Press "Enter" to skip to content

Self-Contradiction in Evolution

Traditional theism argues that God’s virtues are comparable or analogous to man’s. We can reason about God by assuming He is better than man. We can see the use of anthropomorphic thinking in our Lord’s teaching in the Gospel:

“Which one of you would hand his son a stone when he asks for a loaf of bread? If you then, who are wicked, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give good things to those who ask him?”

While anthropomorphism is used to think about God’s moral virtues, it is also used to think about His designing of the world. We look at man’s works, such as a house or a mechanical watch, and we assume that the “machinery” we see at work in the natural world must have an intelligent, even benevolent, designer, as human works do.

This, again, is anthropomorphism in philosophy, and is one of the strongest arguments for theism, that belief that the world was created by an intelligent God.

One argument against intelligent design in history, which was raised by David Hume through the character Philo in his “Dialogues on Natural Theology” is that while the analogies made between. Human and divine works are made based on similarities in those works, they also ignore the dissimilarities.

Atheists point out the apparently chaotic and irrational features of the natural world–birth defects, injustices, catastrophes, etc., and ask why the theists ignore these when they propose the intelligent design of the world. In short, they argue that the comparisons between man and God are not as clear as theists pretend they are and that anthropomorphism is an error.

Hearing these arguments from the atheists, we might need to acknowledge the principle of their argument that dissimilarities destroy analogies.

However, we quickly find that the atheists do not actually believe their own objection.

For, when they are asked to give their account of the origin of the world, they make use of the anthropomorphic analogies, only in the opposite direction. Rather than arguing that God is like man, they argue that irrational animals are like man. They argue that man “evolved” from apes because of similarities between them. They point, for example, to the hands of men resemble the hands of apes, and that this similarity is evidence of “evolution”.

This is the same analogous argument that they denied to the theists. Further, they have chosen a far weaker analogy than that of the theists, which leads to a far weaker argument.

Theists say that because man’s reason is found in no other creatures and is the means by which man controls other  physically superior animals, it is his (and the animal genus’s) greatest virtue.  And, since God is assumed to be greater than man, it would be assumed, reasonably, that God would possess or transcend human reason.

Atheists object to this because there are also dissimilarities–man has a body, man is sinful, man is mortal, etc. They also object to the idea of intelligent design because there are some elements that don’t seem to have an explanation.

Yet, these men turn around and propose a theory that is far worse according to their own standards. To argue that man is like the ape because his hands are similar, though the ape does not have reason or language, is a ridiculous argument.

Of course some similarities should be expected among animals, as they live in the same world and interact with the same material substances, but the similarities end there. How does music or language or religion “evolve” from a body without any of these, and why are hands considered an essential link when such significant dissimilarities are obvious?

This is a clear example of the foolishness of atheism. The objections raised against theism are contentious and unsustainable.

The theory of evolution cannot be proposed without the assumption of comparisons which are weaker than the comparisons in nature that point to theism.


Be First to Comment

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *