The Christian Perspective
The Bible is clear that human beings did not evolve from other kinds of creatures. The Bible states in Genesis 2:7 that "the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being."
The creation of man from dust is confirmed in numerous other places in scripture including Genesis 3:19, Job 34:15, Psalm 104:29, and Ecclesiastes 3:20 and 12:7.
The reality of the first man Adam is confirmed in numerous passages as well including Romans 5:12-21, Luke 3, and Genesis 5.
The biological evolution of human beings from other kinds of creatures, therefore, is utterly rejected by the first-hand, personal testimony of the One who created us. Further, as we would obviously expect from scripture's rejection of this concept, evolution can also find absolutely no support in either science or logic and should be abandoned as tenable by any thinking individual.
The only actual evidence ever presented in favor of evolutionary biology, contrary to the claims of its advocates, can only be found in forums such as the National Enquirer. In contrast to this, if the Biblical God is not real, the laws of logic cannot be trusted, science therefore becomes impossible, and all knowledge of any kind must be rejected.
The Historicity of Genesis
Atheist view
Christian view
Comments
Just out of curiosity, if the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection was proven to your satisfaction, would that lead you to reject Christianity?
(I'm not going to try to convince you or anything, lol. Obviously, according to your view, the premise of this question is just hypothetical and not based on reality. I am just curious to hear your answer though. I used to be a fundamentalist Christian, but now I'm not. My family still is though.)
Even if we were to witness it happening (imagine your daughter giving birth to a three headed buffalo, for example), that still would not mean that it had happened in the past, or that humans themselves are actually descended from another kind of creature.
Historical evolution is just not one of those provable things.
I can't imagine any way that it could be proven to my satisfaction. So I can't even answer the question as asked.
Can you come up with a hypothetical way that it could actually be proven to someone?
As for your hypothetical example, lets just say that some aliens had been watching our planet since its formation. They archived video footage of evolution taking place, and had such advanced technology that they could alter your biology so that you could have knowledge of the video footage directly implanted into your brain, or so that you could sustain yourself for billions of years to watch the footage for yourself.
Also, I want to say that my daughter giving birth to a three headed buffalo would not be an example of evolution as scientists understand it :P Observation of that event would completely debunk the modern day Theory of Evolution.
Any worldview that rejects Christianity is inherently contradictory. Because of this, if Christianity were not true, it would be impossible to prove anything at all.
There is no conceivable way historical evolution could be proven, since it contradicts Christianity, and is therefore necessarily false.
It's like trying to find the corners of a circle.
God bless.
You've made some very, erm, well you've made some claims that don't seem to make much sense, like this: "Any worldview that rejects Christianity is inherently contradictory. Because of this, if Christianity were not true, it would be impossible to prove anything at all."
I guess I do sort of see your answers so far as unreasonable-beat-around-the-bush cop-outs (no offense! I'm sure you mean well.) If you don't want to clearly answer my question, then that is fine :)
My apologetic perspective bears more resemblance to that of Gordon Clark, Cornelius Van Til, Greg Bahnsen, or John Frame than it does to Josh McDowell, William Lane Craig, Lee Strobel or Gary Habermas.
Christianity is not just a particular fact to be declared true or false based on the neutral assessment of independent evidence. It is all particular facts combined. It is an entire worldview, including not only facts, but context for those facts, interpretation of those facts, and meaning for the facts as well.
(continued)
The negating worldview, non-Christianity, is inherently contradictory, claiming to believe things that it itself rejects. Because of this, if non-Christianity is true, it is also false. In non-Christianity, because the laws of logic are invalid, there are no facts. Every assertion is meaningless. Since there are no facts, there is certainly no way to interpret facts either, nor can meaning be properly ascribed to facts.
The only reason non-Christians can recognize facts is because non-Christianity is false. As such, non-Christians are repeatedly guilty of committing the fallacy of pretended neutrality.
There is no such thing as neutrality.
(continued)
Since neutrality is fictitious, and since I am a Christian, in order for you to prove to me that humans evolved from another kind of creature, you would have to prove it to me WITHIN THE CHRISTIAN WORLDVIEW. In other words, you would have to prove to me that if I accept Christianity with all of its presuppositions, then I HAVE TO ACCEPT EVOLUTION AS A RESULT.
As a further step, in order to get me to reject Christianity due to my newfound acceptance of evolution, you would have to demonstrate to me that I do not have to accept evolution as a result of accepting Christianity. In other words, you would ultimately have to demonstrate to me that Christianity asserts that evolution must be true and that Christianity asserts that it is not the case that evolution must be true, at the same time and in the same way.
This would render Christianity incoherent: to accept it would be to reject it.
Of course, Christianity doesn't assert both of these things.
It's almost like having a discussion with someone who presupposed that everything was created 5 minutes ago, with implanted memories, by a Great Magical Leprechaun. I tell them "I ate a bologna sandwhich for lunch yesterday." And they say "Well, I just cannot imagine how you can prove you ate a bologna sandwhich yesterday," and basically just go on to give a speech much like yours, except within the context of their Leprechaun presupposition instead of your Christian one. Everything turns into an epistemological discussion in which they cheat by invoking magic.
If you weren't going to answer my question, you could have just said so instead of resorting to mental ------------ games and wasting my (and your) time...
Why presuppose that?
Because you have an anti-magical worldview and insist that anyone who is neutral would share your view...
The essence of pretended neutrality.
If a friend and I wondered what caused day and night, and he simply said that a Great Magic Leprechaun made day and night so, then I would reject his statement. Not because I presuppose that it is false, but because he didn't show his statement to be true. If I didn't know what caused day and night, then that would simply be a gap of knowledge. But it doesn't mean that he can just presuppose a leprechaun is the explanation (which would preclude him from accepting that the earth revolving is the explanation for day and night, if and when it was shown to him.)
