Humanists typically insist that their evolutionary worldview is based on “science,” and adamantly reject the hard truth that their worldview is based on faith. In Parts 2 and 3 of the Humanism as Religion debate, I repeatedly challenged humanists on the Friendly Atheist Facebook page to provide observable, repeatable, and testable examples of the following:
1. Life evolving from non-life.
2. “Upward” changes in the genotype and phenotype of an organism, such as an originally-blind organism evolving eyesight, or an originally flight-less species developing the ability to fly.
None of the humanists attempted to provide such examples. My hope and prayer is that these questions challenge them to think critically about their worldview, and to realize that it is based on faith, not observable science. Part 4 of 6 of the debate includes humanists that are both old and new to the thread. Humanist BM from Part 2 offers a short response that does not attempt to answer my questions. Humanists CS, PD, and JB offer up some comments. For brevity, I am abbreviating my own name (in addition to the humanists' names) as the humanists address me in their comments.
Below is Part 4 of 6 of the Humanism as Religion debate:
CS:
KH what happens if you believe in god and believe he created man through evolution? What does that do the equation???
BM:
KH you lost all credibility the minute you cited Answers in genesis
PD:
KH the Bible or it’s teachings are not banned and in many states they still have a lot of religion despite separation of church and state.
PD:
KH answers in genesis? seriously? That’s not science and Ham doesn’t know the first thing about evolution.
JB:
KH No sorry, totally false comparison Kevin. Humanism is a secular philosophy that's very specifically the philosophy of choice made by the Separation Clause.
And that clause was developed and agreed upon by religions (not atheists who wouldn't have had a formal representation back then) who saw secularist decision making as the 'default' method for arriving at the fairest and most informed public arena law making.
Attempting therefore, to classify secularist humanism as some sort of 'specialised' cult religious thinking, is an oxymoron.
Me:
CS, if you are talking about the God of the Bible, then the person who believes that God created mankind through evolution is trying to mix two different and contradictory religions: Christianity and humanism. That person inconsistently trusts the authority of God’s Word in some areas, but elevates human opinion above God’s Word in other areas.
BM, your statement is a logical fallacy called the “Genetic fallacy.” You are dismissing an argument because you reject the source of the argument. An argument should be evaluated based on its merit, not the source. Can you answer my questions or make a merit-based rebuttal?
Me:
PD, I’m specifically referring to public schools. School-sponsored Bible reading in public schools was found to be unconstitutional [by] the U.S. Supreme Court in Abington School District v. Schempp.
“KH answers in genesis? seriously? That’s not science and Ham doesn’t know the first thing about evolution.”
How do you define “science”? Does not science require observable, repeatable, and testable experimentation? If so, then can you answer the questions that I posed to BM, PK, and JD earlier in the thread?
Me:
JB, how so? How did the founders decide that the atheistic philosophy was the “default” method for arriving at the “…fairest and most informed public arena law making”?
While I never heard anything more from these particular humanists, I want to briefly point out something regarding JB’s comment. She claims that secular philosophy is the “philosophy of choice” made by the “Separation Clause.” First, there is no “Separation Clause.” She must be thinking of the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment. Secondly, she claims that secular decision-making is the “…'default' method for arriving at the fairest and most informed public arena law making.” This is a self-refuting statement. How can a humanist measure the “fairness” of a law without an ultimate standard? After all, since secular philosophy is simply man’s opinion, and since one person’s opinion will differ from another person’s opinion, then who decides what is fair and not fair?
Christians have an ultimate standard to judge the “fairness” of laws: God’s Word. Christians even have a biblical reason to be subject to governing authorities.
“You shall do no wrong in judgment, in measures of length or weight or quantity.”—Leviticus 19:35
“A false balance is an abomination to the Lord, but a just weight is his delight.”—Proverbs 11:1
“Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.”—Romans 13:1
In my next post, I will share a response from JD (from Part 3) who claims that “there is no debate” regarding the supposed truth of evolution. I will also share my rebuttal.