Empiricism- which teaches that all things are known and can be known through observation. If empiricism were true, we could never know that it was true because it has not been observed.
Relativism- this is something that ALL evolutionists believe, they have to in order to back up their beliefs. Relativism states that there are no absolutes (God) and truth is subjective, "my truth is not your truth". But, the law of non-contradiction for example, would be meaningless if truth varied from person to person. You can't say "my car is in the garage" and "my car is not in the garage" that would be a contradiction. The law of non-contradiction is one of the universal laws of logic. Evolutionists give up laws of logic, yet expect everyone else to abide by them. This should be pointed out to them, "If what you are saying is true, then why are you debating with me? How can you say my position is wrong if truth is relative to the individual?".
Okay, now that that is out of the way, onto the proofs!
1. The laws of logic (non-contradiction among others)
2. The moral laws
3. uniformity of nature
Before we explore these more we need to understand eachother's worldviews. Everyone has a worldview. They are created from experience and by what one chooses to believe, they are almost impossible to change. That is why using scientific evidence for Biblical creation alone wont convince someone. Everyone interprets the evidence in light of their worldviews. I will give a few examples below.
There are two main competing worldviews:
- The Darwinian evolutionary worldview sees life as having sprung into existence miraculously, naturally and randomly approximately fourteen billon years ago.
- The Biblical creation worldview sees life as having been designed purposefully and created supernaturally by God approximately six thousand years ago.
Darwinian Evolutionist Worldview
Biblical Creationist WorldviewModern “species” arise from the same ancestral group based on evolution from a single common ancestor. Offspring are a part of an evolutionary lineage from less evolved to more evolved.
Modern “species” arise from the same ancestral group based on variation within a single created kind. Offspring end up with the same or a lesser amount of genetic information than their ancestors, never more.
The source of new genetic information is mutations sorted by natural selection.
Mutation and natural selection cannot produce any new genetic information. God created various kinds of life with great variety and ability to adapt and reproduce within their own kind.
Fossils document evolutionary history and provide evidence of intermediate species.
Fossils only prove that something died. There is no way to prove that any fossil had any offspring and therefore, there is no proof that any fossil could be anyone’s ancestor, or that any fossil could produce anything other than its own kind. Fossils were formed during rapid burial resulting from the Biblical flood.
Similarity of DNA in living creatures proves common ancestry.
Similarity of DNA in living creatures proves a common designer.
Radiometric dating methods are reliable and accurately prove that the earth is billions of years old.
Radiometric dating methods are unreliable and cannot prove the date of anything because they incorrectly assume that decay rates have been constant over billions of years; that rocks never possess daughter atoms not formed by the radioactive decay of the parent; and that rocks are never contaminated with extra parent and daughter atoms produced apart from radioactive decay.
Viewing the exact same evidence through two opposing worldviews always leads to two entirely different conclusions. People will interpret the evidence in light of their worldview. The proof of Biblical creation or Darwin’s evolution therefore cannot be based on an argument over any empirical evidence; rather it must be based on an argument over the validity of a given worldview.
Which worldview can make sense of scientific reasoning, logical deduction, and morality? The Biblical creation worldview can account for all of these; Darwin’s evolutionism cannot.
The ultimate proof of creation is that only the Biblical worldview is able to provide a rational foundation for all human experience and reasoning while passing its own criteria.
Only the Biblical creation worldview can provide a rational explanation for the presuppositions necessary for science. A logical, orderly universe, a rational mind, reliable senses, mathematical axioms, induction, and the laws of logic are just a few of the presuppositions required by science that are provided by the Biblical creation worldview but which cannot be justified in Darwin’s random, mindless, unguided evolutionary universe.
Romans 1:18–23 provides an illustration of the ultimate proof of creation. These verses tell us that everyone has innate knowledge of God (verses 19–20); this is why everyone knows about laws of logic, uniformity of nature, and morality. But people suppress that truth (verse 18). They do not acknowledge God as the foundation of knowledge, and as a result, their thoughts are reduced to foolishness (verses 21–22).
An example of this foolishness is when the evolutionist reasons and performs science, yet denies the very God who makes reasoning and science possible. On one hand, the evolutionist believes that people are simply chemical accidents; and on the other hand, the evolutionist can treat people respectfully, with love and moral sensitivity as if he and they are not chemical accidents. So, the evolutionary worldview is intellectually schizophrenic.
