Chesterton on Evolution

Blogorrhea has been dormant for a little while, so I thought I’d paste a few interesting quotes. I’ve been reading Chesterton lately. For a few years now, I have had Orthodoxy and The Everlasting Man sitting on my to-read shelf. The Everlasting Man is broken into two sections, each founded on its own “striking fact”. In section one, about man, Chesterton recasts all of all of human history in light of the startling fact of humanity. And section two is about Christ: “those who say that Christ stands side by side with other myths, and his religion side by side with similar religions, are only repeating a very stale formula contradicted by a very striking fact”; namely, the fact of the Resurrection. Chapter 1 (“The Man in the Cave”), is bookended by two astute quotes about “evolution”.

There is something slow and soothing and gradual about the word [evolution] and even about the idea. As a matter of fact it is not, touching these primary things, a very practical word or a very profitable idea. Nobody can imagine how nothing could turn into something. Nobody can get an inch nearer to it by explaining how something could turn into something else. It is really far more logical to start by saying ‘In the beginning God created heaven and earth’ even if you only mean ‘In the beginning some unthinkable power began some unthinkable process.’ For God is by its nature a name of mystery, and nobody ever supposed that man could imagine how a world was created any more than he could create one. But evolution really is mistaken for explanation. It has the fatal quality of leaving on many minds the impression that they do understand it and everything else; just as many of them live under a sort of illusion that they have read the Origin of Species.

Chesterton spends the rest of the chapter describing eloquently how cave paintings demonstrate that man is distinct from beast in having a mind. And coming back to evolution, he concludes:

Now as a matter of fact, there is a not a shadow of evidence that this thing [the human mind] was evolved at all. There is not a particle of proof that this transition came slowly or even that it came naturally. In a strictly scientific sense we simply know nothing whatever about how it grew, or whether it grew, or what it is. There may be a broken trail of stones and bones faintly suggesting the development of the human body. There is nothing even faintly suggesting such a development of this human mind. It was not and it was; we know not in what instant or in what infinity of years. Something happened; and it has all the appearance of a transaction outside time. It has therefore nothing to do with history in the ordinary sense. The historian must take it or something like it for granted; it is not his business as a historian to explain it. But if he cannot explain it as a historian, he will not explain it as a biologist.

After I finished ch 1 of Everlasting Man, I got an email telling me that Orthodoxy is now available in .mp3! Providentially, I am currently experiencing a shortage of podcasts, so this is filling my commute all week. Chapter 3, “The Suicide of Thought,” has the thesis, “There is a thought that stops thought. That is the only thought that ought to be stopped. That is the ultimate evil against which all religious authority was aimed.” Chesterton asserts that Evolution (in a strong form; materialistic, naturalistic, atheistic) is just such a thought:

Evolution is a good example of that modern intelligence which, if it destroys anything, destroys itself. Evolution is either an innocent scientific description of how certain earthly things came about; or, if it is anything more than this, it is an attack upon thought itself. If evolution destroys anything, it does not destroy religion but rationalism. If evolution simply means that a positive thing called an ape turned very slowly into a positive thing called a man, then it is stingless for the most orthodox; for a personal God might just as well do things slowly as quickly, especially if, like the Christian God, he were outside time. But if it means anything more, it means that there is no such thing as an ape to change, and no such thing as a man for him to change into. It means that there is no such thing as a thing. At best, there is only one thing, and that is a flux of everything and anything. This is an attack not upon the faith, but upon the mind; you cannot think if there are no things to think about. You cannot think if you are not separate from the subject of thought. Descartes said, “I think; therefore I am.” The philosophic evolutionist reverses and negatives the epigram. He says, “I am not; therefore I cannot think.”

In other words, the presuppositions of the naturalist don’t account for (or allow!) personhood, nor meaningfulness.

[UPDATE] Now that I have finished listening to all of Orthodoxy, I offer one more quote about evolution. From ch. 7, Chesterton is discussing how Christianity puts man in a proper relationship with nature, but Darwinism tends either to bestial amorality (“insanely cruel”) or PETA (“insanely sentimental”):

Darwinism can be used to back up two mad moralities, but it cannot be used to back up a single sane one. The kinship and competition of all living creatures can be used as a reason for being insanely cruel or insanely sentimental; but not for a healthy love of animals. On the evolutionary basis you may be inhumane, or you may be absurdly humane; but you cannot be human. That you and a tiger are one may be a reason for being tender to a tiger. Or it may be a reason for being as cruel as the tiger. It is one way to train the tiger to imitate you, it is a shorter way to imitate the tiger. But in neither case does evolution tell you how to treat a tiger reasonably, that is, to admire his stripes while avoiding his claws.

