I

I
l
The titie of my lecture, "The
Fossils Don't Speakl" is intended
to evoke curiosity from tllOse
familiar wilh creationist literature.
It is, of course, a re-working of tile
title of a book written by one of our
conference speakers, Dr. Duane
Gish. The re-working is not
intended to contradict the work of
Dr. Gish and his colleagues at the
Institute of Creation Research and
other creationist organizations.
Indeed, we would not have invited
hinl to speak if we did not endorse
his fine work.
get nowhere. The debate must take
place on a different level altogetiler
if any provable conclusion is to be
drawn. Thus my present objective
is not to refute Darwinism and
vindicate creationism. Instead I
will endeavor to realign the terms
of tlle debate between these two
rival positions. Before I begin my
argument for realigument, however,
a few prelinlinary remarks are
necessary.
Definitions
During the course of this lecture
Darwinians in the audience and
' kinds' for creationists). 'Method-
ological naturalism' is the view that
Ule only way to obtain knowledge
of Ule world is to study natural
processes. The corollary of this is
that knowledge of the world is not
obtainable by means of divine
revelation. ' Metaphysical natural-
ism' is the view that only nature
exists. Thus it stands against
supernaturalism.
A final preliminary remark is
necessary at tIris point. In what
follows I will be discussing
Ule debate between Darwin-
ism and creationism. I
realize Ulat these two views
THE FOSSILS
DON'T SPEAK!
MICil.lei R. Blilln The thesis I will main-
tain and argue for is that the
debate between Christianity
and Darwinism is often
1-________________ oJ do not exhaust Ule field. It
conducted at the wrong level. The
level Ulat it is commonly carried out
is what we can call the evidential or
factual level. One side puts forth
evidence in support of Darwinian
evolution while tile other proffers
evidence against it. The debate,
then, is to be resolved by judging
which side possesses the prepon-
derance of Ule evidence. Obviously
tlle Darwinists think tile weight of
evidence leans on the side of the
evolutionary theory while the
creationists tlrink tile evidence leans
the other way.
I do not deny that scientific
evidence is irrelevant to the
creation-evolution debate - such a
claim would be patentiy absurd.
Nevertheless, scientific evidence in
itself is insufficient to decide tlle
issue eitller way. By Uris I do not
- mean that I think the evidence is
ambiguous. I firmly believe that
the scientific research that has been
done clearly indicates tllat every
living (and non-living) tiling in the
universe is the result of a direct act
of creation by God and not the
product of an evolutionary process.
However, a debate of tiris issue
on purely scientific evidence will
I will be using a trio of terms in a
somewhat idiosyncratic manner
and so it is incumbent upon me to
define them for you at the outset.
First, by the term 'creationism'
I shall mean the view tilat world
was created by the God of Ule
Bible, that the world is relatively
young and that the life on earth
today is basically the same as life
on earth at the time of creation. Of
course there are others who call
themselves creationists whose
views do not fit within this defini-
tion (Muslims, for example).
Second, I define the term
'Darwinism' as tile tlleory of
evolution by means of naturalistic
processes. This definition is
intentionally broad enough to cover
classical Darwinism, neo-Darwin-
ism and even such theories as
punctuated equilibrium. The
purpose of tlris definition is to
cover all theories of evolution that
are naturalistic in nature.
Tlris brings us to tile third term,
'naturalism.' For purposes that
shall become obvious later, I break
down 'naturalism' into two species
or kinds (I use 'species' for the
is not uncommon for a man to
embrace both a traditional religious
ouUook and evolution. Perhaps Ule
most familiar position of this type is
what has come to be known as
Uleistic evolution - a hybrid of
Christianity and evolutionary
theory. Dr. Gentry has already
nicely shown that this position is
untenable for the Christian on
biblical grounds. The Bible's
consistent and unambiguous
teaching is that God created the
world in the space of six days and
all very good. The world is
fundamentally tile same today as it
was at the time of creation - the
plants, animals and man are the
result of a process that has been
guided by the hand of God.
A Briefllistory of Ule Debate
The debate over Darwin's
Uleory of evolution has been going
on since the publication of The
Origin of Species in 1859. There
have been many facets to the
debate.
For instance, Ule ethical inlplica-
lions of the tileory have been a
point of much controversy. Cre-
ationists have argued that Darwin-
December, 1998 - January, 1999 - THE COUNSEL ofCha\cedon - 21
ism necessarily leads to relativism-
there are no moral absolutes except
perhaps survival and reproduction.
Given that the world is red in tooth
and in claw, the only legitimate
ethical theory - if one could call it
an ethical theory - is one that
promotes an individual's and its
offspring's survival. Many Dar-
winians counter that ethics and
biology are distinct areas of study
and so evolutionary theory has no
implications on ethical theory one
way or the other. In his book, The
Selfish Gene, Richard Dawkins
takes this line.
"I am not advocating a morality
based on evolution. I am saying
how things have evolved. 1 am not
saying how we humans morally
ought to behave. I stress this,
because 1 know I am in danger of
being misunderstood by those
people, all too numerous, who
cannot distinguish a statement of
belief in what is the case from an
advocacy of what ought to be the
case,?'
The irony of this statement is
that creationists contend the precise
opposite. If Darwinism is the case,
then there conld not be such thing
as an ought.
Darwinists often counter-punch
by arguing that religion in general
and Christianity in particular with
its rigid moral code is an offense to
the sensibilities of modem man and
should be dismissed as nothing
more thail a crude and primitive
compilation of early man's myths
and t a b o o ~ From this, point on the
debate often degeneraies into name-
calling. This is the verbal equiva-
lent to' the bumper-sticker wars that
are waged on our freeways. First
there was the fish, ~ n the fish
with legs, then a big fish eating the
fish with legs and so on.
A closely related debate is that
of the cultural arid political implica-
tions of Darwinism. Opponents
have argued that it logically entails
either anarchy and the disintegra-
tion of society or a totalitarian state.
The individual is strictly outIor
himself and his offspring caring
nothing for such an inconsequential
abstraction as "society." With
altruism ruled out, any ethical
justification for coercive power by
the state becomes a mere pretext
for some individuals to dominate
others - totalitarianism. Darwin-
ians counter that the theory of
evolution need not rule out demo-
cratic or republican forms of
government. Either, the theory is
neutral on cultural and political
matters or cooperation may be
grounded along contractarian lines.
Darwinians typically then go on
the offensive by pointing out the
political and cultural suppression
that has gone on under the banner
of religion. It is at this point that
the political suppression of science
by organized religion is brought in,
Galileo being the favorite example.
Though obviously important,
the debates over ethics and society
and other areas are mere sideshows
to what has become the predomi-
nate issue - the scientific status of
evolution. The initial debate was
whether Darwin's theory of natural
selection was scientifically justified.
When, for example, T. H. Huxley
and Samuel Wilberforce squared
off for their famous disputation on
Darwin's recently publicized theory
during a meeting of the British
Association for the Advancement
of Science in 1860, it was the
scientific merits of the theory that
were at issue. Much intense debate
followed. But as time passed it
became obvious that the Darwin-
ians were the winners - they gained
control of the scientific journals, .
they held the university appoint-
ments, they had access to the vast
resources of the state. Mter the
initial controversy Darwinism
became the scientific view, while
creationism was merely a religious
dogma, Given this development,
the debate degenerated into one of
science (evolution) versus religion
(creationism).
In America, the creationists
faired little better. Gradually, it
became apparent that the Darwin-
ians had the better arguments. The
nadir of the debate for creationists
was reached at the Scopes trial in
1925. From that point forward,
creationism was associated with
backwards, uneducated country
folk - or as H. L. Mencken referred
to them, the simian faithful of
Appalachia.
In the seventies, creationists
changed their strategy. No longer
were they willing to debate the
issue in terms of science versus
religion. The new strategy was to
play down the theological origin of
creationism and stick to strictly
scientific issues. Thus the advent
of creation-science.
