Thought on How Denying the Kalam Could Equal the Rational Denial of Evolution

When debating with certain atheists, one of the most fascinating things to notice is that, on the one hand, they tell you that the blind-watchmaker version of evolution is an absolutely undeniable fact that only a fool could reject (and note that such a claim is absurd on its face) while on the other hand telling you–usually in response to the Kalam Cosmological Argument–that things, like a universe, can indeed pop into existence uncaused from nothing, but what is the fascinating thing about these two atheistic claims is the fact that the latter assertion readily undermines the former one, for if it is possible that such a thing as a universe could pop into existence uncaused from nothing, it is equally possible that animals, and fossils, and such other things could pop into existence uncaused out of nothing just as we see them today, in the order that we see them in today, and so, in light of this possibility, while the atheist might still argue that evolution is a potentially better explanation for the development of life given the evidence that we do see rather than the explanation that these things just popped into existence, the fact is that by opening the door to the possibility that things can come into existence uncaused from nothing, the atheist has also opened the door–at least on his worldview–to the possibility that all life came about that way as well, and so the atheist would be hard pressed to claim with firmness that evolution is an absolute undeniable fact in light of what he himself just admitted; now again, the point here is not that the atheist cannot try to make a case for both these ideas which he wishes to endorse (although something coming uncaused from nothing is utterly absurd), but rather that there is a serious tension in the atheist’s worldview, and thus his worldview begins to look ad hoc and incoherently cobbled together when viewed in totality, and the atheist himself begins to look a bit disingenuous when he picks one aspect of his worldview (popping into existence uncaused from nothing) to answer one problem (the Kalam), then uses another aspect of his worldview (blind watchmaker evolution) to answer another problem (the obviousness of design in nature), but rarely if ever admits that when he combines his own two atheistic answers together, it is the atheistic worldview itself that has the problem…namely, the problem of being arguably incoherent given its almost mutually exclusive claims (and note that any atheist attempt to claim that only universes can come into existence uncaused from nothing is a fallacious and ad hoc attempt to arbitrarily stop the causal principle right where it suits atheism, and since such a selective stopping is rather ad hoc, it can be safely ignored as special pleading).

Advertisements

4 thoughts on “Thought on How Denying the Kalam Could Equal the Rational Denial of Evolution

  1. I’m happy to agree with you that anyone who claims the universe could pop into existence from nothing is utterly mistaken; however, that fairly erroneous position isn’t requisite for those of us who deny the Kalam Cosmological Argument. It’s perfectly– and rather easily– possible to hold to a logically coherent position which both rejects the KCA and affirms the science of biology.

    Like

    • Yes, it is possible to argue against the Kalam in other ways (whether those anti-Kalam arguments are successful or not is a different story) but my point was that there are people who argue that the universe can come uncaused from absolute nothing, and those people specifically open a Pandora’s box that makes essentially anything possible.

      Like

      • Okay, I understand, now. The way you had worded the post, it seemed to be implying that all atheists hold to the incoherent view that the universe popped into existence from nothing, which is certainly not the case.

        Like

      • Boxing,

        That is why I started the post by saying “When debating with certain atheists…”. Certain is the key word, as I would never contend that this issue applied to all atheists. But, in the end, no big deal. Happy to have cleared up the confusion. Good night.

        Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s