If you want to treat a tiger reasonably, you must go back to the garden of Eden. For the obstinate reminder continued to recur: only the supernatural has taken a sane view of Nature. The essence of all pantheism, evolutionism, and modern cosmic religion is really in this proposition: that Nature is our mother. Unfortunately, if you regard Nature as a mother, you discover that she is a step-mother. The main point of Christianity was this: that Nature is not our mother: Nature is our sister.

Advertisements

60 Responses

  1. Good ol’ Gilbert Keith sure was insightful, eh? If those samples are indicative of the quality to be found in the rest of the book, I’ll be sure to add it to my “to read” list. Unfortunately, that doesn’t mean I’ll actually be reading it anytime soon…

  2. Note, these quotes are from two books; and Orthodoxy can be downloaded free in .mp3 form. So if you’ve got 6 hours of commute time to spend, you can knock off one of the books that way!

  3. Thanks for the link, Rube.

    Were you aware that our good brother GKC converted to Roman Catholicism? :)

  4. Converted? I thought he was RC all along, or at least from his conversion. Orthodoxy adresses his personal philosophical journey from atheism to Christianity, and he spends a bit of time explaining how, paradoxically, reading atheists converted him! But I haven’t heard him say anything about a stopover in Protestantism.

  5. See Plantinga’s Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism for the best argument, bar none, on the “thought that stops thought” style argument.

  6. Thanks, I’ll look into it, starting with wikipedia and (if I can handle RealAudio) Plantinga’s lecture on this page, or these notes from hearing Plantinga lecture. Better links are welcome if you know of any!

  7. Rube,

    You can go pretty in depth with this argument. I’ve read about 3,000 pages related to it in some way.

    If your interest is piqued, email me and I’ll give you references to the full bibliography.

    For now, I found some lectures of his here:

    http://www.veritas.org/media/presenters/201

    second from the top is EAAN.

  8. here’s a whole bunch of anti-naturalist stuff

    http://rationalperspective.wordpress.com/anti-naturalism/

    suicide thought stuff included

  9. Sorry for the thread hi-jack. I read something from Echo Oche the other day on the confessional outhouse. I’m glad to note that he really never had a problem with my attitude but was forced to “go there” because he (usually) has trouble dealing with my argumentation.

    He wrote:

    ““Take a breather guys”. Apparently this stuff isn’t important. The only thing that’s important is that we never say anything mean to anyone.

    After all, as everyone knows, “Mean people suck!”

    See, he knows what’s up (in the words of Igor Olshansky). He knows all about the sarcasm, the smarm, the cocky, the smack talk, etc

    I was just encouraged to know that he alsways has to “go there” with me because of the force of the arguments. ;-)

    So, every time Echo wants to complain about my posts everyone chime in one accord (not Honda);

    “Apparently this stuff isn’t important. The only thing that’s important is that we never say anything mean to anyone.

    After all, as everyone knows, “Mean people suck!”

    :-D all in fun my friend, all in fun!!!

  10. Rube,

    I guess you’ll have to write a post asking the question, “Is Echo or is he not a hypocrite?”

    E

  11. […] – Materialism vs. Mysticism Thanks to Rube for putting me on to Chesterton’s audio books. This last week, I have hardly noticed my twice-a-day one hour long commute as I have been immersed […]

  12. I was serious.

  13. I don’t think you’rew a hypocrite. I just think people raise the bar when they look at others. We all tend to give ourselves more of a free pass.

  14. Oh, and on a more positive note, Echo, you’ll be glad to hear that I have found two kingdoms, nat. law., and amillennialism to be much more congenial, rather than my postmill/theonomy days.

  15. Good to see you playing nicely!

    Note: I added one more GKC quote to the main post up yonder!

  16. Wacky,

    Quit drinking the kool-aid. Come back to us brother. Next thing you know you’ll be embracing credo-baptism only.

    kazoo

  17. Kazoo,

    Quit drinking the kool-aid. Come back to us, brother. Next thing you know, you’ll be embracing Roman Cathollcism or Eastern Orthodoxy.

  18. I’d rather be an RC or an EO than a baptist or a bapterian.

  19. Contrariwise, I’m sure.

    Maybe that’s the best way to describe the difference between FV and TR? If you had to move to a small town with only a RC and a Baptist church (and there must be thousands of such towns across the U.S.!), where would you go?

    I’d take SBC over RC in a heartbeat.

  20. I’d take Christian children over pagan children in a heartbeat.

  21. I’d apply to my presbytery to start a church plant mission. If I needed more educational certs, then I’d do what it takes to get approved to start a missionary work. That would be for either town.

    Wacky,

    Oh yeah?

    kazoo

  22. Ron,

    Christian children who deny justification by faith alone just aren’t Christian children.

    So, you’d cut off your nose to spite your face.

    (And, yes, I would rather be a reformed baptist over a deformed Papist any day of the week. But hey, that’s just me.)

  23. I bet Ron would chose for Mormonism over atheism if he had to. Better to have religious children than secular children, I suppose.

  24. Christian children who deny justification by faith alone just aren’t Christian children.

    1. You have just denied justification by faith alone.
    2. Christians who deny the living nature of faith are still Christians, just not very relevant ones.

    Mormonism and atheism is 6 one way and half a dozen the other. Both deny Christ, so that isn’t much of a choice.

  25. Better to have religious children than secular children, I suppose.

    Since secularism is the devil’s religion, that doesn’t really make any sense.

  26. Wow. For me, getting Justification mostly right is more important than getting baptism mostly right. But given your NPP definition of the gospel, I guess you don’t think you’d be losing much in the Justification department at the local RC.

    But still, you’d be willing to put up with idolatry and blasphemy, under the federal headship of an Antichrist, just for a not-quite-right doctrine of paedobaptism?

    How about if you landed in Lake Wobegon, and had RC vs. Lutheran as your only choice? Would your love for over-realized sacramentology be strong enough to overcome your hate for Law-Gospel distinction?

  27. 1. You have just denied justification by faith alone.
    2. Christians who deny the living nature of faith are still Christians, just not very relevant ones.

    1. No, I haven’t. (But, you wanted “Christian” children rather than pagan ones, I pointed out you wouldn’t get that. So your only reason for becoming RC or EO has been rendered moot.)

    2. I don’t deny sanctification, or, the good works which result from my justification; you know, the ones God prepared for me to do *after* his initital saving work.

    Eph. 8For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9not by works, so that no one can boast. 10For we are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.

    Notice the works are not part of salvation being spoken of here or the faith that justifies, they are the *telos*, or a *result* of that salvation

    Mormonism and atheism is 6 one way and half a dozen the other. Both deny Christ, so that isn’t much of a choice.

    Right, and RCs and EOs deny justification be faith alone. You’re trading one heresy for another. Not baptising your children isn’t heretical.

    And, Mormons *say* that they don’t deny Christ just like you *say* you don’t deny sola fide. I mean, they’re just a bit off on their Christology. I mean, it’s not like they deny justification by faith alone . . . oh wait, nevermind . . . ;-)

  28. 1. You are right that I, with John Calvin, do not think I would be losing much in the Justification department by going RC.
    2. The authority of the Bishop of Rome over the rest of the Church’s bishops is certainly an issue, but our confessional documents no longer refer to him as antichrist. And as I have seen it recently, councils can err and tyrannically exalt their particular extra biblical views over other ministers of the Word just as easily as a Pope can.
    3. I don’t think the Roman Church necessitates idolatry. Certainly idolatry happens, but it happens in reformed churches as well. We worship our doctrine and think that affirmation of the right propositions gets us to heaven. This leads me to my next point:
    4. We are united to a Person, not a proposition. A right doctrine of Baptism is more crucial in this respect than trying to figure out the paradox of heaven and earth, election and covenant, faith and faithfulness. Thanks again for putting me on to Chesterton.

    In the Regeneration, there will be numerous folks who were united to Christ in baptism and remained faithful, all the while not getting down the reformed distinction between justification and sanctification with any sort of lucidity. And there will be many who nod their head to orthodox propositions all the way to hell.
    We are justified by faith in Jesus, not by affirming the proposition of Sola Fide. We are certainly justified by faith in Jesus alone, but this wholly other than saying we are justified by faith in justification by faith alone.