This was fundamentally a
tactical move on the part of
creationists. Because the courts had
ruled that the teaching of religion in
public schools violates the estab-
lishment clause of the lust amend-
ment, creationism based on reli-
gious dogma would not be allowed
in the classroom. Creationists
reasoned that if, however, creation-
ism was divorced from religion it
could be put forth as a scientific
theory. And being a scientific
theory, it had just a much right to
be taught in public schools as did
the theory of evolution. Thus the
inception of creation science and
along with it the move to get a
"two-model" approach to biology in
America's schooiroorus.
This new tactic proved to be
effective. Legislatures in Arkansas
and Louisiana passed laws pre-
scribing that a two-model approach
of creation science and evolution
22 THE COUNSEL of Chalcedon - December, 1998 January, 1999
science be taught in the classroom.
These laws, however, were quickly
challenged on constitutional
grounds by groups such as the
American Civil Liberties Union.
The Arkansas act, which mandated
equal ~ e t m e n t of creation science
and evolution science, was tile first
one to make it to the federal courts.
At the heart of the plaintiff's case
was the charge that creation
science was simply religion mas-
querading as science and tIlUS in
violation of tile establishment clause
of the First Amendment.
The court agreed. The religious
nature of creationism was one of
three reasons that Federal District
Court Judge, William R. Overton,
cited in ruling tile 1981 "B alanced
Treatment for Creation-Science and
Evolution-Science Act" unconstitu-
tional
[The Act] was simply and
purely an effort to introduce the
Biblical version of creation into tile
public school curricula. The only
inference which can be drawn
from these circumstances is that
the Act was passed with the
specific purpose by Ole General
Assembly of advancing religion.
Tllis sentiment is often re-
hearsed in the Darwinian literature.
For example, Pllilip Kitcher in llis
book, Abusing Science: The Case
AgaillSt Creationism, writes:
Is there any evidence that might
lead Creationists to amend their
"scientific" claims, so Olat they no
longer consist simply of a censored
version of a literal reading of the
Genesis accowlt? ... If there is not,
Olen Creation "science" is, at
bottom, a religious doctrine. In the
pursuit of real science, no part of
current theory is beyond question.
Anything is potentially revisable. To
demand that certain parts of
"scientific" Creationism must be
kept fixed, whatever tile evidence,
is to drop even the pretense of
doing science.
Creation science protests to the
contrary notwitIlstanding, tIlese
clwges are clearly on tile mark.
Darwinians know very well what is
going on wiOI creationists. The
creationists do not start out with
objective, dispassionate mind-sets,
ready to follow tile evidence
wherever it leads. They understand
Olat creationists already have the
rabbit in the hat. They start with
Ole conclusion tIlat creationism is
true and go on to find evidence to
support Olis conclusion. This is the
scientific equivalent to rationaliza-
tion - Ole process whereby one
starts by assuming the correctuess
of his view and concluding from
Olis that tIlere must OlUS be a good
reason out Olere to support it. ill a
word, Darwinians see creation-
science for what it is, religion.
What never occurs to the
Darwinian, however, is that he too
has bees in llis bonnet. The
Darwinian views llimself as objec-
tive and dispassionate. He views
himself as scientific. He is willing
to foHow the facts wherever they
go. He is tolerant, open-minded
and has no ax to grind. Whereas
the creation-scientists are religious
and subjective, he is objective.
Darwinian Faith
While this is certainly tile
Darwinian's view of himself, it
does not reflect what actually is the
case. As will be demonstrated,
Darwinism is just as religious in
nature as creationism. The religion
of the Darwinian may not be tIlat of
prayers, incense, and ritual; it is not
what we would call a traditional
religion. Yet it is religious nonethe-
less. What I mean by religion here
is a position, call it a philosophy of
life or a worldview, based not on
science but on faith. In this sense
a religion is an extra-scientific
Oleory tIlat is used to interpret
physical facts and events but which
itself is not testable by physical
facts and events. That tIlis is the
case is easily shown in tlle literature
of Darwinism by its anti-Christian
bias, its dogmatism, its intolerance
of opposing views and its philo-
sophical assumptions.