If the universe is the result of an unguided cosmic accident, why would we expect it to be orderly, or obey mathematical laws? Why should we expect our senses to reliably inform our minds, if our minds and senses are simply the results of mutations that conveyed some sort of survival value in the past? There would be no reason to think that science is even possible in Darwin’s evolutionary universe.
If our brain and eyes are merely the result of molecules in motion, then why should we think that what we see and what we think are actually true? Only if God created the universe and our senses (as the Bible teaches), would we have the right to know that our senses are reliable, and that the mind is capable of interpreting what the eyes sense.
Scholarly analysis presupposes that the human mind is not just chemistry. Rationality presupposes that we have the freedom to consciously consider the various options and choose the best. Evolutionism undermines the preconditions necessary for rational thought, thereby destroying the very possibility of knowledge and science.
"Understanding" implies that we have a mind and freedom of thought to consider alternatives and choose the best. But if Darwin’s evolution is true, then our brain is simply the result of mindless chemistry that happened to convey survival value in the past. So there would be fundamentally no reason to think that we can reason in an evolutionary worldview. If Darwin’s evolution were true, then what you think and say could not be rational, but would merely be the inevitable result of chemistry over time.
Knowledge does not require a belief in Biblical creation — but knowledge does require that Biblical creation is true. Evolutionists can know lots of things, but only because their worldview is wrong.
If Darwin’s evolution were true, science would not make sense because there would be no reason to accept the uniformity of nature upon which all science and technology depend. Nor would there be any reason to think that rational analysis would be possible since the thoughts of our mind would be nothing more than the inevitable result of mindless chemical reactions.
The basic reliability of our senses is a Biblical presupposition. Since God made our senses (Prov. 20:12), we can expect them to work properly (though because of sin and the Curse, not all of the time). Furthermore, since God made both our mind and the universe (John 1:3), we can expect that these things "go together." That is, the creationist has the right to expect that the mind has the capacity to understand aspects of the universe. There would be no reason to expect any of these things if the eyes, the mind, and the universe were merely accidents of a Big Bang and Darwin’s evolution.
Evolutionists must assume the preconditions of intelligibility in order to make any argument whatsoever; they must assume things like laws of logic and uniformity of nature. But these preconditions of intelligibility do not comport with an evolutionary worldview; they only make sense if Biblical creation is true. Hence, we have an ultimate proof of creation: we know that Biblical creation must be true because if it were not, we could not know anything at all. Biblical creation is proved by the fact that if it were not true, we couldn’t prove anything at all.
No refutation of the ultimate proof is possible, since any critic would have to borrow Biblical principles like laws of logic in order to construct his argument.
Evolutionists may not profess God, or be thankful to Him, but they rely on Him. Science is possible because God upholds the universe in a logical, orderly way and because God made our minds able to think and reason logically and made our senses able to perceive the universe.
According to the Biblical creation worldview, all humans are made in God’s image. As such, humans know in their hearts the Biblical God. God has built into them the knowledge that they should be consistent, non-arbitrary, rational, moral persons. And try as they might, they cannot completely escape this principle. The unbeliever must live in God’s universe, and therefore must accept God’s presuppositions in order to function. The unbeliever might deny being made in God’s image, but he cannot escape it.
According to the Biblical creationist worldview, God has "hardwired" certain presuppositions into our mind: we don’t learn that our senses are reliable, we just know it (each day). When we then read the Bible, we find that our presuppositions are justified: they are not merely "blind" assumptions; the Bible tells us that God designed our mind and body, and God also made the universe.
According to the Biblical creationist worldview, the Biblical worldview has always been true, even before the Bible itself that articulates this view was inscribed. God talked with Adam directly (e.g., Gen. 2:16–17), and Adam passed on what he had learned about God to his children and grandchildren (Gen. 4:26). People have had knowledge of the Biblical God and Biblical creation right from the beginning. Therefore, people have always had a foundation for rationality, science, and morality.
The correct worldview must be self-consistent and the reason is that God is self-consistent, and thus all truth is. The Biblical worldview is the only worldview that is actually able to authorize itself — to pass its own criteria while simultaneously providing criteria for everything else.
THE ULTIMATE STANDARD
An ultimate standard must prove itself. It must be self-attesting. It must provide a basis for proving absolutely everything that is knowable.
The changing nature of what is considered "scientific knowledge" makes science unsustainable as an ultimate standard. Our understanding of science is constantly improving so we never know for sure that our current scientific understanding is complete and correct. Therefore, the position that science is the ultimate standard, or that the Bible must be interpreted to fit the majority opinion of scientists is self-defeating.
An ultimate standard cannot be proved from another standard (since there is no greater standard, and appealing to a lesser standard is fallacious). An ultimate standard must be ultimate. Therefore, if it is to be proved, it must use itself as the criterion. The Bible not only provides criteria for itself, but does so for all other facts.
The Bible gives us a foundation (the Biblical God) for rational reasoning (including laws of logic), science, morality, reliability of our senses and memory. It even gives us a foundation for why we should not be inconsistent or arbitrary (because God isn’t, and we are to imitate Him — Eph. 5:1). The Bible passes its own criteria for truth (it is consistent, non-arbitrary, etc.).
Only the Biblical God can be the foundation for knowledge (Prov. 1:7; Col. 2:3). No one has ever been able to come up with another ultimate standard.
Since God is ultimate, He can only use Himself as the authority. Since an ultimate standard cannot appeal to a greater standard for its authority, it must appeal to itself.
The Biblical God is the foundation for things like logic, uniformity, and morality — but only if the Bible is taken in a straightforward way. If sections of the Bible are rejected, or if the literal history in the Bible is taken metaphorically, then we would lose the foundation for all reasoning and experience.
The Bible is not a scientific book. After all, science books are not infallible. They require updates as older ideas are discarded in favor of newer ideas. But God got the Bible exactly right the first time.
Much of the Bible is written in the historical narrative style; therefore it should be read like a history book — as literal history. This is because God literally created human beings and we are responsible to Him for our actions.
There would be no reason to trust that our senses are reliable or that human beings have dignity if the sections of the Bible that touch on such things were not literally true.
Without the Bible we would have no guarantee that God has indeed chosen to uphold things uniformly in the future. Nor could we know that God is indeed all-powerful, beyond time, faithful, and so on, unless He has told us so.
Most significantly, if the Bible were not the Word of God, what would be the foundation for morality, or rational reasoning? These things make sense if there is a God who is sovereign over the entire universe, and who has revealed His standards in His Word. But without the Bible, moral and rational standards are reduced to subjective, fluctuating, personal opinions with no binding power whatsoever.
All arguments must terminate in an ultimate standard — an authority that is held to be unquestionable. Otherwise, arguments would go on forever and could not be completed. Since an ultimate standard cannot be proved from anything beyond itself, it must be self-attesting as the Bible is. The Bible claims to be God’s Word and one either accepts that claim or does not.
Only if we start from the Bible as our ultimate standard, does it make sense that there are laws of logic; uniformity in nature; reliability of our senses; and a moral code in our society. Without the Bible as our ultimate standard, the foundation for all of these things is lost.
People are free to craft their own moral code apart from God. They can adopt their own standards of right and wrong. However, this kind of thinking is arbitrary and will lead to absurd and dangerous consequences for society. If everyone selected their own morality, then no one could argue that what other people do is actually wrong since other people could invent their own personal moral code.
Morality is a universal standard of acceptable behavior and in the Biblical worldview, there is a universal standard for behavior because God is sovereign over all creation. Moreover, God has "hardwired" His law into our mind because He knew we would need it. So, the Biblical worldview can explain why there is an absolute moral code, and why human beings know about it.
The evolutionist relies on morality, believes in morality, but cannot explain the basis for the existence of morality within his worldview. Therefore, the evolutionist must borrow the basis of morality from the Biblical worldview.
If people are simply evolutionary chemical accidents, why would human beings care about the well-being of others? Without the Biblical God, right and wrong are reduced to mere personal preferences. In Darwin’s evolutionary universe, the statement "murder is wrong" is nothing more than a personal opinion. In Darwin’s evolutionary universe no horrendous action would constitute an atrocity.
The Bible explains that everyone knows the Biblical God in his heart (Rom. 1:19–20). This is why human beings know that it’s wrong to murder. But people suppress knowledge of God (Rom. 1:18). They reject the light of knowledge that is only found in God (Col. 2:3) because (of sin) they prefer darkness (John 3:19) and ignorance (Prov. 1:7, 1:29).
The argument here is not that evolutionists are immoral. Rather, the argument is that only the Biblical worldview provides a rational, logical basis for an absolute and authoritative moral code. Evolutionists can be moral citizens, but they have no basis for the existence of morality within their own worldview.
LAWS OF LOGIC
The laws of logic are God’s standard for thinking. Human beings have a universal standard for reasoning because Almighty God has revealed some of His thoughts to us.
Since God made the universe, and since God made our minds, it makes sense that our minds would have an ability to study and understand the universe. But if the universe and our minds are simply the results of time and chance as Darwin’s theory contends, why would we expect that the mind could make sense of the universe? How could science and technology be possible?
According to Genesis, God has made us in His image (Gen. 1:26) and therefore we are to follow His example (Eph. 5:1). The laws of logic are a reflection of the way God thinks, and thus the way He expects us to think. The law of non-contradiction is not simply one person’s opinion of how we ought to think, rather it stems from God’s self-consistent nature.
If someone asserted that he had finally discovered two contradictory claims that were both true, the evolutionist would have no basis within his worldview for dismissing such an assertion. Only in a Biblical worldview can we know that contradictions cannot occur in reality; only the Biblical worldview provides a basis for the law of non-contradiction.
If Darwin’s evolution were true, then people could not think what they want; their thoughts would merely be the necessary result of random chemical reactions in the brain. Only in the Biblical worldview can we account for human freedom of thought, rationality and logic.
The evolutionary worldview cannot account for absolute standards of reasoning like the laws of logic. In an accidental evolutionary universe, there would be no universal, unchanging standards.
The laws of logic are contingent on God. They are a reflection of the way God thinks. Thus, they cannot exist without Him any more than our reflection in a mirror can exist without us. Since God is a thinking being and since He has always existed, laws of logic have always reflected His thinking.
The laws of logic presuppose the Biblical God. So without God as revealed in the Bible, there would be no foundation for the laws of logic, by which we prove other things. Logic is contingent upon the Biblical God.
The evolutionary worldview cannot make sense of the laws of logic because there is no rational justification for universal, immaterial, invariant entities within Darwin’s evolutionary universe. In addition, those who hold to a materialistic philosophy cannot make sense of laws of logic because laws of logic are not material things.
The laws of logic will work tomorrow, even though no one has experienced the future. We take it for granted that the laws of logic are invariant and universal, yet that assumption wouldn’t make sense if the laws of logic were contingent upon the physical world. Different areas of the universe are just that: different. Why then do they adhere to the same laws of logic? If laws of logic were a simple reflection of the physical world, then we’d expect that different regions of the universe that are physically different would have different laws of logic. Moreover, the physical world is constantly changing, yet the laws of logic do not vary. So clearly, the laws of logic cannot be simply a reflection of the world.
The laws of logic are a universal standard for reasoning, and the evolutionary worldview cannot account for a (non-arbitrary) universal standard for anything. Evolutionists believe in and utilize the laws of logic, but they cannot account for the existence of universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic within their evolutionary worldview.
The creationist believes in universal, immaterial, invariant entities because God Himself is omnipresent, immaterial, and invariant. Moreover, God has thoughts, and these thoughts are reflected in the way God upholds the universe.
The laws of logic as we understand them require more than the existence of simply a god. Not just any old god will do. God must have certain characteristics: He must be eternal, absolute, and unchanging. This must be the case so that the laws of logic that reflect God’s thinking are also absolute and invariant.
A God who reveals Himself to man is also required; we wouldn’t be able to know the laws of logic unless God revealed some of His thoughts to us. Only God of the Holy Bible adequately provides the preconditions of intelligibility for human experience and reasoning, including (but not limited to) the laws of logic.
Logical reasoning is possible because Biblical creation is true. The evolutionist can reason logically, but within his own worldview he cannot account for his ability to reason.
Uniformity, a centerpiece of the Biblical worldview, asserts a consistency in the way the universe operates: if conditions are the same, one can expect the same outcome. In other words, the laws of nature are constant, but conditions and specific processes may be quite different in time or space.
Conversely, uniformitarianism, a centerpiece of the evolutionary worldview, asserts that there’s a consistency of conditions and processes; present rates and processes are constant over time or space.
Today, canyons are gradually deepening as water slowly erodes the surrounding rock layers. A person holding to uniformitarianism would believe that this has always been the case; he would believe that the Grand Canyon has formed by water slowly eroding the surrounding rock layers since "the present is the key to the past." However, this need not be so. A number of geologists believe that the Grand Canyon was not formed slowly from a river but was formed quickly under the catastrophic conditions of the Biblical Flood. So here, the present would not be the key to the past.