  29. You are right that I, with John Calvin, do not think I would be losing much in the Justification department by going RC.

    Wow. I don’t know how you do it, but you continue to blow my mind. So you’re saying that Calvin considered RC to be not very deficient in the Justification dept?

  30. Calvin on justification by faith alone against RC teaching:

    Now the reader sees how fairly the Sophists today cavil against our doctrine when we say that man is justified by faith alone (Rom. 3:28). They dare not deny that man is justified by faith because it recurs so often in Scripture. But since the word “alone” is nowhere expressed, they do not allow this addition to be made. Is it so? But what will they reply to these words of Paul where he contends that righteousness cannot be of faith unless it be free (Rom. 4:2ff.)? How will a free gift agree with works? With what chicaneries will they elude what he says in another passage, that

    God’s righteousness is revealed in the gospel (Rom. 1:17)? If righteousness is revealed in the gospel, surely no mutilated or half righteousness but a full and perfect righteousness is contained there. The law therefore has no place in it. Not only by a false but by an obviously ridiculous shift they insist upon excluding this adjective. Does not he who takes everything from works firmly enough ascribe everything to faith alone? What I pray do these expressions mean: “His righteousness has been manifested apart from the law” (Rom. 3:2 1); and, “Man is freely justified” (Rom. 3: 24); and, “Apart from the works of the law” (Rom. 3:28)?5

    –John Calvin, The Institutes of the Christian Religion, John T. McNeill, Editor. (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960), Book Three, chapter ii, pp. 748-49.

    Seems eery how similar the debates Calvin had and the ones we are having today are. FV guys “don’t like the language of faith *alone*”.

    Let is be known that Calvin would think Ron and his RC buddies as not only making “false” but also “an obviously ridiculous shift” .

    Calvin says,

    For if faith justified of itself or through some intrinsic power, so to speak, as it is always weak and imperfect it would effect this only in part; thus the righteousness that conferred a fragment of salvation upon us would be defective. Now we imagine no such thing, but we say that, properly speaking, God alone justifies; then we transfer this same function to Christ because he was given to us for righteousness. We compare faith to a kind of vessel; for unless we come empty and with the mouth of our soul open to seek Christ’s grace, we are not capable of receiving Christ. From this it is to be inferred that, in teaching that before his righteousness is received Christ is received in faith, we do not take the power of justifying away from Christ.

    Ibid., 733

    But FVers (and RCers) don’t like this language. It makes the faith that justifies look passive. Alone.

    You see, at this point, we recognize that this passive, beggarly faith we have, through which we are justified, if it indeed was really there, will be *accompanied*, throughout life, by the fruit of good works which flows, necessarily, from such faith. These works provide *evidence* of a true faith, that only the regenerate man can possess. Thus we can make fruit-to-root inferences. Vindicatory *evidence*. Thus we properly *distinguish* justification from sanctification.

    As far as Calvin agreeing, well that is because Rome mixed truths, half-truths, and flat out errors together. So, the cautious reader (i.e., the reader without his FV agenda, blinding and biasing him from careful, schoalrly study) will be able to steer through the problems wrought by a more simplistic reading of RC teaching and Reformation response to them.

    For example, says Trent:

    In Canon 1 the Council declares:

    If anyone says that man can be justified before God by his own works, whether done by his own natural powers or through the teaching of the law, without divine grace through Jesus Christ, let him be anathema.

    Canon 3 adds:

    If anyone says that without the predisposing inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and without His help, man can believe, hope, love or be repentant as He ought, so that the grace of justification may be bestowed upon Him, let him be anathema.

    What is wrong with this? Or, with the RC claims that salvation is by grace? A gift.

    Because we read Catholic explanations. Thus,

    The justification of which St. Paul here speaks is the infusion of sanctifying grace which alone renders a person supernaturally pleasing in the sight of God. But justification, that is, an infusion of sanctifying grace, cannot be merited by us; it is an entirely gratuitous gift of God.