First, Darwinism's religious
nature is shown in its anti-Christian
nature. Below are just a few
representative quotes. Professor J.
Tyndall wrote in 1874: " ... the
basis of tile doctrine of evolution
consists, 1!Ot in an experinlental
demonstration - for tile subject is
hardly accessible to this mode of
proof - but in its general harmony
WitIl scientific thought ... We clainl
and we shall wrest from theology,
the entire domain of cosmological
Oleory."
Stephen J. Gould, a scientist
who often claims tIlat evolution is
not hostile to religion, writes,
"Before Darwin, we thought a
benevolent God had created us."
After words, this is not intellectu-
ally tenable: "No intervening spirit
watches lovingly over the affairs of
nature. No v itai forces propel
evolutionary change. And what-
ever we Oink of God, !lis existence
is not manifest in the products of
nature."
William Provine, a ilistorian of
science at Cornell, says that
anybody who accepts evolutionary
biology and yet holds to traditional
Cbristian beliefs, "have to check
[their] brains at the church-house
door ... [They] are eitIler obtuse or
compartmentalized in their thinking,
or are effective atheists without
realizing it.
Julian Huxley makes similar
remarks: "In the evolutionary
pattern of thought there is no
longer eiOler need or room for
supernaturalism. The eardl was
not created, it evolved. So did all
the animals and plants that inhabit
it, including our human selves mind
and soul as well as brain and body.
So did religion . .. Finally, tlle
December, 1998 - January, 1999 - THE COUNSEL of Cba\cedon - 23
evolutionary vision is enabling us to
discern, however incompletely, the
lineaments of the new religion that
we can be sure will arise to serve
the needs of the coming era."
"We wanted not to pin our faith
to that or any other speculation, but
to get hold of clear and definite
conceptions. The Origin provided
us with the working hypothesis we
sought. Moreover, it did us the
immense service of freeing us
forever from the dilemma: refuse to
accept the Christian hypothesis and
what have you to propose that can
be accepted by any cautious
reasoner?"
These quotes in themselves
certainly do not prove that Darwin-
ism is a religion. But they do show
that there is a bias against the
teaching of religion in general and
Christianity in particular.
Second, and more incriminating
is the fact that the theory of
evolution is held, despite protests to
the contrary, dogmatically. You
will recall from high school that
one of the virtues of science is that
everything is held tentatively.
Dogmatism is the ha1lmark of an
unscientific attitude. Yet representa-
tive statements by Darwinians
express a dogmatism equaled only
by religious devotees.
In a famous article claiming that
evolution is a fact not a theory,
Stephen J .. Gonld writes: "Facts are
the world's data. Theories are
structures. of ideas that explain and
interpret facts. Facts do not go
away while scientists debate rival
theories for explaining them.
Einstein's theory of gravitation
replaced Newton's, but apples did
not suspend themselves in mid-air
pending the outcome. And human
beings evolved from ape-like
ancestors whether they did so by
Darwin's proposed mechanism or
by some other, yet to be identified."
In 1959 Julian Huxley stated
that, "The first point to make about
Darwin's theory is that it is no
longer a theory but a fact ...
Darwinianism has come of age so
to speak. We are no longer having
to bother about establishing the fact
of evolution ... " Richard Dawkins,
Oxford zoologist, in his typical
pithy manner, declares: "The theory
[of evolution] is about as much in
doubt as the earth goes round the
sun." And in his book, The Beak of
the Finch: A Story of Evolution in
Our TIme, Jonathan Weiner pontifi-
cates that, "debating the reality of
the process[evolution] seems as
absurd as debating the existence of
gravity."
. This dogmatism is not a recent
phenomenon. From the outset,
Darwinians were dogmatic and
used all means at their disposal to
squash creationist heretics. An
illuminating example of this is
recorded by historian Peter Bowler.