Presuppositionalism leads to subjectivism accross the board. You'd do better to just not presuppose things, and require evidence for beliefs instead of playing games, wasting time.
I'm not playing games or wasting time. I'm responding honestly to your comments. If I acted like evolution could be proven, or more pertinantly, that it could be proven to someone who holds a Christian worldview and thus bases all conclusions and interpretation of evidence on divine revelation, then I would be playing games or wasting time, or else not holding to my own declared views.
Evidentialists make presuppositions but don't acknowledge them. It leads to confusing arguments, unrecognized straw men and bait-and-switch fallacies. Presuppositionalists recognize that presuppositions are always made and try to address worldviews from within the worldview itself, rather than from some pretense of common ground.
For example, I try to address Atheism by presupposing Atheism rather than presupposing Christianity.
- You also haven't pointed out any presuppositions in my view, its ridiculous to keep pretending everyone commits the same intellectually bankrupt errors as you do.
I asked you a simple question, and instead of answering you gave me the run around. If someone believed the earth was the center of the universe, created by a magic leprechaun, then they could give me a similar run around if I asked them about the Heliocentric Theory. It's just completely ridiculous, and a waste of time. Quit presupposing things.
If that was their worldview then of course they would respond in accordance with it, even as you respond in accordance with yours. What else would you expect?
You are asserting your own neutrality and lack of bias. However, in presupposing this, you are necessarily opposed to the assertion that you are not neutral, meaning that you are biased against the belief that you are biased, meaning that you are both biased and unbiased at the same time and in the same way.
In other words, if your claims are true, they are also false.
It seems to me that the force of your argument is that if a "neutral" worldview is contrary to a Christian worldview, the Christian worldview should be abandoned. My ultimate response is that a "neutral" worldview is contrary to itself.
So why did you decide to reject Christianity?
I consider the assertion (that I am biased) without bias, which is to say, without preconceived judgement; I don’t presuppose it true or false before evaluating it. In evaluating this claim fairly, we simply consider the two options: It is possible that I am biased. It is possible that I am not. Then we go over the evidence, the facts. The observed fact is this: Whenever a claim to be evaluated manifests, including claims about my neutrality or lack thereof, I do not presuppose the claim is true or false. I judge it on the evidence for and against, and am always open to revising my view based on incoming evidence. And based on that observed fact, I conclude that I am not biased
I’m not a Christian anymore because: (1) Accepting things on faith (without evidence) is antithetical to knowing truth (2) I previously accepted Christianity on faith (3) Because of 1 and 2, I stopped using faith to accept propositions, including Christianity. (4) I evaluated the evidence for and against Christianity to see if I was intellectually justified in believing it was most plausibly true - this was a long process. (5) I didn’t find the case for Christianity compelling, and the evidence against it seemed strong. Christianity just didn’t seem intellectually feasible.
I was wondering what your major doctrinal points of departure are from the Christian faith. I'll list a few things Christians believe, and if you don't mind, maybe you could tell me which of these concepts you reject?
The laws of logic are valid.
Empirical evidence can be useful in discerning truth.
There is a God who created the natural realm.
That God is revealed in three persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
God has revealed Himself and His plan for man in part through the Bible.
Man does things he has been commanded not to do by his proper authority, God.
God has atoned for the sinfulness of man through the substitutionary sacrifice of Christ.
Men must accept the work of God on their behalf to be right with Him.
Thanks.
Seeing the beliefs you listed, and knowing your a presuppositionalist, I have a sneaking suspicion about what trick you are going to try to pull next. But, I guess I don’t know for sure, so I’ll just answer... I think the first two beliefs are most plausibly true while I think the last six beliefs are most plausibly false.
Only if you presuppose reason and the validity of logic as part of your interpretive framework.
So you are presently an Atheist. Then I would direct you (and this conversation) to the following URL demonstrating that the existence of God is logically necessary given the existence of our present reality. To deny the existence of God is, ultimately, to deny your own presuppositions that the laws of logic are valid and that "reason" works:
http://www.godcontention.org/index.php?qid=248
To be an Atheist is to reject all possibility of knowledge.
God bless.
I am aware of the other thread. I agree with the atheist's post which is beside yours at the top of the screen of the other thread.
The Christian God isn't logically necessary. Also, someone can use your exact same reasoning to argue for the FSM, and say it is logically necessary. But it isn't.
Being an atheist isn't to reject all possibility of knowledge; being a presuppositionalist is. Everything is subjective to presuppers; its all about what someone presupposes. Someone can take your worldview, replace Yahweh+Christian doctrine with [insert magical being here], and it would be equally coherent as your view. You're the subjectivist. You reject all possibility of knowledge. Not me.
"Massive evidential support", huh? Interesting. You list exactly one "evidence" that no more favors evolution than it does the creation account in Genesis. There is absolutely no tenable reason to suggest that because DNA is similar between similar creatures, God couldn't possibly have created them that way and only spent six days doing it.
The ingredients of Coke are very similar to those of Pepsi -- much more so than they are to Milk, for example. Should we conclude that these two beverages evolved over millions of years, accidentally and unintentionally, from common ancestors, with no intelligence designing them?
Not only does your supposed evidence fit perfectly well with the Bible's anti-evolutionary account of history, but it actually matches the Genesis account BETTER than it does the fairy tale of evolution.
God bless.
Hypocrite.
Surely you jest?! The only evidence presented for evolution is to be found in the National Enquirer? Really?
Surely you can't be unaware of Charles Darwin? Richard Dawkins? Stephen Jay Gould? Jerry Coyne? Last I checked, none of these people has been published in the National Enquirer.
You may have been exaggerating for comic effect so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.