    Roman Catholic Douay Version, comments in a footnote on Romans 3 and 4

    The justification involves a *change* in the inner man. Trent says “justification is not only the remission of sins, but sanctification and renovation of the interior man through the voluntary reception of grace and the gifts, whereby man becomes just instead of unjust… .it is brought about by God through the merits of our Redeemer, and communicated to men in faith and baptism” And that’s why Trent says,

    “If anyone says that a sinful man is justified by faith alone, meaning that no other co-operation is required to obtain the grace of justification.. .let him be anathema.” And further, “If anyone says that justifying faith is nothing else than confidence that divine Mercy remits sins for Christ’s sake.. .let him be anathema.” (Council of Trent, Canons on Justification, 9, 12)

    Thus, Rome teaches that justification is based on the grounds of Christ’s righteousness *and* our works. Notice the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

    Justification is conferred in Baptism, the sacrament of faith. It conforms us to the righteousness of God, who makes us inwardly just by the power of his mercy. The Holy Spirit is the master of the interior life. By giving birth to the “inner man,” justification entails the sanctification of his whole being.
    Justification is at the same time the acceptance of God’s righteousness through faith in Jesus Christ. Righteousness (or “justice”) here means the rectitude of divine love. With justification, faith, hope, and charity are poured into our hearts, and obedience to the divine will is granted us.

    Now that we have a brief understanding of the RC teaching (and Calvin’s above) we can see how calvin interacted with an RC priest in his time. Andreas Osiander. Notice Calvin *repudiate* the RC notions we see above:

    And whenever he argues from the salvation procured for us, from the paternal love of God and the grace of Christ, that we are called to purity and holiness, he plainly intimates, that to be justified is something else than to be made new creatures. Osiander on coming to Scripture corrupts every passage which he quotes.

    But notice that Calvin can agree in places:

    When he objects that the power of justifying exists not in faith, considered in itself, but only as receiving Christ, I willingly admit it.

    And so, though i could keep going, I have provided sufficient evidence to the effect that Calvin *did not* agree with RC teaching in tota, but nevertheless, one can find *some* areas of agreement. This is precisely because of the use of truths, half-truths, falsehoods, and uncautious use of terms without definition. Again, I should point out that this is eerily all too familiar with today’s debates. The Feder Vision ensnares and entangles the Christain with the more simplistic mind. The uncautious among us. It has spread much like hyper-preterism–vai the internet and through younger Christians. Fvers refuse to be careful and make appropriate distinctions. They are always making claims that a bit of inspection reveals to be nothing but smoke and mirrors. It is sad, really.

  31. Hopefully this isn’t considered threadjacking. ;-)

    RubeRad: Chesterton recasts all of all of human history in light of the startling fact of humanity. And section two is about Christ: “those who say that Christ stands side by side with other myths, and his religion side by side with similar religions, are only repeating a very stale formula contradicted by a very striking fact”; namely, the fact of the Resurrection.

    Interesting that both “startling facts” concern life — its origin and its redemption.

    Chesterton: Nobody can imagine how nothing could turn into something. Nobody can get an inch nearer to it by explaining how something could turn into something else.

    Yes, this is precisely why brane / multiverse concepts have become so popular. By such thinking, nothing never did turn into something — something has always existed, alternating between an expanding/contracting universe or a singularity about to seed the next universe.

    Chesterton: But evolution really is mistaken for explanation. It has the fatal quality of leaving on many minds the impression that they do understand it and everything else; just as many of them live under a sort of illusion that they have read the Origin of Species.

    A note of fairness: Darwinists make similar claims about ID. Chesterton’s audience is the choir, yes? His writing isn’t intended to be persuasive, only analysis from a given perspective. A Darwinist would respond that evolutionary research continually reveals more about the past, that it has a sort of “manifest destiny” and will eventually reveal all. You can sense this attitude (and read about the latest progress on multiple evolutionary fronts) here:

    Ars Technica: Misperceptions meet state of the art in evolution research

    That last line of Chesterton’s, by the way, is fantastic. Hope you don’t mind a tangent: I used to own a copy of On The Origin of Species; it sat on my classroom bookshelf at many schools. While I can’t claim to have finished reading it, I did give it as much effort as I gave The Lord of the Rings (which is to confess that length and dryness wore me down halfway). When I taught at a private Christian high school, one of my classes was amazed to learn I owned it. “Sure, it’s right here,” I said, pulling it off the shelf. Their eyes bugged out as if I’d just pulled out a bag of marijuana. I let them pass it around, even loaned it to one student who took it home for a while (but, like me, didn’t finish reading it). That unscripted moment in my class was a great lesson of not fearing ideas, but instead understanding and addressing them.

