A Question I Was Asked:

Can Evolution Really Explain Everything Which Exists Without Going into the Metaphysical/Spiritual?

I was reading what an actor wrote about his atheism. He stated that evolution now provides "a complete explanation regarding why life exists so why even look at any concept of God?" But surely evolution cannot, and has not been able to explain everything. It does not even explain how and why this world exists.

UK Apologetics Reply:

You are perfectly correct. If macro-evolution were correct (which, I have not the slightest doubt, it is not), that still would not explain why this world even exists, why things are apparently governed by laws. It would not explain why the basic chemicals and acids (which were needed for life) were even here in the first place and where they might have come from. It would not explain why and how this planet has absolutely perfect conditions to support a variety of life. It would not explain the presence of information: What? Information with no information imparter? DNA is just solid information, a blueprint or manual for the existence of the creature in which it resides. Neither would it explain the miracle of mind and consciousness which scientists admit they are no closer to explaining. They know that the brain is involved with this but that the brain alone cannot explain everything. On this topic cardiologist Pim van Lommel has written,

For decades scientists have tried unsuccessfully to localize memories and consciousness in the brain, and it seems doubtful that they will ever succeed. ('Consciousness Beyond Life,' p188, 2010 paperback, Harper-Collins).

In the same book, Dr van Lommel states,

..Consciousness cannot be seen as the product of brain function. In fact, sometimes the opposite seems to apply: the mind influences brain function, both in the short and long term as a result of the empirically proven principle of neuroplasticity. (p205, same book).

More and more writers are now challenging the physicalist and reductionist view that matter explains everything which exists and the view that all memory and consciousness resides within the brain and is merely a product of the brain; the evidence grows every day that this cannot be the case; the view is growing that consciousness might be a 'field' which might exist close to people but outside of them, with the brain merely a receiver, or a facilitator. The implications for materialist, Darwinist science here, of course, are huge! Why? Because such a 'field' (if that is what it is) would plainly not be matter but, rather, a spiritual property, something which can be 'tapped into' but is not within people! Fascinatingly, the new emerging discipline of quantum physics is much more open to such concepts with several 'quantum' writers now starting to challenge the old materialist 'scientific' view. In fact, the writer quoted above supports quantum physics (for those who might want to research further, other writers - mostly coming from the disciplines of philosophy and psychology - who have been challenging the view that consciousness is purely a physical property include Edward F. Kelly, Mario Beauregard, Denyse O'Learey and Rupert Sheldrake, as well as Pim van Lommel whom I quote above. One point: I am not suggesting that these are all Christian writers and most support at least some form of evolution but at least these writers are now ready to admit a non-material world, or a spiritual world, and think that established science must change course from its present 'matter is all there is' reasoning).

So for anybody to think even for one moment that the theory of evolution explains everything which one might question is an utter and complete nonsense! No, I think it's a case of one clutching at straws in an attempt to justify one's atheism. If you ask an evolutionist to explain where the chemicals and acids, plus the information which leads to these things behaving in a certain manner, came from right at the beginning, they will invariably duck the question because they don't know and cannot explain.

Scientists used to say things like, 'we can only look at the science, we are not equipped to look at the spiritual or the metaphysics. That is the area of religion and philosophy.' That was a very honest point of view and scientists always took that view. But the new brand of aggressive atheist propagandists like Dawkins and the late Christopher Hitchens never own up to the considerable problems in their eagerness to attack Theism and Christianity. They always infer or actually argue that belief in God is a nonsense even when they themselves do not have all the answers. It is just unbridled arrogance. No, it is more than that: it is wilful stupidity!

Robin A. Brace. November 24th, 2014.