Matt Slick Anti-Evolution Apologetic: An Introduction

I spent a few hours today going through our joint book col­lec­tion, mak­ing deci­sions about what we should keep, and which books we’d try to sell at yard sale before tak­ing them to a book store or donat­ing them to Goodwill.

Among my library of Chris­t­ian books was a binder con­tain­ing the Apolo­get­ics Note­book com­piled by Matt Slick, M. Div., of CARM. That’s him in the portrait.

Dur­ing my ear­ly years as a Chris­t­ian, CARM was a major resource for me. Most top­ics relat­ed to the­ol­o­gy were new to me, so i relied upon CARM to guide me in form­ing coher­ent argu­ments against the so-called cults which threat­ened the church (e.g., the Mormons).

The Apolo­get­ics Note­book com­piles numer­ous out­lines, essays, and oth­er infor­ma­tion on a vari­ety of top­ics, and when i found the note­book for the first time in years ear­li­er today, i first checked its table of con­tents for any­thing relat­ed to athe­ism. Noth­ing was list­ed for it (unless i’m seri­ous­ly just that blind), but a sec­tion on evo­lu­tion cap­tured my attention. 

Evo­lu­tion is one of those things that is very prob­lem­at­ic for old-school Chris­tian­i­ty, or that stream of Chris­tian­i­ty which main­tains that the Bible (par­tic­u­lar­ly the Cre­ation account of the first few chap­ters) is a lit­er­al account of real events, that our world and the var­i­ous types of life which inhab­it it were cre­at­ed in a com­plet­ed state over the course of six days by God. Much of their belief requires that these events be fac­tu­al — if you can’t trust the first few chap­ters of the Bible, then there is no basis to trust the rest of it, after all.

So sci­en­tists — espe­cial­ly those who are experts in biol­o­gy — going around teach­ing that human­i­ty evolved from prim­i­tive man which evolved from ani­mals? God forbid!

How­ev­er, the prob­lem is that Chris­tian­i­ty does­n’t real­ly have peer-reviewed experts in biol­o­gy com­ing for­ward with real sci­ence to the con­trary. No real sci­ence has ever found evi­dence that God sim­ply must have cre­at­ed us. That, how­ev­er, does not stop a vast num­ber of Chris­tians from believ­ing in an instant cre­ation of man and that evo­lu­tion is sim­ply for fools.

As exhib­it “A,” i offer this intro­duc­to­ry excerpt (empha­sis mine) from the Apolo­get­ics Note­book (p. 190), clear­ly estab­lish­ing Slick as a per­pi­lo­cu­tion­ist for the rest of his sec­tion on evolution.

First of all, I’d like to state that my train­ing is not in sci­ence, but in the­ol­o­gy. I am hard­ly qual­i­fied to give defin­i­tive answers on the bio­log­i­cal aspects of the evo­lu­tion­ary the­o­ry. At best, I can read argu­ments, pro and con, and present what I find here. When I was younger, I believed in evo­lu­tion. But after I start­ed read­ing the oth­er side of the argu­ment — the stuff they don’t tell you in school — I had strong doubts. Once I became a Chris­t­ian, it was easy to dis­miss the the­o­ry as noth­ing more than that, a the­o­ry.

I’ll give Slick cred­it here: he at least admits he is not a sci­en­tist, nor does he pre­tend to be an expert in the field of evo­lu­tion­ary stud­ies. He fur­ther goes on to say that his train­ing is in the­ol­o­gy.

For all sci­en­tif­ic intents and pur­pos­es, the­ol­o­gy is use­less. It is the attempt to under­stand more about an unfal­si­fi­able, untouch­able, untestable, invis­i­ble, non-cor­po­re­al con­struct called God. It has absolute­ly noth­ing to do with sci­ence, its tenets being main­tained by faith and not by evidence.

Slick con­tin­ues on by say­ing he’s done his home­work, read­ing both “pro and con.” Fair enough. I, too, have read the “cons.” I spent years argu­ing very strong­ly against evo­lu­tion, includ­ing par­tic­i­pat­ing in sev­er­al online debates against Michael Wong, the gen­tle­man behind My research con­sist­ed of hav­ing read just about the entire Answers in Gen­e­sis web­site, near­ly a dozen Answers in Gen­e­sis pub­li­ca­tions, the entire­ty of Kent Hov­in­d’s web­site, view­ing a few cre­ation­ist “doc­u­men­taries,” and read­ing a vari­ety of works by Hen­ry Mor­ris. At the time i had­n’t read much at all in favor of evo­lu­tion — no Dar­win, no Sagan, no noth­ing oth­er than the pass­ing ref­er­ences to evo­lu­tion that may have been men­tioned by my favorite physi­cist authors. All of that to say, i’m very well acquaint­ed with the argu­ments used by cre­ation­ists, but the fact of the mat­ter is that evo­lu­tion has both evi­dence & argu­ments based upon that evi­dence; cre­ation­ism has sim­ply belief with argu­ments formed therefrom.

Next, Slick says that when he was younger, he “believed in evo­lu­tion.” This belies a mis­un­der­stand­ing of what evo­lu­tion actu­al­ly is, as it is not some­thing to “believe in.” The Tooth Fairy, San­ta, Thor, Zeus, and God… Those are things to “believe in,” things which have no proof.*

I don’t believe in evo­lu­tion just like i don’t believe in grav­i­ty. I know that both exist.

Con­tin­u­ing on, Slick says that he began to read “the stuff they don’t tell you in schools,” which lead to his hav­ing doubts about evo­lu­tion. I’m going to assume that the extent of Slick­’s sci­ence edu­ca­tion comes from high school or before as i doubt he delved much into the nat­ur­al sci­ences while study­ing social sci­ence & divin­i­ty.

If that’s the case, then i am not sur­prised at all that Slick would come to accept the argu­ments put forth by cre­ation­ists, for two rea­sons. First, if his high school years were any­thing like mine, evo­lu­tion was like­ly bare­ly men­tioned. I took a sci­ence-heavy route through high school: three years of biol­o­gy, two of chem­istry, two of physics, one of astron­o­my, one of psy­chol­o­gy, and one of soci­ol­o­gy. Despite that, evo­lu­tion was bare­ly men­tioned. As far as how it works, i did­n’t start learn­ing about evo­lu­tion in earnest til i had evo­lu­tion­ists try to con­vince me of the errors of cre­ation­ism in the first few years after high school.

Sec­ond, Slick, like myself of ten years ago, also demon­strates a predilec­tion toward belief in the super­nat­ur­al. So again, his anti-evo­lu­tion stance comes as no surprise.

The last thing Slick says in this intro­duc­to­ry para­graph is that his accep­tance of Chris­tian­i­ty helped him to affirm that evo­lu­tion was “just a theory.”

Just a the­o­ry. For many peo­ple, “the­o­ry” is syn­ony­mous with “idea” or “hypoth­e­sis.” In every­day par­lance, that’s just fine. How­ev­er, in sci­en­tif­ic usage, “the­o­ry” takes on much more weight and is gen­er­al­ly not a word sci­en­tists just throw around. In sci­ence, you begin with a hypoth­e­sis — an idea or assump­tion about how things work; if that hypoth­e­sis is sup­port­ed by evi­dence, then the hypoth­e­sis becomes a the­o­ry. No mat­ter how much evi­dence is found to sup­port the the­o­ry, it’ll stay a the­o­ry. That’s why after hun­dreds of years, we still have the “the­o­ry of grav­i­ty.” And as is true in all sci­ences, if there was evi­dence to the con­trary, the the­o­ry of evo­lu­tion can be dis­card­ed. Sci­ence, unlike dog­mat­ic reli­gions, is always evolving.

I’ll look at more of what Slick has to say about evo­lu­tion in the future, but his open­ing para­graph on the mat­ter sure packs a punch. In it, he reveals a fun­da­men­tal mis­un­der­stand­ing of the sci­en­tif­ic method, where­in hypothe­ses become the­o­ries (and not the­o­ries becom­ing laws, or what­ev­er sys­tem he was using in which “just a the­o­ry” means “just an idea”). Fail­ing to under­stand the foun­da­tion­al method of sci­en­tif­ic inquiry, Slick con­tin­ues for sev­er­al pages explain­ing why the lead­ing sci­en­tists in the world are dead wrong on one of sci­ence’s most impor­tant, most scru­ti­nized theories.

I should hope any­one read­ing this, even the most staunch cre­ation­ists among you, can see just what is wrong with that scenario.

Now, all the above hav­ing been said, if you would like to see one sci­en­tist’s take on Matt Slick­’s anti-evo­lu­tion “research,” i invite you to do so.

* The author of Hebrews, in the absence of any real evi­dence for “things not seen,” says that faith is evi­dence of such things (Hebrews 11:1). To put this in per­spec­tive, accord­ing to the author of Hebrews, if you have faith in the Tooth Fairy, then that is evi­dence that the Tooth Fairy exists. To believe in God is to have evi­dence that he is real. That makes no real sense, whol­ly bely­ing the def­i­n­i­tion of “evi­dence.”

2 thoughts on “Matt Slick Anti-Evolution Apologetic: An Introduction”

  1. I agree with you on many of your points… I ful­ly agree when you say “For all sci­en­tific intents & pur­poses, the­ol­ogy is use­less.”, but not nec­es­sar­i­ly that “its tenets being main­tained by faith and not by evi­dence”. There is plen­ty of evi­dence for peo­ple and events in the bible, both archae­o­log­i­cal and in oth­er his­tor­i­cal writ­ings (although not for cre­ation­ism; I don’t think the start of Gen­e­sis should be read literally—there are many dif­fer­ent forms of writ­ing in the bible).

    No mat­ter how much evi­dence is found to sup­port the the­ory, it’ll stay a theory.

    I’m not sure that is entire­ly true, in that some the­o­ries when able to be prac­ti­cal­ly test­ed move to theorems.

    1. The­o­ries are prac­ti­cal­ly test­ed in that they are fal­si­fi­able: exper­i­men­tal & obser­va­tion­al evi­dence sup­ports them, and they are such that it is pos­si­ble to observe evi­dence which fal­si­fies them. (As an exam­ple to the con­trary, the con­cept of God can nev­er move into the realm of sci­ence because the idea of an invis­i­ble being exist­ing out­side of both space & time is unfalsifiable.)

      I do agree that there are his­tor­i­cal facts men­tioned in the Bible; how­ev­er, no Chris­t­ian would say some­thing to the effect that King Herod exist­ing is one of the tenets of the Chris­t­ian faith. When i speak of the Bible’s tenets, i mean those things which make it into the creeds, cat­e­chisms, and faith state­ments of the church­es, because those are the things which must be upheld by faith, apart from phys­i­cal evidence.

      Also, the dif­fer­ence between the­o­rems & the­o­ries is big­ger than that. The­o­ries don’t move on to become the­o­rems; the­o­ries are unprov­able yet fal­si­fi­able expla­na­tions of the nat­ur­al world, while the­o­rems are prov­able with­in the realm of mathematics.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Use your Gravatar-enabled email address while commenting to automatically enhance your comment with some of Gravatar's open profile data.

Comments must be made in accordance with the comment policy. This site uses Akismet to reduce spam; learn how your comment data is processed.

You may use Markdown to format your comments; additionally, these HTML tags and attributes may be used: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

Rick Beckman