    When I taught American literature I did some background reading in Uncle Tom’s Cabin and was shocked to find out Uncle Tom was not only a powerful hero, in death he was depicted as a Christ figure (shocking for that time period). Suddenly the pejorative use of “Uncle Tom” for a kiss-up perturbed me. Everyone thinks they know Uncle Tom’s Cabin; nobody reads it. So without telling my administrators (who probably would have disapproved — this was a race-troubled public school in the South), I photocopied the first and last few chapters and we read them as class material. I did the same for Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle.

    All of which is to affirm that we’re a stupid people who refer to books without reading them. No history class should reference these three books without reading some robust excerpts.

    RubeRad: Chesterton spends the rest of the chapter describing eloquently how cave paintings demonstrate that man is distinct from beast in having a mind.

    I’ve never understood what justification Darwinists use for assuming cave paintings are in any way different from underpass graffiti. Any lout can crawl into a dark space and leave his mark. Just because one individual — or even one small community — did so doesn’t make that the high mark of civilizations at that point in time.

    Chesterton: Now as a matter of fact, there is a not a shadow of evidence that this thing [the human mind] was evolved at all. There is not a particle of proof that this transition came slowly or even that it came naturally. In a strictly scientific sense we simply know nothing whatever about how it grew, or whether it grew, or what it is. There may be a broken trail of stones and bones faintly suggesting the development of the human body. There is nothing even faintly suggesting such a development of this human mind. It was not and it was; we know not in what instant or in what infinity of years. Something happened; and it has all the appearance of a transaction outside time. It has therefore nothing to do with history in the ordinary sense. The historian must take it or something like it for granted; it is not his business as a historian to explain it. But if he cannot explain it as a historian, he will not explain it as a biologist.

    I hope Chesterton fleshes out this assertion in his book. As it appears here, he seems to neglect actual evolutionary arguments. Historians looking at communication today see binary digits transmitted wirelessly; a hundred years ago, mass-printed ink and paper distributed by truck; a thousand hundred years ago, quill-inscribed ink and paper stagnating in private libraries; before that, non-phonetic cuneiform and hieroglyphs in clay and stone; before that, wordless cave paintings. The trend seems clear: an increasing sophistication of human thought. The creationist counterargument is that increases in technological competence and durability does not necessarily reflect increases in mental development; Aristotle’s mental faculty serves as (humbling!) evidence.

    But for Chesterton to claim “There is nothing even faintly suggesting such a development of this human mind” is ridiculous. Although I don’t agree with Darwinists, I can understand why they take the growing sophistication in communication as evidence of mental development (as a former Darwinist I used to interpret the evidence that way myself). Preaching to the choir in outright neglect of existing contrary arguments does a disservice to creationist thought.

    Chesterton: There is a thought that stops thought. That is the only thought that ought to be stopped.

    Which is precisely why I wrote these two articles, both of which accuse evolutionary thinking of standing in the way of inductive inquiry:

    seedlings: evolutionary psychology — it’s all in your mind

    forester: Yet the hasty presumption of an evolutionary history of “keeping an eye on predators and prey” actually neglects other possible explanations for our visual prioritization … Thus evolution functions as the “God did it” response that thwarts, rather than fuels, open inquiry, leaving us without a full explanation.

    seedlings: vestigial proof

    forester: Long touted as proof of evolution, vestigiality is beginning to collapse. And despite insistence on evolution’s predictive power, as a concept vestigiality tempts scientists to overlook possible function. “No use researching that,” they dismiss, “it has no function at all — it’s vestigial!” Such an attitude is no less responsible for thwarting scientific inquiry than the roundly-criticized creationist mantra “God did it.”

    Self-promotion over. Back to the post:

    Chesterton: But if it means anything more, it means that there is no such thing as an ape to change, and no such thing as a man for him to change into.

    I’m going to criticize Chesterton in a moment, but before doing so need to affirm that he is dead right on this point. If species are always in flux, then the term “species” is illusive to the point of unreality. Ultimately there is no such thing as a species; there are only organisms, some of which can reproduce with others. This observation was made even during Darwin’s lifetime (he addressed it himself, acknowledging that “species” was only a temporary classification) and can be found in reference books as early as Chambers’s Encyclopaedia: A Dictionary of Universal Knowledge (1896) (pg 614) …

    Chambers: In short, the fact is that there is no such thing as species. Individuals are real; but a species is a subjective conception. It is based on structural resemblances between individuals, and the degree of importance attached to these depends, as we have seen, on the mind of the observer, or is, in other words, entirely relative.

