As a teen, I learned about evolution, which was seen as a completely random process. Over time, I came to see its numerous flaws and concluded that it was not a viable theory; I have written about the reasons for that here: https://keithpetersenblog.com/2020/09/16/is-evolution-a-viable-theory/ (Don’t worry; it’s not “technical.”) In Charles Darwin’s original formulation of evolution, human beings were regarded as simply animals. Among other things, this meant that people were not responsible for their actions and were thus free to live however they wanted. The flaws of this kind of thinking should be immediately apparent even from a secular point of view; more about that later.
In 2007, a multi-national group of biologists concluded that evolution is deterministic and orderly rather than random. This is a radical change from the randomness that generations of kids had previously learned about. But what would the consequences of this reformulation be for the reality of living?
A few months ago, I came across a rather remarkable book called Finding Truth by Nancy Pearcey. In her book, Pearcey fleshes out five powerful principles to apply to any worldview, whether it be secular or religious. I found her third principle to be particularly illuminating: Does the worldview contradict what we know about the world? She gives examples of prominent thinkers who have adopted a view of human beings as essentially machines. I understand now that this is a natural outgrowth of the view of evolution as deterministic rather than random; in other words, we are essentially not responsible for our actions because we are “pre-programmed” by our genes to think and act in certain ways. Even the great physicist Albert Einstein, who predated the change in evolutionary thinking, wrote almost 100 years ago, “I am compelled to act as if free will existed because if I want to live in a civilized society, I must act responsibly.” Notice the important phrase “as if;” in other words, Einstein didn’t believe in free will, but he lived according to it. This is an example of what Pearcey calls a “severe mental schizophrenia.” Here are some others:
- Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins refers to human beings as “survival machines–robot vehicles blindly programmed” by their genes. On the other hand, he also says, “I blame people [and] I give people credit.” When a young man questioned him about his mechanistic but inconsistent view of human beings, Dawkins said, “It is an inconsistency that we sort of have to live with; otherwise, life would be intolerable.”
- Philosopher Edward Slingerland has a whole section in one of his books entitled, “We Are Robots Designed Not to Believe That We Are Robots.” In other words, we are actually robots, but we think we’re not. Here’s what he wrote about his daughter: “At an important and ineradicable level, the idea of my daughter as merely a complex robot carrying my genes into the next generation is both bizarre and repugnant to me.”
- Roboticist Rodney Brooks writes that a human being is nothing but a machine bound by the laws of physics and chemistry. However, writing about his own children, he says, “When I look at my children, I can, when I force myself, …see that they are machines. [However], that is not how I treat them… They have my unconditional love.”
It is incredible to me how people like Richard Dawkins, Edward Slingerland, and Rodney Brooks can somehow live with this kind of extreme cognitive dissonance. On the one hand, they profess to have a view of human beings as machines; at the same time, however, they admit that they themselves don’t–indeed, can’t–live like it, especially when it comes to their own children. Beyond the contradictions that they somehow live with, the danger, of course, is that they and other people who hold to their views can live as if they are not responsible. The same is true, of course, regarding Darwin’s original formulation of evolution, which treats human beings as animals; in neither view–human beings as machines or as animals–are people truly responsible for their actions. This flies in the face of reality; if you don’t think so, murder someone in full view of a group of police officers and see what happens to you in court.
Evolutionary theories, whether old or new, hold up neither to scientific scrutiny nor the reality of trying to live according to them. The Christian worldview, in contrast, has incredible explanatory power for everything. This includes the Biblical view of human beings as being created in the image of God and being morally responsible for our actions.
If you have simply accepted evolution as fact, and even moreso if you have tried to live according to its implications, I would encourage you to examine it for yourselves. I would also encourage you to examine the Christian worldview; you can read what I and so many other people have written about it, but I would also encourage you to go to the source for what we who are Christians believe: the Bible. There you will find the truth about our sinful condition and the remedy for it in Jesus Christ–the Truth–that millions of others have found throughout history.
