Challenging The Evolutionary Worldview

In today's post I'd like to make some points that I believe refute or at least challenge the evolutionary paradigm. As a Christian I think that it is necessary to give others a reason of why I believe what I do (1Pe 3:15) and in this post I will do just that.

Regarding Creation and the Age of the Universe

The first reason that I'll give as to why I don't believe in the Atheists account of how we got here is because we know of no  process, event sequence, or natural law that would cause information to come about by itself in matter. Then there is the fact that All point mutations that's ever been researched on the molecular level actually reduces the genetic information not adds to it.

Here is a question that the reader can ponder. How can the earth be billions of years old if all of earth's c-14 would've decayed into nitrogen by the first million years of earth's history? Another evidence of a young creation are comets. They wouldn't last millions of years because as they orbit the sun they lose their matter. The evolutionary scientist excuse is that new comets can arrive from this mysterious thing called the Oort cloud even though nobody has ever observed this cloud.

Problems with the Evolutionists Worldview

The truth is that evidence alone isn't able to resolve a worldview conflict because evolutionist use what's called a rescuing device.  The presupposition that a person has is what tell's them how to interpret the evidence. Instead Christian apologist should challenge the evolutionary worldview instead.
It is the bible alone which provides the prerequisites that are needed for the intelligibility of mankind's reasoning and experience. In other words, if the bible was false you could not prove anything.

The next point that I want to make is why would the laws of logic even exist in a universe that was created by random chance?. In case you didn't know the laws of logic are the correct standards of reasoning, so what are they? The laws of logic are immaterial, universal, unchanging, transcendent things that govern every possible theoretical relationship. These laws of logic are contingent upon the God of scripture. Naturalism is the idea that everything came from nature, and that the supernatural doesn't exist. The naturalist will try to use logic and reason to back their stance. The problem is logic isn't a part of nature.

And what about the  uniformity we find in nature? In other words why do volcanoes spew lava one day but not cotton candy on the other? Or why does it rain water all the time instead of Diet coke on other days? Yes evolutionist believe in these two things, however it does not make sense that these things would exist in an evolutionary universe. This just shows that the evolutionary worldview is inconsistent and destroys itself.

Now we come to the idea of relativism which means that there are no absolutes and that all things are relative. The problems is the statement that there are no absolutes refutes itself because we cannot be absolutely sure that that is the case. The reality is that truth is not relative 2+2 will always equal four every time, and as we will soon find out our Morals cannot be relative either.

Let's talk about Empiricism for a sec. What is that? It's the belief that all claims of truth are verified by empirical observation, but how can we know that statement itself is accurate? Can it be proved by Empirical observation? The thing is, those that criticize the bible have to use biblical presuppositions to try and refute the bible.

Regarding Atheism & Morality

 Now let's address the Issue of Morality. Supposing there was no God and human beings are the highest authority then we make our own rules. This ideology refutes itself when evolutionist go around saying that we can't tell others what not to do. Because they are in fact doing just that. But how can we determine right from wrong without the biblical God? Then our morals would just be relative, and we know that society cannot function this way. 

If the moral law was just electrical impulses in our brains then why should we obey it? An evolutionist may argue that these laws of morality are just conventions that were accepted for the prosperity of civilization. The question we now ask is why? So we won't behave like animals but isn't that all we are according to evolution? It's a behavioral inconsistency for an evolutionist to be upset by watching a violent murder on TV. After all, what reason is there for him to be angry?  Would you arrest a Hawk for killing an snake? When a naturalist says that we shouldn't teach creation in public schools because we are supposedly "lying"  to kids. How should we respond? The proper response would be telling them that we disagree with them and why would lying be wrong according to their worldview.

I'm not saying that Atheist cannot be Moral, the issue is how can a supposed Atheist justify their morality. God doesn't go to a higher authority to get his morals nor is something wrong just because God arbitrarily says it. Rather the Christians morals are derived from the very Character of God, they aren't above or below him. In other words God is the ultimate embodiment of goodness. (Mat 19:17, 1 Joh 4:8, Mat 22:37-40).

In conclusion we see that the Christian worldview is the only one that makes sense in the world and that Naturalism cannot account for things such as the laws of logic, the uniformity we see in nature or our objective morality. 

Reference: Most of the Material for this post is thanks to a youtube video labeled Ultimate proof of creation by Dr Jason Lisle PHD Astrophysics 

Thanks For Reading Please Share!!!!