Poetry, Short Prose and Walking

About seven years ago I was studying the Christian analytic philosopher Alvin Plantinga. I think I actually reached a point where I could explain the details of his Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (EAAN). However, I see now that I didn’t understand what was really at stake. Because he was a Christian and an analytic philosopher I assumed he was someone I could trust. Today I see much of this very differently and I am hopefully not as gullible.

The Capitulation

Plantinga’s argument pitted evolution, which he didn’t seriously question, against naturalism, which he rejected, to try to show that if you believed in evolution, you should not believe in naturalism. The problem with his argument, logically sound though it was, is that he thought he could separate out evolution to save it from the false atheistic mythology of naturalism.

To his credit Plantinga argued for a special kind of evolution which he called guided evolution. Based on this idea he hoped to resolve the alleged conflict between science and religion by compromising with, that is, capitulating to, atheism rather than rejecting it. He wrote in Where the Conflict Really Lies, (2011) page 11, the following:

A more important source of conflict has to do with the Christian doctrine of creation, in particular the claim that God has created human beings in his image. This requires that God intended to create creatures of a certain kind—rational creatures with a moral sense and the capacity to know and love him—and then acted in such a way as to accomplish this intention. This claim is clearly consistent with evolution (ancient earth, the progress thesis, descent with modification, common ancestry), as conservative Christian theologians have pointed out as far back as 1871.

While it may be clearly consistent in some logical system to assume the existence of a god, such as the fictitious Gaia, to guide evolution, that god could not have been the Elohim of Genesis 1 who finished creation in six days. That god who guided evolution could not have been the Christian God.

Ignoring Genesis

Faced with such a complaint a Christian who supports evolution, even if it is just physical/chemical evolution of planets, stars and galaxies, has to rationalize how six days can be interpreted to mean a mythologically large number of years. Plantinga does this far too quickly by dismissing young earth creationism on page 10 with the following:

Of course Christian belief just as such doesn’t include the thought that the universe is young; and in fact as far back as Augustine (354-430) serious Christians have doubted that the scriptural days of creation correspond to 24-hour periods of time.

He even admitted (footnote, page 144) that his resolution of the conflict between science and religion is not concerned with belief in a universal flood or with a very young earth. According to him, these are not part of Christian belief as such. On this ground alone Christians should reject his argument.

Redefining “Evolution”

To make his theory work he not only had to ignore Genesis, but he also had to redefine evolution to allow for creative activity of some sort. However, the very point of evolution is to come up with natural processes that completely account for changes that take one from nothing to something, from non-life to life and from pond scum to human beings without involving the creative activity of any God, angel, demon or human being.

On this ground alone even atheists should reject his argument. It doesn’t matter whether he finds it clearly consistent to add in creative agents. According to atheist mythology they are not wanted. Atheists don’t need them. His EAAN argument attempts to show that such views, however, are not reasonable, but why should that matter to atheists who rely on randomness, not rationality, and can fantasize a multiverse of universes in which to play atheist roulette?

Christian Alternatives

Confronted with evolution the Christian has three options:

1. Accept evolution and become an atheist.
2. Compromise (capitulate) in some way as Plantinga has done.
3. Reject evolution along with the rest of atheist mythology.

This may cause some people grief. No one wants to capitulate regarding their faith. However, there is no need for grief. It is a rational and scientific stance to reject evolution. Just ask yourself: what repeatable, measurable, non-creative, natural processes can you use to explain how nothing (not even a quantum vacuum) can turn into something? There are no non-creative, natural processes that can explain such a transition. That means physical evolution is atheist mythology. It is neither scientific nor rational to hold such a belief.

Continue this line of thinking. What natural processes exist that allow one to go from pond scum to human beings? If someone suggests that mutations and natural selection might work, then remind them that those processes lead to mutational meltdown (extinction). They do not lead to more complicated beings, but rather to less complicated ones. That means biological evolution is also impossible. One should reject it with the same conviction that one rejects the rest of atheist mythology.

The problem with evolution is the problem of building a house of cards without a creative agent. In the real world, not some magical, mythological world the atheist would love to live in, if you want to get a house of cards you need a human being, a creative agent. You need someone to build it. Natural, non-creative processes, such as a gust of wind and gravity, can surely knock that house down. Natural processes, however, cannot build it. That takes a creative agent, but evolution does not acknowledge them.

Ancient Earth

Plantinga describes evolution in these terms: ancient earth, the progress thesis, descent with modification, common ancestry. Note that without an ancient earth there would not be enough time for the rest of that mythological stuff to happen. On the Bible’s timeline of less than 8000 years there is no time for the progress thesis, there is no time for descent with modification and there is no time for common ancestry to occur.

Everything Plantinga wants to protect about evolution depends on an ancient earth, but what is the evidence for that?

1. Human history does not record more than 5000 years and even much of that is sketchy. There is no evidence for an ancient earth here.
2. Axiomatizing relativity with the two-way speed of light being what is constant in all frames of reference permits a convention of simultaneity where distant starlight arrives on earth in less than a second of time. There is no evidence for an ancient earth in distant starlight either.
3. Measurable, non-catastrophic, natural decay processes put upper limits on the age of anything they go about destroying such as rock formations, radiocarbon in diamonds, soft tissue in fossils and genetic code. These decay rates directly falsify the mythological ages assigned to rock formations, diamonds, fossils, and DNA. There is no evidence for an ancient earth when natural decay processes are taken into account.

Fulfilling Prophecy

Rather than trying to help atheists maintain their mythologies, Plantinga should have pointed out that evolution has never occurred and that the earth is not as old as atheists would like you to believe. Why didn’t he do that? Why did he add atheist mythologies to his Christian presuppositions? I think 2 Timothy 4:3-4 (NIV) tells us why:

³ For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. ⁴ They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.

Alvin Plantinga is an example of the fulfillment of this New Testament prophecy. Logically there is nothing wrong with the EAAN. It just doesn’t address the right problem which is the need to reject, not capitulate to, atheist mythologies. That capitulation turned Plantinga’s ear away from the truth and toward accepting myths.

Admittedly I used to be an example of this prophecy’s fulfillment as well and maybe I still am in ways I am not yet aware of. That is why I am writing about Plantinga’s EAAN and his claimed resolution of the conflict thesis. I want to make sure I put this stuff behind me having already repented of ever considering it helpful.