “natural processes” does not come without a price; there are two significant problems, which are philosophically inescapable for the naturalist.

      The first of these problems pertains to the question of reason itself. If the universe is not the product of intelligent design or say “endowed” with intelligence, [11] and consequently, does not contain an a priori foundation for intelligent reasoning, why believe that we are capable of such a thing ourselves? In other words, why believe that a universe, which has no reason and does not reason, has an insignificant part of it that can reason? The Christian thinker, C. S. Lewis, has skillfully articulated this very situation by putting forth a case that reasoning has a transcendental necessity to it.

      What he does is first demonstrate the fallacies in naturalism as a philosophy, and then from this he moves to the logical conclusion that reasoning must therefore have a “supernatural” quality to it. Consider the following argument he lays out:

 

All possible knowledge…depends on the validity of reasoning. If the feeling of certainty which we express by words like must be and therefore and since is a real perception of how things outside our minds really “must” be, well and good. But if this certainty is merely a feeling in our own minds and not a genuine insight into realities beyond them…then we can have no knowledge. Unless human reasoning is valid no science can be true.

…A theory which explained everything else in the whole universe but which made it impossible to believe that our thinking was valid, would be utterly out of court. For that theory would itself have been reached by thinking, and if thinking is not valid that theory would…be itself demolished…. It would be an argument which proved that no argument was sound…

…Naturalism…discredits our process of reasoning or at least reduces their credit to such a humble level that it can no longer support Naturalism itself. [12]

 

This sort of “cause & effect” naturalistic philosophy clearly has a destructive effect, if you will, on all truth claims. As Lewis puts it:

 

The implication is that if causes fully account for a belief, then, since causes work inevitably, the belief would have to arise whether it had grounds or not. [13]

 

Hence, naturalism and along with it evolutionary philosophy, is self-destructive in that it destroys all truth claims. Therefore if “truth” is indeed something real and not some sort of illusion or figment of our imagination then the necessary conclusion is that “something beyond Nature operates whenever we reason.” [14]

      The second problem with any appeal to terms such as, “nature” or “natural order” or “natural laws” as an explanation for anything is simply question begging. The term’s “law” and “order” imply purposeful intent. So the question to the naturalist is simply, “Why is there natural law?” or “Why is the universe ordered?” Dallas Willard adamantly stresses this particular point:

 

Evolution, whether cosmic or biological, cannot – logically cannot – be a theory of ultimate origins of existence or order, precisely because its operation presupposes the existence of certain entities with specific potential behaviors and an environment of some specific kind that operates upon those entities is some specifically ordered fashion. [15]

 

The problem for the naturalist is that there is no a priori reason for the order we observe in nature or for our ability to reason. Only the theistic worldview provides us the a priori transcendental foundation necessary for both the order that is observed and for the reasoning faculties which are observing it.

 

The Question of Purpose or Intent

As already noted, if naturalism is true then we have no reason to believe its true, and hence little or no reason to believe any argument put forth by the naturalist. Although that is the case, I do believe it is still worthwhile to take a closer look at one of the primary arguments often presented by evolutionists to see if it can hold up to philosophical scrutiny, and that is now where this inquiry will turn.

      Evolutionists often try to defend their philosophy by arguing that the evidence supports their position. One of the favorite arguments employed by evolutionists is that evolution does not display any evidence of purpose, intent or progress. Stephen J. Gould, who is one of the foremost metaphysicians of science and a staunch antitheist, often loves to state in his books this opinion of cosmic purpose:

 

Humans are not the end result of predictable evolutionary progress, but rather a fortuitous cosmic afterthought, a tiny little twig on the enormously arborescent bush of life, which, if replanted from seed, would almost surely not grow this twig again, or perhaps any twig with any property that we would care to call consciousness. [16]

 

This type of rhetoric is very common amongst evolutionists, and one of the big misconceptions about such a view is that they believe it is scientific. As you can see these statements purport to have “absolute” knowledge on the questions pertaining to the purpose or meaning of life. Views like these are not scientific in nature, but instead reflect the a priori philosophical position of a non-theistic worldview. And there are two points I will make pertaining to this type of assertion.