Bowler explains T. H. Huxley's role
in the relatively quick acceptance of
Darwinism within the British
scientific community.
"Huxley was typical of a new
generation of scientists detennined
to wrest intellectual authority away
from its traditional sources.
Evolutionism was useful to them
precisely because it demonstrated
that science could now detennine
the truth in areas once claimed by
theology. Huxley went on to
become a leading public fillure,
serving as a scientific expert on
numerous governmental commis-
sions. He was also a member of
the "X-dub," an informal but
extremely influential group of men
whose behind-the-scenes activity
shaped much of late Victorian
science. It was by exploiting their
position within this network that
Huxley and his fellow converts
ensured that Darwinism had come
to stay. They avoided open conflict
in scientific journals but used their
editorial influence to ensure that
Darwinian values were incorpo-
rated gradually into the literature.
The joumal Nature was founded at
least in part as a vehicle for pto-
moting Darwinism. Academic
appointments were also manipu-
lated to favor younger scientists
with Darwinian sympathies, who
would ensure that the next genera-
tion was educated to take the
theory for granted. So successful
was this takeover of the British
scientific community that by the
1880s, its remaining opponents
were claiming that Darwinism had
become a blindly accepted dogma
carefully shielded from any serious
challenge. "
This unabashed dogmatism is
indicative of something much
deeper than a belief in the process
of evolution based upon an analysis
of the evidence. Even secular
philosopher W. T. Jones recognizes
the type of commitment that
Darwinians maintain. "The scien-
tists have elevated Darwinism to
the level of a religious dogma."
Third, the religious nature of
Darwinism comes out even more
when their intolerance for any other
theory of origins is observed. For
example, in 198 I, the British
Museum of Natural History cel-
ebrated its centennial with an
exhibition on Darwin's theory of
evolution. A sign at the entrance
read:
"Have you ever wondered why
there are so many different kinds of
living things? One idea is that all
the living things we see today have
evolved from a distant ancestOr by
a process of gradual change."
How could evolution have
occurred? How could one species
change into another? The exhibi-
tion in this hall looks at one possible
explanation - the explanation of
Charles Darwin.
An adjacent sign read, "Another
view is that God created all living
24 - THE COUNSEL ofCha1cedon - December, 1998 - January, 1999
things perfect and unchanging."
An accompanying brochure read,
"tlle concept of evolution by nahlral
selection is not, strictly speaking,
scientific. "
The response from the scientific
community was outrage. An
editorial in tlle journal, Nature,
asked rhetorically: "Can it be that
tlle managers of tlle museum which
is the nearest tlling to a citadel of
Darwinism have lost their nerve,
not to mention tlleir good sense? ...
Nobody disputes tllat, in tlle public
presentation of science, it is proper
whenever appropriate to say tllat
disputed matters are in doubt. But
is the theory of evolution still an
open question among serious
biologists? And if not, what
purpose, except general confusion,
can be served by tllese weasel
words?"
Atlleist philosopher AntllOny
Flew denounced tlle Museum's
scientists, whom he called "civil
servants," for tlleir "abuse of tlle
resources of a state institution to
try to put [tlleir pet theory 1 across
to all the innocent and predomi-
nantly yonthfullaypersons who
tlrrong these public galleries, as if it
were already part of the established
consensus among all tllOse best
qualified to judge."
The end result of the pressure is
tllat the Museum capitulated and
removed the "offensive" state-
ments. Darwinians do not tolerate
any dissent from evolutionary
fundamentalism.
Evolution and Naturalism
It is not enough to leave tlle
issue here. Yes, Darwinism is anti-
Clrristian, yes, it is held dogmati-
cally, yes, it is intolerant of any
opposing view. But what is behind
all of tlris? Tlris is tlle key question
and the answer to tllis is tlle key to
the whole creation-evolution
controversy. The Darwinian, like
tlle creatiOirist, brings into Iris
scientific investigations a set of
background assumptions. Where
tlle creationist brings tlle Bible as an
unquestioned autllOrity, tlle Darwin-
ist brings in his own unquestioned
authority. He presupposes at the
outset the trutll of naturalism.
