Audio

TranscriptIf evolution were true, you couldn't know it.

Before I tell you how you couldn't know evolution were true, if it were true, I want to briefly recap what evolution is. Neo-Darwinian evolution is a combination of the theories of Darwin that have, well, evolved over the years and then been further developed.

There are twin mechanisms at the heart of it. Those are the combination of random mutation and natural selection. Random mutation refers to the fact that when cells reproduce reproduce, sometimes there are differences that occur. There are mutations. The genetic code actually differs. It's not passed on exactly the same way. Some of these mutations can be beneficial for survival and some can be less beneficial, or they can be detrimental.

Then there's this other mechanism of natural selection. What this says is that organisms with more helpful mutations—more helpful adaptations to their environment—are more likely to survive. That nature, in a way, selects the ones that are most fit. That's a very brief thumbnail sketch of Neo-Darwinian evolution.

Evolution selects for fitness, not truth apprehension

Now, why do I say that if that's true, you couldn't know it? Because there's nothing in that system, those twin mechanisms of random mutation and natural selection, that actually says anything about an organism's ability to know its environment, to actually come to correctly understand the truth of reality. All those twin mechanisms tell you is that you might be more fit for your environment. On evolutionary theory, nature makes you more fit to survive, not to actually know truth as it exists out in the world. Let's remember, there are a few different versions or theories of truth. One version or theory of truth says truth is just whatever I believe. This is a subjective view of truth where there are as many truths as there are people to believe them.

The other view of truth is objective truth, which says there's truth out in the world for the knowing. In other words, if the tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, it actually fell. The tree doesn't have to be heard in order for it to make a sound. On a subjective view of truth, if no one thinks about the tree falling, then it's not true that it fell. There are those two views of truth.

There's also a third view of truth, which is a pragmatic view, where truth is just simply what seems to work. Which of these versions of truth can evolution actually support, which actual view fits in an evolutionary worldview? Well, it's not objective truth. At least, it's not the fact that we can come to know objective truth. Because, remember, evolution selects for what is most fit to survive. A lot of times, the things that help you survive and comfort you are not always true. I think of false religions, which the non-Christian will put Christianity in. The non-Christian even can say positive things about religion. They can say, "Well, it helps people cope with life. It lowers blood pressure. It gives them a sense of community," and those types of things. Now, they can't tell you why those are good. They can't ground that in anything outside of themselves, but that's a separate conversation. You'll notice that on this view, that the religious person has come to believe things about the world, that on the evolutionist's view are false, but nonetheless beneficial.

An evolutionary worldview can’t explain the ordered-ness of the universe

In the evolutionary worldview, there's nothing that tells us we should be able to arrive at truth. There is nothing that says we are not simply the products of molecules in motion; that we are not simply big bags of biological stuff. The evolutionary worldview lacks so much explanatory power. It can't explain how the universe is orderly. If w…