|
Let us discern for ourselves
what is right;
let us learn together
what is good.
— Job 34.4
The heart of the discerning
acquires knowledge;
the ears of the wise
seek it out.
— Proverbs 18.15
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why Can't God Be An Evolutionist?
|
It is said that evolution implies atheism. "If evolution is a fact, then
God does not exist." As will become apparent, though, evolution does NOT
imply atheism. The idea that it does is a misconception.
If evolution implies that God does not exist, then believers in God
could not reasonably accept evolution, and those who accept the
extensive evidence
for evolution cannot rationally believe in God. Of
course, this idea automatically serves to prejudice theists against
consideration of evolution and evolutionists against consideration of
theism. Indeed, we see this prejudicial form of discussion practiced
frequently and intentionally by many creationists. Christians who are
already prejudiced against evolution heartily concur with the opinion
that evolution implies atheism while attempting to persuade other
Christians to reject evolution for the reason that their acceptance of
evolution would logically require them to reject God.
But let's properly analyze this claim of evolution's implied atheism.
If a Christian accepts the contention that evolution implies atheism,
then she or he will probably never be willing to give fair consideration
to the idea of evolution, either in terms of genuinely understanding the
relevant concepts or in terms of genuinely examining the empirical
information on which it is based. Those who truly believe that evolution
is a "tool of Satan"
|
"Evolution implies atheism" is based on a theological misconception.
|
|
to deceive true believers into unbelief will never
ponder the possibility that evolution might be the true state of the
world -- and will have thus rendered impotent the responsibility to be
intellectually honest.
But evolution does not imply atheism (evolution and God's existence are
not disjunctive), and those who make such an assertion reveal a crude
conception of the nature of existence as it pertains to the relationship
between God and our universe. Furthermore, it is this unsophisticated
theological conception that has strongly contributed to the historical
antagonism between religion and science. Indeed, the antipathy that
exists today among conservative religious people toward the methods of
scientific inquiry may have its very basis in this primitive theology.
And, because of prejudices like this, there is a prevalent view among
conservative Christians that science is an enemy of religion. However, a
view's prevalence is not what determines its validity.
Evolution's purported atheism can be stated simply: "If there is no God,
then our universe (and everything in it including life) has developed
due entirely to natural causes. Evolution is the development of life by
natural relationships. With evolution the events of earth's organisms do
not need to include supernatural activity. Hence, God does not exist."
Let's look at this presentation in another context: "The orbit of the
earth around the sun is due to natural processes. Thus, the earth's
orbit does not involve supernatural activity and does not require
supernatural activity. Hence, God does not exist." Or how about this
one: "The decay of radioactive elements proceeds according to the
natural, physical properties of the makup of matter. Since radiation
does not involve the intervention of divine power, God does not exist."
You may have received a forceful impression from the latter two examples
that the earth's orbit being a result of gravitational mechanisms, or
radiation being a result of subatomic interactions, has nothing to do
|
Natural processes are non-theistic, not atheistic.
|
|
with whether or not God exits and that the whole syllogism is a non
sequitur. This impression is absolutely correct! Moreover, it
demonstrates that the former presentation is also a non sequitur, for
the two are logically equivalent.
The reason for this is that categorizing something as a "natural
process," no matter what it is, does not mean that it then becomes a
tool used in the workshop of atheism as evidence that God doesn't exist.
Indeed, it does not even address the question.
Where would this leave mathematics, for example? Do we say that
7 × 3 = 21 because God exists? Do we say that the
trigonometric tangent of a 45° angle is 1 if and only if God does
not exist? Rain has natural causes and natural effects; does the
existence of rain therefore prove or disprove the existence of God? If
its nature as a natural process was relevant to the religious
discussion, then meteorology alone would make the case for atheism.
When looked at in this way, these questions appear absurd. Instead of
being "theistic" or "atheistic," it is more proper, I think, to say
"nontheistic." In other words, what about ideas that make no reference
to whether or not God exists? You can never say of nontheistic concepts
that they are true if and only if God exists or if and only if God does
not exist. Nontheistic ideas are independent of consideration of God's
existence. Evolution — like the theory of relativity, Goldbach's
conjecture, and the size of Proxima Centauri — is not atheistic, nor is
it theistic. Evolution is nontheistic.
Evolution does not imply atheism — accepting the idea of evolution does
not imply that one must be without belief in God. Evolution is, however,
nontheistic — it is a description of events and processes that is
without reference to God. Evolution, like astronomy and chemistry, for
example, is an area of scientific inquiry that is, and must be,
performed without reference to supernatural activity.
So when you hear someone say that evolution is atheism, it is important
to determine what that person is trying to say. Is she or he claiming
that evolutionists must, in order to be consistent, reject belief in
God? If so, then the speaker must be asked to justify her or his
statement, and careful attention must be paid to the justification she
or he provides, for it will invariably contain flaws like those
mentioned here.
Finally, we just have to ask this question of those who try to form such
an obviously prejudicial disjunction as this in the minds of those they
would try to persuade in this way: Is it impossible for evolution to be
a process "put in motion" by God, in the same manner as all
other natural processes that is the purpose of our scientific inquiry
to investigate? Why are you trying to limit the power and ingenuity of
God with your own human prejudices?
|
|