Recall what I said at tlle outset:
tllere are at least two types of
nahlralism - epistemological or
metllOdological naturalism and
metaphysical naturalism. It is tlle
contention of Darwinians (as well
as most otller scientists) tlmt
science must operate on tlle basis
of tlle fonner, metllOdological
nahlralism.
The Darwinist, however (at
least a sophisticated Darwinist,
most Darwinian scientists would
probably fail to make tlris distinc-
tion), says tllat tllis assUlllption is
an innocent one. Science must
assume metllOdologicai nahlralism
otherwise science would involve
itself in all kinds of superstitions.
They contend tllat only metaphysi-
cal naturalism is an unwarranted
assumption.
It is on tlle basis of tlris distinc-
tion that tlle clainl is made by
Darwinians tllat evolution does not
disallow religious faith. Method-
ological nahlralism is not a theory
of ultinlate reality; it does not rule
out the possibility of the supernatu-
ral. Because of tlris it is an innocu-
ous presupposition.
But is tllis tlle case? Is method-
ological naturalism innocuous? A
negative answer to tllis question
will become readily apparent. The
scientist who conducts Iris research
Witll such a presupposition is going
to interpret tlle facts of tlle world in
light of tllem. Everything he
studies will be observed tlrrough
tlle spectacles of naturalism. Thus
from tlle outset, tile range of what
he will discover has already been
pre-detennined. For tlle naturalist,
tllere could not be anything tllat
would count as evidence for
creation since creation is not a
natural process. Thus any alleged
evidence for creation could not be,
by definition, scientific evidence.
Tlris is why Darwinians consider
evolution to be a fact not a mere
tlleory. Some account must be
given for tlle diversity of life. But
since creation is not an option, it
must be explained naturalistically.
In as much as evolution seems to
be tile only credible naturalistic
candidate, evolution must therefore
be true. And so it is held to be
true, come what may. It is, in the
words of a contemporary philoso-
pher, inrrnune from revision.
This is not to say that nahlral
selection must be the engine that
drives evolutionary change. Evolu-
tionists are not committed to any
particular mechanism. It may be
that another mechanism (say
random genetic drift) is the main
driving force behind the evolution-
ary process. These theories of
how evolution has taken place are
debatable. What is not debatable is
evolution itself.
So as it turns out, methodologi-
cal naturalism is not at all innocu-
ous. It is not innocuous for at least
the following reasons. First,
proving evolution while presuppos-
ing nahlralism begs the question. It
detemlines beforehand tlle type of
answer that will be acceptable.
Second, the view that all knowl-
edge of tlle world comes through
observing nahlral phenomena is a
presupposition not a conclusion. It
has not been argued for and it
certainly has not been demonstrated
to be philosoplrically sound. This
being the case, modem scientists
are exposed to possess just as
much faitll as tlle most ardent
fundamentalist. Tlrird, method-
ological nahlralism leads to meta-
physical naturalism. If all tllat will
be accepted as knowledge is that
wlrich comes from an inquiry that
December, 1998 - January, 1999 - THE COUNSEL of Chalcedon - 25
assumes methodological naturalism,
there could be no possible groUIld
for anything but metaphysical
naturalism. Fourth. naturalism, in
either form, camiot be demon-
strated by scientific investigation.
One cannot prove the truth of
naturalism by doing empirical
research.
The Debate Realigned
At this point it must be noted
that the same objections may be
directed against creation-science,
mutatis mutandis. Both of these
positions, Darwinism and creation-
ism, are worldviews. and as such
determine in advance what will and
what will not COUllt for evidence.
Thus. no amoUIlt of evidence can
confmn or disprove eidier positiOn.
The point of all this is not to
show that Darwinism is religious -
that it presupposes certain things
abOut the world - and is therefore
false. Nothing could be further
from the truth. In the nature of the
case, all outlooks are ultimately
religious in nature. The point is
rather that the debate between
Darwinism and creationism has
been fundamentally misconceived.
