CIM Briefing Papers

C.I.M. Outline #41

             CRITIQUE OF THE EVOLUTIONARY WORLDVIEW

I.  Introduction

    A.  Evolution is an ancient philosophical and religious
        belief.

        1.  Confucius (25 centuries before Darwin) said:  "All
            reality unfolded gradually from a single entity."

        2.  Bhuddist teachers believed all living things evolved
            from a prior unitary nature.  (See Ninian Smart's
            INDIAN PHILOSOPHY).

        3.  Anaximander and Anaximenes (6th Century B.C.)  held
            that the sun's warmth generated all living forms by
            acting on moist primeval element.  Anaximenes
            believed, moreover, that plants, animals and humans
            were generated in that order!

        4.  Evolution again became popular in the early 19th
            century.  Many philosophers embraced it as a
            philosophical position, all before Darwin.

    B.  Therefore, since evolution began as a philosophy, and
        has become all pervasive, affecting every area of life
        and culture, it should be critiqued for the worldview it
        is.

II.  The Philosophical Problems with Evolution

     A.  Darwin's hypothesis as to the mechanism of evolution
         arose not from empirical investigation, but was fully
         formulated long before he sought evidence to support
         his theory.  The origin of Darwin's theory of natural
         selection was speculative rather than scientific. 
         Darwin admits this in his autobiography.  He got the
         idea from Malthus, and from watching animal breeders.

     B.  Darwin's theory of natural selection is a tautology. 
         That is, it is true by definition, e.g., all bachelors
         are unmarried men.  "Those that survive are the
         fittest."  But how do we know who are the fittest? 
         Only by those that survive!  Darwin mistakenly assumed
         there were independent criteria for fitness (e.g. the
         speed of a wolf).  Neo-darwinians tried to correct this
         with the empirical observation that the forms that
         survive are those that leave more offspring.  But again
         circular reasoning is not avoided.  "The result of
         natural selection is that some things leave more
         offspring than others;  and which leave more offspring? 
         Those that survive."

         This type of logical fallacy is also seen in historical
         geology where fossils are dated by the layer of
         sediment in which they are found, and the sediments are
         dated by the fossils (key fossils).

     C.  Darwin and his apologists often commit the fallacy of
         using improper analogies.  When Darwin saw animal
         breeders selecting certain desired characteristics in
         animals to be bred, he assumed this is what nature did. 
         Nature selected characteristics that would result in a
         fitter animal.  Here Darwin is re-ifying nature.  That
         is, he is attributing being to nature which is just an
         expression.  Another example of an improper analogy we
         often see is:  "Since human and chimpanzees (or apes)
         are similar in the structure of their chromosomes,
         therefore, it is  concluded that man evolved from the
         chimpanzee."  A syllogism of the argument is thus:

          Premise:  If x is similar to y in Z,
         
          Conclusion:  Then x evolved from y or

                       x and y evolved from K.

         This is fallacious reasoning, first, because the
         conclusion has no relationship to the premise;  the law
         of the excluded middle applies in this situation. 
         Second, the attributes of a part cannot be applied to a
         whole;  that the organisms share similar features does
         not logically imply that as whole beings they had
         similar origins.  Third, you could just as well say
         that y evolved from x, i.e., chimps evolved from
         humans.

     D.  Many evolutionists commit the fallacy of ignoratio
         elenchi.  "Evolution is true because Special Creation
         is refuted."  I have heard evolutionists admit that
         they believe in evolution because the only alternative,
         creationism, is preposterous.  You cannot simply say "I
         can explain that away."  Explanation must not be
         confused with refutation.  You never establish one
         position by refuting another.

     E.  Evolutionists often commit the fallacy of scientism or
         reductionism, i.e., what the net does not catch ain't
         fish.  "Nothing can occur that is not in accordance
         with natural law."  "Creationism is not according to
         natural law, therefore, creationism cannot be true."

     F.  Evolutionists often commit the fallacy of begging the
         question. e.g., Since creation is a religious view
         there can be no evidence supporting creation, all the
         evidence presented is false.  Since the evidence is all
         false, creation is not true.  Hume used a similar
         argument against miracles.  Since miracles are contrary
         to firm and unalterable experience, they do not exist. 
         Yet Hume assumes that no one has ever experienced a
         miracle, he is asking us to accept what he has failed
         to prove.

