Can you believe in evolution? Evolutionists say no…Creationists say absolutely, yes. Evolution seems to be the atheist’s linchpin. Evolutionary discussion under the guise of anything other than fact, is a deal breaker. So what happens when a believer offers such a claim? Well, episode 033 happens: the good, the bad, and the ugly.
ATHEIST EVOLUTIONIST VS. CHRISTIAN CREATIONIST
We invited Young-Earth Creationist, Tim Chaffey from Answers in Genesis on the podcast to give us his perspective. Tim is the content manager for the Attractions Division of Answers in Genesis. An apologist with a passion for training young people, he speaks regularly at the Creation Museum, camps, schools, and churches, and has authored numerous books.
Tim was interested in Miracles and Atheists because he liked the idea of having a good respectful dialogue on these issues. So did he get it?
You’ll hear soon…
Representing the atheist position is Jason Williams. About six months ago, Jason joined us in what most would consider to be a rather productive conversation about prayer, with Christian Robby Graham on episode 019. The show was respectful, light-hearted and we all left our microphones with smiles on our faces.
Jason works as an English teacher out of Guatemala where he lives as an expat. He says like America, where he grew up, Central America is plagued by religion.
We invited Jason back on the podcast to talk about evolution, because based on his comments from social media he has both a passion for and strong opinions about the subject, and he seemed knowledgeable.
Stay tuned for the most colorful episode we’ve ever conducted on Miracles & Atheists.
- Welcome Jason and Tim [5:56]
- Nick’s “Believing in Evolution” Facebook post [6:45]
- Is evolution a belief? [7:44]
- Biblical definition of faith [8:28]
- Jason mocks Tim’s work, Answers in Genesis [9:36]
- Nick sets ground rules [10:58]
- Indisputable evidence for evolution? [12:17]
- Micro- vs. Macro-evolution [15:50]
- Jason’s story [16:30]
- Tim Chaffey’s story [16:52]
- Tim’s miracle experience in the hospital [19:12]
- Who is Dr. Jack Horner? [30:09]
- Does evolutionary thought evolve? [32:24]
- Jason’s definition of faith [33:53]
- Humans cannot mate with animals: how does this support evolution? [34:50]
- The order of creation [38:28]
- How does Genesis Chapter 1 make sense? [40:00]
- How important is it to have an open mind? [55:23]
- Closing question and words for Jason [1:03:20]
- Closing words for Tim [1:03:53]
- Nick’s biggest takeaways [1:07:02]
- Marcus Plating’s Final Words of Wisdom (WOW) 
- Tim Chaffey, Answers in Genesis
- Dr. Mary Schweitzer
- Dr. Jason Lisle
- Follow Tim Chaffey on Facebook
- Mendel’s Law of Heredity
- Neil deGrasse Tyson
- Follow Jason Williams on Facebook
- Aron Ra
- Apply to be our Guest on M&A
- Nick’s M&A Livestream
- Connect with M&A on Facebook
- Follow M&A on Instagram
- Watch M&A on YouTube
- Follow M&A on Twitter
- Rate & Review M&A on iTunes
- Listen on your favorite podcast platform
As long as AiG mocks evolution theory with headers like “Darwinism and the Nazi Holocaust” and “Humanism: Most Blood-Stained Religion Ever?” Chaffey can forget “the idea of having a good respectful dialogue”. Matth. 7:3.
However this is merely a symptom. The core problem is method. YECers don’t accept the scientific method as soon as they dislike the resulting conclusions, like evolution theory. This rift is unbridgable and makes a good dialogue as impossible as a square circle.
YECers will object and say “but we do accept the scientific method”. They conveniently omit that since at least 200 years the scientific method means methodological naturalism, which they falsely equate with philosophical naturalism. In other words, words even YECers can’t dispute: they claim that theology (their theology, not theologies they reject, like the catholic one is rejected by AIG and hence Chaffey) trumps science. When doing science (physics, chemistry, biology, geology, historical research) this is unacceptable. It’s why eg Shell doesn’t employ YECers when looking for oil fields.
End of dialogue, let alone a good one.
Thank you Frank. Would you mind clarifying what you mean by, “methodological naturalism?”