Genesis 1:31 teaches that the world was once very good, but now it is under a bondage of corruption due to sin (Rom. 8:20–22). The world was once totally under water (Gen. 7:19–23), but now it isn’t. Things have certainly changed. God has made a universe in which conditions and rates can change quite drastically, and yet God Himself does not change. He upholds the universe in a consistent way. So the Bible teaches uniformity but denies uniformitarianism.
Any time we use past experience as a basis for what is likely to happen in the future, we are acknowledging uniformity. But only the Biblical worldview has a basis for such uniformity:
Genesis 8:22: “While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night, shall not cease.”
Apart from the Biblical God who is beyond time, knows the future, and has told us that the future will reflect the past (Gen. 8:22), there would be no rational basis for uniformity. Apart from the Biblical God, how could we possibly know anything about a future that no one has experienced?
God made all things (Gen. 1:1; John 1:3) and has imposed order on the universe. Since the Bible teaches that God upholds all things by His power (Heb. 1:3), the creationist expects that the universe would function in a logical, orderly, law-like fashion.
Scientists are able to perform reliable experiments only because there is uniformity as a result of God’s sovereign and consistent power. Scientific experimentation would be pointless without uniformity; scientists would get a different result every time they performed an identical experiment, destroying the very possibility of gaining any scientific knowledge.
The future resembles the past because God upholds the future as He has upheld the past (the laws of nature are constant). Since none of us have experienced the future, the only way we could know that the future is like the past is by revelation from God. Human beings rely on this vital principle every day. Only the Biblical worldview provides justification that the future will resemble the past. Only if Genesis 8:22 is literally true can we have a basis for the uniformity of nature upon which all science depends.
Hebrews 1:3 tells us that God upholds "all things by his powerful Word." This means that planets, stars, and atoms are held together by God’s power. Gravity and electromagnetic forces are descriptions of the way in which God holds the universe together. The laws of physics are not a replacement for God’s power; they are an example of God’s power.
The evolutionary worldview cannot account for uniformity. In Darwin’s evolutionary universe, there is no reason at all to expect the universe to be law-like and no reason to believe that the universe will continue to behave in the future as it has in the past.
Only the Biblical God who is beyond time, consistent, faithful, all-powerful, omnipresent, and who has revealed Himself to mankind can guarantee that there will be uniformity throughout space and time. Therefore, only the Biblical worldview can account for uniformity in nature and thus only the Biblical worldview can provide justification for science. The evolutionist must either accept uniformity without reasons (on "blind faith") or justify it by the Bible, which is contrary to Darwin’s evolution.
When we accept that our memories and observations are reliable and meaningful, we have effectively accepted uniformity. Therefore, we cannot then turn around and use observation, empirical evidence, and so on as a proof of uniformity. This would be the fallacy of begging the question — simply assuming what we are trying to prove.
Science wouldn’t be possible without uniformity. Yet only the Biblical worldview can account for uniformity. Apart from the Bible we would have no basis for believing that the future should reflect the past, and thus no foundation for science and technology.
The argument is that if Darwin’s evolution were true, nature could not be known (because there would be no basis for uniformity). Nature can be known, therefore Darwin’s evolution is not true. (Deductive logic law: Modus Tollens).
A rational person must have justification for what he believes and cannot be allowed to be arbitrary. Only the Biblical worldview provides a reason to believe that the future will be like the past. Only the Biblical creationist has justification for the uniformity of nature upon which all science depends. Therefore, when an evolutionist performs science, he is being irrational, since he believes in something (uniformity) for which he has no justification within his worldview.
The principles of science (such as uniformity) do not require a belief in the Bible; they simply require that the Biblical worldview is true.
Faith is absolutely essential because it involves a necessary confidence in things that are unseen.
When we read the Bible, we find that faith is justified. Biblical presuppositions such as the laws of logic, morality in society, reliability of man’s senses, and uniformity in nature all make sense in the Biblical worldview.
First Peter 3:15 tells us that we need to always be ready to give a defense of faith. Those who ask us if we have a reason for our faith must be given an answer. This indicates that we should indeed have a reason for our faith.
God has not called us to convert people into believers; this is beyond our power. He has called us to give a defense of the faith.
We cannot "argue someone into heaven." Therefore, we will need to evangelize. We will need to critique the shotcomings of the evolutionary worldview and present the validity of the Biblical creation worldview.
There you have it, you have to have faith for evolution and faith for creation...except the BIG difference here is evolution has no way to explain away these three proofs!