There are only two worldviews – a world created by God (Creation) and a world developed by chance (human evolution).
Let’s examine five foundations of the evolutionary worldview to see if they are valid. You see, if any one of the foundations upon which the worldview stands is false, so is the worldview.
Since God exists, we should expect that all true logic and reason (philosophy, science) would point back to Him. And it does! It’s not that God created logic or reason, but that He is logical and reasonable – orderly.
Its God’s world so any logic or reasoning that points away from Him is faulty and when applied to itself, crumbles [Proverbs 26:4-5].
What this also means is that atheists who attempt to use logic and reason must borrow these concepts from the Christian worldview to argue against Christianity. This only serves to prove that Christianity is true!
These things are on your side, Christian! Atheists must use the world that God created to argue against His existence!
ON FOUNDATIONS OF SAND
A belief 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.
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.
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.
A self-defeating idea: But the very moment you have the thought of materialism as an explanation for all reality is the moment in which it’s defeated because your thoughts are immaterial.
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.
A self-defeating idea: Science on both sides agrees our Universe (time, space, matter) had a beginning. Nature, our natural world, is necessarily included in that. Therefore, the Cause of the beginning has to lie outside of nature; outside of our Universe (time, space, matter). Something existing outside of nature is the very definition of supernatural. Therefore, there can never be a natural explanation for our beginning. Simply put, nature had a beginning and so it cannot be the cause of the beginning.
A belief in mankind as the measure of all things; based on relative truth and morality and rejecting any supernatural authority.
A self-defeating idea: Humanism presupposes all of the things above and therefore cannot stand as a true worldview.
If the foundation is faulty, how much more the house built upon it?
“Therefore everyone who hears these words of Mine and acts on them, may be compared to a wise man who built his house on the rock. “And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and slammed against that house; and yet it did not fall, for it had been founded on the rock. “Everyone who hears these words of Mine and does not act on them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. “The rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and slammed against that house; and it fell–and great was its fall.”
[Matthew 7:24-27 NASB]
This is one of the reasons why meshing the two worldviews is illogical.
And also why science will never solve the origins debate.