Objections to Evolutionism – Five
13 September 2010
Objection Number Five: There are too many facts evolution simply cannot explain.
I’m not talking about a “God of the gaps” theory, rightly criticized by evolutionists, in which facts not yet accounted for by science are attributed to divine intervention. In such a view, God’s role in nature gradually diminishes as science makes new discoveries, and creationists must admit that this absolutely cannot be correct.
What I am talking about is not those things which have not yet been accounted for by science, but those things which can never be accounted for by science: why do humans aspire to ideals such as truth, beauty, and love? What is the source of the universal human sense of morality by which we know, deep in our souls, that some things are right and others wrong – and almost invariably agree on which actions belong in each category? Why do humans engage in altruistic behaviors?
Such questions not only have not, but can never be answered by evolutionary theory (except by a pat “because we evolved that way,” which is no better than a pat “because God made it that way.”) The Bible, by contrast, tells us how God made us, and why he made us the way he did, providing deeply satisfying answers to these and many other questions.
I wouldn’t consider this a very strong argument against Evolution for a couple of reasons. Firstly, you have to seperate two ideas – That Evolution is true and that There is a God. Presumably you believe the latter, which would absolve Evolution from having to prove everything anyway. Evolution has shown how life has progressed on our planet, ideas about beauty and morality can surely be left to God?
As a non-believer in any God the above paragraph doesn’t explain anything for me but I believe Science holds the answers. I would question one point you make though:
“What is the source of the universal human sense of morality by which we know, deep in our souls, that some things are right and others wrong – and almost invariably agree on which actions belong in each category?”
I genuinely don’t believe that we do invariably agree, and don’t believe there is a “universal human sense of morality”. As just one example – murder – people will kill for many different reasons. So called “honour killings”, the genocide of races because of their colour or beliefs, the death penalty, abortion, euthanasia, and in every case the individual will rationalise their actions, and believe that what they are doing is good.
Anyway, thankyou for your interesting posts, and have a fab day
Just to clarify, I didn’t write that we “invariably agree,” but that we “almost invariably agree” – and that extra word was quite intentional.
Regarding your specific example, all people everywhere (as far as I know) would assent to the belief that murder, generally speaking, is wrong. Where we disagree is under what circumstances murder is acceptable. As you noted, there are many cases in which different people from different cultures and backgrounds will rationalize (pardon my American spelling
) when it is acceptable. But note also that these are regarded as exceptions to a general rule that murder is wrong.