Apologetics

As I was listening to a sermon Sunday evening, a few thoughts started to dance around in my head. These thoughts were apologetic in nature, and I am sure were triggered by something in the sermon, maybe the reference to Romans 1:20, which has always been on of my favorite verses.

I am not one who dwells in apologetics on a regular basis as I am just not that bright. I do read in the subject, but as far as the actual work, I leave that to the theologians. I have recently begun to read both Cornelius Van til and Gordan Clark and their views on presuppositional apologetics with great interest. I was thinking of their words as Romans 1:20 settled on my heart when it hit me... the idea of circularity.

This idea of circularity is itself part of an apologetic that states that the argument for Christianity is circular in reason. Most presuppositional apologetic supporters will reject this as a fallacy, but John Frame encourages us to slow a bit in our judgment. He writes,

"That presupposed allegiance rules our thinking, as it rules all other aspects of life. And since Christian presuppositions underlie all of the Christian’s reasoning, then our argument for the truth of Christianity itself must be, in a certain sense, circular. We should try to understand what that “certain sense” is. It is not that we are reduced to saying “Christianity is true because it is true,” or any such nonsense. Rather, the argument is circular in that it appeals to criteria of truth and rationality which are themselves Christian in that they accord with Christian presuppositions. But if that is true, then we are presenting an argument that assumes from the outset that Christianity is true; it assumes, in other words, the conclusion it attempts to prove."

Presuppositional apologetics holds that without a theistic worldview there will be no consistent basis upon which to assume any possibility of autonomous reason. When other worldviews attempt to refute Christianity by an appeal to deductive reason (inductive reasoning is of no help here), they are in fact borrowing from the Christian worldview, hence being inconsistent with their stated presuppositions. The presuppositional apologist can take a given value which is held by the unbeliever and demonstrate to him or her that if his own worldview were true, that belief would be meaningless without the Christian worldview. The assumption is this: unless the Christian worldview is presupposed—whether at a conscious or subconscious level—there is no possibility for proving anything with out it.

The argument for evolution attempts the same jump in science as it must presuppose some things before reaching a conclusion. Generally, all theories begin first with a hypothesis based on some suspected truth that is supposed. Once the supposed truth is proven through diligent honest research then, in that field, all future thought begins, first, with this presupposed proven truth in order to build and discovery more truth to add to the existing truth. Evolution has not been held to the same standards. It has taken a suspected truth and pushed that truth to the presupposed truth status before research has proven anything substantial. There are those who will cry fowl in support of evolution, but watch and listen closely. Their cries in defense of evolution will be loud, boisterous and all fallacies.

But, science was not content to keep this false presupposed truth in a single field, instead, pushing this false presupposed truth, first, into every scientific field and, then, into every other field and subject. Today, we are confused; most of us will not admit it, but we are really not quite sure why this truth that is suppose to be presupposed and a priori feels so wrong and leads to such hopelessness.

Let me apologize at this time for subjecting you to the strange way my mind works... pray for my poor wife as she has to deal with me daily. Anyway, I was thinking these things in this order when it hit me... man will never prove that evolution is true or false in the same way that man will never prove that God exists or does not. And, here is why. When those working in a lab or on a theory discover something... they do so under conditions. In a lab or in theory, there will always be a test tube or theory, variables and a controlled environment. Even if science is able to clone or create something, it will always be in a lab with a test tube or a theory, variables and a controlled environment or in other words... with some sort of intelligent design and a creator!

For me, every scientist is now proof of a Holy God because no matter what they prove, whether it be in a lab or in theory, they are still involved in the process creating theories, variables and controlling the environment.

Regarding evolution and its standard definition, "in biology evolution is change in the genetic material of a population of organisms through successive generations. Although the changes produced in a single generation are normally small, the accumulation of these differences over time can cause substantial changes in a population, a process that can result in the emergence of new species. Similarities among species suggest that all known specie descended from a common ancestor (or ancestral gene pool) through this process of gradual divergence."

From where did the genetic material come? Creator. From where did the common ancestor come? Creator. Every where that I look I find that it is necessary for a Creator to be part of the process as evidenced by scientists and their theories, variables and controlled environments. May God be Glorified!