Scientific evidence, by itself, will never resolve a worldview dispute. Anyone who claims that scientific evidence proves their worldview right doesn’t understand the nature of evidence or worldviews. A worldview is a network of presuppositions about reality, untested by natural science, and in light of which all experience is interpreted. Our worldview is untested by natural science because it is the worldview that informs us how to interpret the scientific evidence. For example, a philosophically astute person will remain unconvinced by evidence alone because he’s going to come up with a rescuing device for every evidence we can present. Nor can we meet on neutral ground because there is no neutral ground. The belief that there is neutral ground is a positive belief; it’s not neutral. So how do we get anywhere?
A more viable approach to worldview disputes would be an internal critique of the worldview. Is there anything arbitrary, inconsistent, or lacking in its ability to provide the preconditions of intelligibility?
Biblical presuppositions alone lead to all three, but let’s look at the preconditions for just intelligibility. The Bible says the “fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge” (Prov. 1:7). However, if we reject God’s wisdom and instruction, we are reduced to foolishness because “in [Christ] are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” (Col. 2:3). So if we’re going to know anything we have to come through Christ, through biblical presuppositions.
Non-believers do know some things though, but only because they know God too. God has revealed his eternal power and divine nature in the things he has made, so no one is without excuse (Rom. 1:20). They don’t acknowledge God, but suppress the truth by their wickedness (1:18). Paul cautions us not to rely on hollow and deceptive philosophy, but to depend on Christ. Paul isn’t against philosophy; he’s against philosophy according to “human tradition and the elemental spiritual forces of this world” (Col. 2:8). All knowledge and wisdom is found in Christ.
Only the Bible provides the preconditions for the intelligibility of man’s experience and reasoning. If the Bible were not true, it would be impossible to prove anything. The Bible alone can account for laws of logic, absolute morality, and uniformity of nature. Evolutionists believe in these things too, but the problem is they have no foundation for them rationally.
For example, take a look at the uniformity of nature (not to be confused with uniformitarianism). All technology and operational science are based on this principle. The laws of nature are consistent over time and space. The future is similar to the past in this respect. God upholds the universe in a consistent fashion. One example from Scripture is God’s promise to uphold the seasons, night and day, and seed time and harvest as long as the earth remains (Gen. 8:22). We presuppose the laws of nature will be the same today as they have been in past.
An evolutionist has no basis for the uniformity of nature. He must assume it in practice, but he has no basis for it in principle. Every step he takes presupposes the uniformity of nature. The biblical worldview isn’t necessary to know the future will be like the past; everybody knows there is uniformity, but why is there any uniformity? And how do we know about it in an evolutionary worldview? How can we know the future will be like the past?
Perhaps the inherent properties of matter cause it to behave in a uniform way. We don’t really know what the inherent properties of matter are intrinsically, only what our experiences of matter have been like. It’s also an arbitrary response and doesn’t answer why there is uniformity or how we know about it.
Ask any evolutionists, “Why is it in your worldview you think you can use past experience for what is likely to happen in the future; why does the future reflect the past?” You’ll probably hear, “Because it always has.” However, this answer is irrelevant to the future unless we already knew the future was like the past, so actually this reasoning is circular; it begs the question. We take it for granted we can use past experience as a basis for what’s likely to happen in the future, but saying it has always been that way and therefore will always be assumes the very thing trying to be proved. Think about it this way. It would be absurd to apply this reasoning elsewhere.
I could say, “I’m immortal; I’m never going to die.” What reason could I have for thinking such a thing? Simply because I’ve never died before, so I assume I never will. Of course that wouldn’t be logical; some things do change with time, but why do we expect the laws of nature not to change?
We can’t even know what happened in the past without assuming uniformity. Memory presupposes the laws of nature are constant over time because our memory works on chemical reactions. If chemistry and physics were changing we couldn’t trust our memory. So unless there has already been uniformity in the past, we have no reason to believe we correctly remember there was uniformity in the past.
We can’t know anything apart from the biblical God. We can’t know anything except in the biblical worldview where God has revealed himself to us. Christ is key to all knowledge.