     G.  Evolution by its very nature is associated with
         naturalistic philosophies which consistently are self-
         refuting.  For example:

         1.  "Only empirically verifiable or falsifiable
              statements have any meaning."  This statement is
              itself incapable of verification.

         2.  "There are no absolutes."  This statement is an
              absolute.

         3.  "Everything is relative."  But this statement is
              meant to be taken as an absolute.

         4.  "We cannot know anything with certainty."  Yet, we
              are supposed to know this statement with
              certainty.

         5.  "There is no truth", except of course, this
              statement.

         6.  "What a person believes is the result of irrational
              forces."  Then this statement itself is also the
              result of irrational forces.  So why believe it?

         7.  "What you believe is determined by psychological,
              environmental, chemical, or class conditioning." 
              Then this belief also is the result of such
              conditioning as well and is equally worthless.

          8. "The universe is self-caused."  If it caused itself
              it had to exist prior to the causing!

          9.  "The universe came from nothing."  Even Julie
               Andrews knows that is not true.  "Nothing comes
               from nothing, nothing ever could."

          10.  If evolution is true then it too is evolving.

     H.  Evolution is guilty of amphibole (improper use of
         words).  Chance is not a causative factor.  Chance is
         not an entity.  It is only a statistical phenomena.  
         Evolutionists want to assign  to both chance and nature
         as the sources of causation.  They often capitalize
         chance and nature.  The universe is sometimes seen by
         them as an intelligent being! (The New Age variety).

         Robert Ingersol, the known atheist, once walked into
         the planetarium in New York City and noticed the
         beautiful model of the solar system.  He asked the head
         of the planetarium who was responsible for this
         beautiful model.  The head of the planetarium, being a
         theist, replied:  "Nobody; it just happened."  Ingersol
         reportedly laughed when he realized the absurdity of it
         just happening.

     I.  Inconsistencies in evolutionist thinking with regards to
         how they live their lives.

         1.  By its very nature evolution cannot be teleological
             (purposeful) since it is a pure chance operation. 
             Yet most evolutionists live as though life is
             purposeful and meaningful.

         2.  From my perspective, the major weakness of
             evolution as a worldview is the area of ethics. 
             Huxley himself admitted that evolution leads to bad
             ethics.  The "survival of the fittest" doctrine
             gives dictators the right to exterminate the weak.

     J.  Evolution as a hypothesis fails to explain the major
         questions of life.

         1.  It fails to answer how evolution takes place.  No
             mechanism.

         2.  It fails to explain the taxonomic gaps in the
             fossil record.

         3.  It contradicts known genetic principles.

         4.  It fails to explain entropy (the second law of
             thermodynamics) in light of the eternality of
             matter and the simple giving rise to the complex.  

         5.  It fails to explain the origin of life.

         6.  It fails to explain how the non-sentient became
             sentient.

         7.  It fails to explain the uniqueness of man, i.e.,
             his moral consciousness.

     K.  Conclusion:  Evolution is the embodiment of the 19th
         century idea of progress now under considerable attack
         from inside its own ranks.  Change is not necessarily
         progress.  Evolution is not quite the god its makers
         had hoped.  In absence of a Creator, evolutionists have
         created their own substitutes:

         Dobzhansky compared natural selection to a Composer.
         Beer described evolution as the Master of Ceremonies.
         Simpson likened evolution to a Poet.
         Mayer compared selection to a Sculptor.
         Huxley compared selection to Shakespeare.

For Further Study:

   1.  For the history and background of evolutionary thinking,
       we recommend:

       EVOLUTION:  THE GREAT DEBATE, by Vernon Blackmore and
       Andrew Page.

       THE LONG WAR AGAINST GOD, by Henry Morris.

   2.  The best contemporary critique of evolution:

       DARWIN ON TRIAL, by Phillip E. Johnson. 
 
 
Christian Information Ministries is a non-profit ministry and is 
dependent on gifts from God's people in order to operate.  If you 
receive a benefit from our materials would you consider giving a 
tax-deductible gift to CIM.  We suggest $25. a year minimum.  
Send to:  Christian Information Ministries 
          2050 N. Collins Blvd. #100 
          Richardson, TX  75080 

Top of Page