Darwinians have couched the
debate in terms of science versus
religion. Creationists, have ta)cen
the bait and tried to argue that
creationism is not based on religion
but is itself scientific. What I am
proposing, and I am certainly not
the first to make such a proposal, is
that we refuse to conduct the
debate at either of these levels.
Creationists should concede the
point J;Ilade by the Darwinian that
belief in creationism is fundamen-
talfy religious. Mter all, the
position that the earth was created
by God less than 10,000 years ago
is based upon the teachings of the
Bible. Mter this concession,
however, creationists should then
turn aroUIld and point out that
Darwinism is also religious. What is
sauce for the goose is Sauce for the
gander. And being religious, the
debate cannot continue on the level
of scientific inquiry.
Ultimately, the debate between
creationism and Darwinism is not
over scientific evidence, but over
mutually exclusive worldviews. No
side will win the debate on the basis
of evidence because no side can
win at this level. To merely debate
the evidence or the "facts" is futile.
This is not an agnostic conclu-
sion, however. Just because there
is no way to resolve this matter at
the scientific level does not imply
that there is no way to resolve it at
any level. I am certainly not
suggesting that we are left with a
relativism that says both sides are
correct, given their differing
perspectives. Nor am I suggesting
that there is no way to determine
which perspective (if either) is the
correct one, The philo'sopher
Wittgenstein said that when it
comes to basic perspectives or
worldviews (he used the term
'indubitables') there is no way to
determine which is correct. Thus
he said that proponents of opposing
worldviews ultimately resort to
name-calling, trading off the
invectives "fool" and "heretic." But
Wittgenstein was too hasty.
Facts do not determine the fact
of the matter, but the debate can
and must take place at another
level, the level of worldviews. By
means of transcendental reasoning,
the answers to following questions
regarding worldviews should be
sought: Is naturalism philosophi-
cally coberent? Can it accoUIlt for
human experience? What about
Christiartity? Is it coherent? Does
it provide the necessary precondi-
tions for human experience? Only
at this level can the creation-
evolution controversy proceed
fruitfully. Cornelius Van Til sums it
up this way: "There is oftentimes
need for detail apologetics, but
detail apologetics must always be
fully conscious of its subordinate
position. In the argument for and
against orgartic evolution this is
sometimes forgotten. The fight on
this sector of the front is somll"
times waged in such a manner as
though the issue could be . settled at
this place alone and once for ail.
So also men sometimes fight about
the trustworthiness of the Scripture
as though the next move of
someone's spade in Palestine could
determine everything. Facts, to be
sure, are stubborn things, but facts
must be interpreted. The philoso-
phy assumed by evolutionists is a
far more dangerous thing than the
evidence that they bring. Now all
facts are interpreted in either of
two ways. Men are either Theists
or Anti-theists. The whole battle
about facts is a mad scramble
between these two kinds of phi-
losophies."
III tomorrow's lecture I will set
out to do two verY ambitious
things. First, I will b;y to show that
the philosophical UIlderpiuning of
Darwinism. naturalism (in both its
methodological and metaphysical
forms), is not merely implausible,
but demonstrably false. Second, I
shall further argue that only
Christiartity provides the necessary
preconditions for scientific inquiry.
That is, Cbristiartity alone can
accoUIlt for phYSiCal laws, the
uniformity of nature. the reliability
of sense experience and other
things that are assumed by science.
Before I conclude, one final
qualification is in order. That the
debate between creation and ,.
Darwinism is ultimately over
worldviews and not over this, or
that piece of evidence does not
mean that evidence is uninlportant.
The fossils do not speak outside the
context of a worldview. :a ut sroce,
as I will argue tomorrow, the
Christian worldview is the only
worldview that can accoUIlt for
science, we must interpret the
fossils and every other fact from a
Christian perspective. This being
the case, the fossils turn out to
speak after all and they say at least
this much: Evolution - the fossils
say no!
26 - THE COUNSEL of Chalcedon -December, 1998 - January, 1999