To the Remnant 
Hi Keith, I believe that the theory of evolution has been generally accepted in secular academia since the late 19th century, but what surprises me is that at least in the past decade if not longer most Americans seem to believe in either theistic or atheistic evolution. To the best of my knowledge, the percentage of people who believe in evolution is even higher in most developed nations than in the U.S. What bothers me is that individuals who do not believe in biological evolution are treated like those who believe that Earth is the center of the universe or who believe that the moon landing was faked. May the Lord bless your ministry.
LikeLiked by 1 person
As you say, Tony, I think that most, even the vast majority, of Americans simply accept evolution as fact because that’s how it’s taught. Again and again, I’ve heard people say things like, “That’s what we were taught in school.” In other words, they just don’t question it. In addition, the secular news media regularly write articles related to it; none of them question it, but instead offer supporting “evidence” for it. And as you alluded to, people who do question it are treated like ignorant pariahs who don’t believe in science. Frankly, it takes a whole lot more faith to believe in evolution than in God.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Keith, on another scientific issue, do you believe that there are three major races of humans? There’s been a lot of controversy over this issue among biologists and anthropologists in recent decades. I would like to hear your opinion on this issue since you know much more about science than I do.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Tony, I prefer the federal government’s classification of five major races: American Indian or Alaska Native; Asian; Black or African American; Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander; and White. I think it is easier to understand than words like “Mongoloid” and “Negroid,” although there are people who criticize the five-fold classification because, among other things, it sounds closer to ethnic groups than races. I think that ethnicity is much more specific and “useful” than race.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks for the interesting post, Keith. There is zero basis for the concept of “morality” in atheistic evolution theory.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thanks, Tom. You’re exactly right about morality in relation to naturalistic evolution. There is no basis for a lot of other things, either, including the love that Rodney Brooks expressed for his children.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This is good; I plan to share it in the next round up for my blog!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you, Brother; I’m honored!
LikeLiked by 1 person
😀👍✝️✝️✝️
LikeLiked by 1 person
Excellent post! I saw the title of this post on Pastor Jim’s blog and had to check it out. It is amazing to me that people can believe in the evolution of Dawkins, Slingerland, and Brooks. The examples you share of their cognitive dissonance reveal how they live in the real world with their ungodly belief system. In their “weaker” moments, they must think about the contradictions. I can only pray that their real world thoughts lead them to the real world Savior.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thank you, Chris! There are examples of scientists whose discoveries have led them to the Lord; the same is true of some philosophers in their philosophical musings. Perhaps the cognitive dissonance of others like these three will do the same.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You’re welcome, Keith! A scientist like the ones you’ve mentioned is the physicist Robert V. Gentry who wrote the book “Creation’s Tiny Mystery.” I’ve admired him for years for the flack he took from different “scientific” entities for his stand on something he discovered. Lately, I’ve admired the work of Dr. James Tour, a well-known chemist, who is causing waves in the area of Origin of Life Research.
It’s always nice to see someone who has the qualifications of Dr. Tour questioning the status quo of certain areas where the answers aren’t as certain as some “scientists” would lead us to believe.
God’s blessings…
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you, Chris, for those examples. Astrophysicist Hugh Ross is another good example and one that I especially like because of my love of astronomy. I had hoped that Robert Jastrow (author of God and the Astronomers) would come to faith in Christ, but it doesn’t appear that he did. However, it has been said that we will be surprised by who we will see in heaven–as well as who we won’t.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You’re welcome, Keith, and thank you for your reply. I am familiar with Hugh Ross but I haven’t heard of Robert Jastrow. We’ll have to keep on hoping in his case.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks, Chris; Jastrow died in 2008, so his eternal destiny is already determined. I hope that ultimately, he made the choice to trust Christ.
LikeLike
Thank you for letting me know, Keith. I have the same hope for him.
LikeLiked by 1 person