Definitions of the evolution worldview: A world without God

Despite what people may believe, there are really only two worldviews that exist: one with God and one without God. Here are some helpful definitions of terms explaining the difference between the two. Defining words is always entirely helpful and these can really help make it easier to get at truth when you speak with someone who does not share your worldview.

Worldview – the overall perspective from which one sees and interprets the world; a collection of beliefs about life and the universe held by an individual or a group


Unfortunately, there is no single “evolution worldview” to summarize. Different evolutionists hold to slightly different worldviews. However, those worldviews all have certain features in common and are all rationally defective, as we will see. Here is a summary of what seems to be the most common position. Evolutionists reject the straightforward record of Genesis. The ultimate standard for an evolutionist varies from person to person. Their ultimate standard is often either naturalism (the belief that nature is all that there is) or empiricism (the idea that all knowledge is gained from observations). As a result, evolutionists believe that the universe is billions of years old. It originated in a big bang – a rapid expansion of space, time and energy from a single infinitesimally small point. Energy cooled and became matter, which condensed into stars and galaxies. Stars made the heavier elements, some of which condensed to become planets. Our solar system in particular was formed about 4.5 billion years ago from a collapsing gas cloud. The stars, galaxies and planets are all the results of natural laws working over vast amounts of time. On earth, certain chemicals came together to form the first replicating cell. This cell reproduced others just like it, but occasionally a mutation (a copying mistake) produced a variation. Most of these variations are not as “fit” to their environment, resulting in the death of the organism, and thus the mutation is not passed on. However, some mutations end up benefiting the organism. Such “enhanced” organisms are more able to survive, and end up passing on the mutation to their offspring. In this way, organisms are said to gradually evolve, resulting in a tremendous variety of life forms we observe today. All life is the result of the laws of nature acting over time (“naturalism”). A god is not necessary for the process, though some evolutionists do believe in God, or atleast a god. According to evolutionists, there has not been a global Flood. Rather, the fossils were supposedly laid down over hundreds of millions of years of gradual processes. Evolutionists tend to hold to the philosophy of uniformitarianism (to varying degrees). This is the assumption that present rates and processes are representative of those that have happened in the past: “the present is the key to the past.” This is only a brief summary of a typical evolutionist’s position.

Evolution – all life on earth has come about through descent with modification from a single common ancestor

Darwinism – the Darwinian theory that species originate by descent, with variation, from parent forms, through the natural selection of those individuals best adapted for the reproductive success of their kind

Neo-darwinism – the theory of evolution as expounded by later students of Charles Darwin, esp. Weismann, holding that natural selection accounts for evolution and denying the inheritance of acquired characters; any modern theory of evolution holding that species evolve by natural selection acting on genetic variation

Phylogenetic Tree – diagrams that show the alleged evolutionary relationships between organisms

Uniformitarianism – the doctrine that present-day processes acting at similar rates as observed today account for the change evident in the geologic record

Uniformitarian Model of Plate Tectonics – based on the gradual movement of the plates over hundreds of millions of years

Historical (origins) Science – interpreting evidence from past events based on a presupposed philosophical point of view

Historical Theory – an explanation of past events based on the interpretation of evidence that is available in the present

Humanism – a belief in mankind as the measure of all things; based on relative truth and morality and rejecting any supernatural authority

Materialism – a belief claiming that physical matter is the only or fundamental reality and that all organisms, processes and phenomena can be explained as manifestations or interactions of matter

Naturalism – a belief denying that an event or object has a supernatural significance; specifically, the doctrine that scientific laws are adequate to account for all phenomena

Relativism – relativists believe that truth is “relative” – that it varies from person to person. Relativism includes the idea that there are no absolutes. A self-defeating idea: But the proposition that “there are no absolutes” is itself an absolute proposition. Relativists assert that it is absolutely true that truth is not absolute. This is a self-defeating philosophy. If relativism were absolutely true, it would lead to a consequence that it cannot be absolutely true. So, if it were true, it would be false; therefore it is false.

Empiricism – a belief that all knowledge is gained from observations. Some knowledge is gained through observation – this is perfectly consistent with Scripture. God made our senses to reliably probe the universe and so there is nothing wrong with empirical methods. A self-defeating idea: But the philosophy of empiricism goes much further than this. Empiricists believe that all knowledge is acquired by observation. Or to put it another way, observation is the ultimate standard by which all truth claims are tested. And that I do not believe. However, many evolutionists are empiricists. We must eventually ask the empiricist how he knows that “all knowledge is gained through observation.” Clearly this is not something that the empiricist has observed (since knowledge cannot be “seen”). So then how could anyone possibly know that empiricism itself is true, if all things are indeed known by observation? If empiricism is proved in some way other than through observation, then it refutes itself. If the empiricist’s ultimate standard did happen to be true, the empiricist could never actually know that it is true; he could never prove it. And if a person’s ultimate standard is uncertain, then all his other beliefs (which are based on that standard) are called into question. Empiricism destroys the possibility of actually knowing anything.

Spontaneous Generation – the false belief that life can arise from nonliving matter


Presupposition – a belief that is accepted as true and is foundational to one’s worldview

Faith – belief in things that cannot be directly known or observed

Religion – a cause, principle or belief system held to with zeal and conviction

One of the most helpful and important things you can remember when talking with someone is that both God and human evolution lie outside the realm of science because both are beyond human observation and, therefore, cannot be proved by science.

Bibliography: Lisle, Dr. Jason. The Ultimate Proof of Creation. Green Forest: Master Books, 2009.

What’s on your mind?

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: