If evolution is wrong then it is of no surprise that following evolution to its logical consequences gets us some very strange and highly illogical ideas. To cover them all would take far too much time so I’m going to focus in on the three that pull the rug from evolutionist thinking.
If evolution is true evolution can’t be true
I know, crazy title, let me explain…
According to evolution humans are merely survival machines. As Dawkins puts it: “sophisticated robots built by our genes to perpetuate them” This means that evolutionary speaking it is not whether something is true or not that matters it is whether it helps us survive. All thinking is geared towards survival.
Therefore, since evolution is a product of the human mind it is not true but only useful for survival. Having ruled out any possibility of objective truth evolution rules out the possibility that it can be objectively true.
If we are just ‘gene machines’ on what grounds can we trust our logic? If we’re products of random genetic mutation, creatures of chance, the offspring of fate, then on what grounds can we trust that our rationality is actually rational?
Evolution is self defeating, if it is true, it cannot be true for there is no such thing as objective truth only ideas useful for survival. And that is the equivalent of saying that my brother is an only child. There’s a gaping logical hole right in the centre of evolution.
If religion is just a coping mechanism what does that make evolution?
This is connected in with the above point. Many evolutionists would argue that religion was invented by the human mind in order to cope with the universe we live in. Somehow religious ideas made people better able to survive (side point: people with a religious faith live longer, heal faster and are happier than people without.) As such religion isn’t true but is a useful idea for survival.
Fine, I say, but what does that make evolution itself? If all ideas are a product of evolution to help us survive then so is evolution! If religion can’t be said to be objectively true then neither can evolution. The fact that ‘science’ proves evolution is neither here nor there for science is a tool our minds use. So if our minds are faulty enough to produce the lies of religion then who’s to say that evolution is any better?
To dismiss religion and support evolutionist is gross hypocrisy.
Rebelling against survival
Evolution is all about survival – if it’s useful for survival it works! Yet as Dawkins writes: “We have the power to defy the selfish genes of our birth…We, alone on earth, can rebel against the tyranny of the selfish replicators.”
Am I alone is saying: “Whattttttt hhuhhhhhh?” (ok, that’s a yes then). Let’s work this out – where does Dawkins say this power comes from? Er, he doesn’t. How does a machine rise against its creator? How would this power even be useful for survival?
Dawkins knows we make genuine choices. He knows that people are capable of selfless acts, compassion and the ilk. But there is nothing within evolution to explain why we can make such choices. In a wonderful irony Dawkins makes a leap of faith from ‘gene machine’ to ‘rebel against self’. And Dawkins is hardly alone in this blind leap of faith – every evolutionist admits both to being a selfish survival machine and at the same time capable of making autonomous choices. This leads onto the next point…
Evolution simply does not fit the facts of life
Over the years there have been many attempts to make the facts of life fit evolution. There was one theory that tried to assert that we devolved a sense of humour as a result of laughing when we fall over to show we aren’t harmed. When I read that I indulged myself in a laughing heartily at the sheer lunacy of it all.
(Genuine question here to evolutionists: how did we evolve a sense of humour? Even Wikipedia doesn’t know)
Human nature resolutely refuses to fit the logical consequences of Darwinism. Morality, beauty, dignity, worth all these concepts are part of our day to day human experience. Yet according to evolution they’re nothing more than false constructs created to help us, somehow, to survive. Everyday people make choices beyond their genes; everyday people mimic the God in whose image they were created.
Because of this evolutionists never life with the logical consequences of their beliefs
I am a Christian, I therefore accept the logical consequences of that in all my thinking (or I try to at least). To do otherwise would be illogical. Yet evolutionists do this all the time because the logical consequences of their ‘religion’ are so illogical that you couldn’t ever put up with them.
Take for example the issue of rape, sorry, I mean: “a natural, biological phenomenon that is a product of the human evolutionary heritage.” In layman’s terms rape maximises reproductive success. Hand up who agrees with that statement? Well, if you believe in evolution and didn’t put your hand you need to work on your logic. For if evolution is true “every feature of a living thing, including human beings, has an underlying evolutionary background”
The logical consequences of evolution is that morality is crap, anything goes as long as it helps you survive and if you don’t accept that conclusion you’re not accepting the logical outworking of a Darwinist world view.
Evolutionists love to accuse Christians of being irrational with their heads in the clouds. To this I say: I’m irrational? My firm belief in morality, dignity, the worth of every single human, equality of race, beauty, absolute truth, rape being wrong, the existence of rational thought, the existence of logic and the existence of my sense of humour all stem from a single logical source: the existence of a rational, all powerful, holy God who made us in his own image.
"Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground." So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."
Genesis 1 v 26 - 28
It is not me making a blind leap of faith from gene machine to somehow having independent, moral and rational thought. It is not my worldview that declares itself to be untrue by logically disproving the notion of objective truth. It is not my religion which following an entirely logical train of thought supports bestiality as ‘sex across the species barrier’ – after all if we’re all animal why the trouble?
I can live with the logical consequences of Christianity. Can you live with the logical consequences of evolution?