      The first point I wish to make here deals with the question of evolutionary progress. The evolutionists are adamant in stating that the evolution of life was not and is not progressing toward any ultimate goal. But think about this, if “evolution” is not progressing toward any goal, and if we define evolution as “that which happens to all life,” then is “science” progressing toward any goal? Universal statements must apply to everything in the universe! If the evolution of life is not progressing towards any goal, then is the evolution of the theory of evolution progressing towards any goal? If there is no such thing as evolutionary progress, than is there any such thing as true scientific progress, which itself is part of human evolution? Maybe the whole theory just happened by chance and does not reflect any actual truth; perhaps it is just “a tale told by an idiot full of sound and fury signifying nothing”! [17]

      The second point I would like to make pertains to the universal-absolute quality of Gould’s assertion, which really can be summed up in one simple question. How does Stephen J. Gould, as the finite single individual, existing at a finite moment in time, know that humans are not the end result of evolutionary progress?

           

Hypocrites

My final point in this inquiry is to expose that even “purely rational” scientists are indeed very human and are subject to the same biases they accuse of “religious” people. This is very evident in the hypocrisy one finds when reading how evolutionists describe the world in a theistic view vs. a naturalistic view. Here is how the evolutionist views nature when considering it the work of God:

 

If we find the natural world to be full of useless features, inadequate design, shoddy workmanship, and harshness or cruelty, we must either conclude that the personal Creator envisioned by creationists is cruel, thoughtless, and incompetent, or else conclude the He is indeed omnipotent, omniscient, and loving, but also capricious and arbitrary. [18]

 

Such rhetoric is a very common  reaction by evolutionists whenever creationists appeal to nature for evidence of God’s handiwork. But if there is one thing that stands out more starkly than anything else is how different the evolutionists describe nature and the process of evolution when God is removed. Consider the following statements from three different evolutionists:

 

Like Darwin, we stand in awe at the wonderful creativity of nature, with an understanding of its laws enhancing its beauty for us, not diminishing it. [19]

 

These scientists, unfortunately, forget the extreme power of selection by the environment. [20]

 

I am here to do no less than to glorify the human spirit, and to enhance your joy at being a part of this astonishing, amazing, enthralling, and delightful world. [21]

 

I must say that I find it utterly fascinating how the evolutionists can find beauty, power, creativity, and ironically enough reverence for nature, when God is removed from the picture. [22] It seems to me that the many “high priests” of naturalism feels it inextricably necessary to offer hope, value and meaning to the “ignorant” masses they wish to proselytize.

 

Conclusion

In summary, I think the one thing abundantly clear is that evolution as a philosophy is ultimately self-defeating. Recall the opening quote of Stephen Jay Gould, “The course of evolution is only the summation of fortuitous contingencies, not a pathway with predictable directions.” So you see, out of one side of his mouth the naturalist believes that he can remove himself from “nature” (i.e., transcend nature) thereby justifying the ability to study and critique it, but then out of the other side of his mouth he says that we are all simply accidental and meaningless by products of it. This is something we simply cannot do, as G. K. Chesterton points out:

 

Evolution is either an innocent scientific description of how certain earthly things came about…if it is anything more than this, it is an attack upon thought itself….If evolution simply means that a positive thing called an ape turned very slowly into a positive thing called a man, then it is stingless for the most orthodox….But if it means anything more, it means there is no such thing as ape to change, and no such thing as a man for him to change into. It means there is no such thing as a thing. At best, there is only one thing, and that is a flux of everything and anything. This is an attack not upon faith, but upon the mind; you cannot think if there are no things to think about. You cannot think if you are not separate from the subject of thought. [23]

 

Under the confines of naturalistic philosophy I believe Dr. Gould’s statement can also be stated as follows: “The thoughts of evolutionists are only the summation of fortuitous contingencies, not a pathway with predictable directions.”

 

 

 

 

END NOTES