    … up to reference materials today, such as Wikipedia’s entry Species problem.

    Chesterton: It means that there is no such thing as a thing. At best, there is only one thing, and that is a flux of everything and anything. This is an attack not upon the faith, but upon the mind; you cannot think if there are no things to think about. You cannot think if you are not separate from the subject of thought. Descartes said, “I think; therefore I am.” The philosophic evolutionist reverses and negatives the epigram. He says, “I am not; therefore I cannot think.”

    Unfortunately this is the kind of criticism that rouses creationists but fails to dissuade Darwinists. In fact they embrace it: Sagan claimed we’re made of stardust (matter is matter); Nietzsche claimed there’s no doer behind the deed (flux is flux). Attempting to refute Sagan by pointing at property rights, or Nietzsche by pointing at criminal justice, doesn’t work since these thinkers allow for arbitrary conceptions like personhood as convenient, effective social conventions. The fact is that eddies can be distinguished in a river, though the river be one. While H20 is H20 is H20, it can exist in different states (solid, liquid, gas); so can matter, flux, even slippery terms like species. Darwinists acknowledge and investigate temporary states; not to do so would indeed be the death of mind.

    Besides, ultimately no language exactly signifies the signified; all is approximation. So while creationists possess a more justified claim to meaningfulness, requiring perfect discourse from Darwinists is a double-edged sword that ultimately works against all discourse, Christian included.

    All that is to say I hold Chesterton up to a higher standard of whether or not I agree with him — I want something I can use in debate. In what you’ve presented he doesn’t give me much.

    Chesterton: Darwinism can be used to back up two mad moralities, but it cannot be used to back up a single sane one. The kinship and competition of all living creatures can be used as a reason for being insanely cruel or insanely sentimental; but not for a healthy love of animals. On the evolutionary basis you may be inhumane, or you may be absurdly humane; but you cannot be human. That you and a tiger are one may be a reason for being tender to a tiger. Or it may be a reason for being as cruel as the tiger. It is one way to train the tiger to imitate you, it is a shorter way to imitate the tiger. But in neither case does evolution tell you how to treat a tiger reasonably, that is, to admire his stripes while avoiding his claws.

    These are more forced extremes that Darwinists would shrug away. But they remind me of a Digg thread a while back concerning a tiger that had mauled a man in India. Half the contributors argued the tiger should have been shot immediately; the other half defended the tiger’s right to slay the man, even to the point of congratulating the tiger. It was bizarre.

    Chesterton: If you want to treat a tiger reasonably, you must go back to the garden of Eden. For the obstinate reminder continued to recur: only the supernatural has taken a sane view of Nature. The essence of all pantheism, evolutionism, and modern cosmic religion is really in this proposition: that Nature is our mother. Unfortunately, if you regard Nature as a mother, you discover that she is a step-mother. The main point of Christianity was this: that Nature is not our mother: Nature is our sister.

    A survey of American literature reveals just such a schizophrenic view of nature: transcendentalists regarded it as a nurturing provider of wisdom, naturalists as a force bent on crushing life (remnants of both attitudes can be found in most subsequent American lit). Such opposing characterizations make you wonder whether the writers lived on the same planet. I agree with Chesterton here: the gospel story (original goodness, subsequent corruption by sin) is the only model that can account for our love-hate relationship with nature. And yes, finally, that is an idea I would use in discussion with Darwinists.

  32. Wow. I don’t know how you do it, but you continue to blow my mind. So you’re saying that Calvin considered RC to be not very deficient in the Justification dept?

    Yes. I could have sworn I told you about this before. Calvin eventually came to see that RC justification was not far off from his own view.

    It is secure and wholesome teaching that the sinner is justified by a living and effectual faith, for through such faith we will be acceptable to God and accepted for the sake of Christ.

    A living faith, therefore, appropriates the mercy in Christ and believes that the righteousness which is in Christ will be freely reckoned for nothing and also receives the promise of the Holy Spirit. – Diet of Regensburg, 1541

    The Diet was an attempt to reconcile the Reformed and Roman churches. Calvin, Melanchton, and Eck were there. Eck was the one who pretty much got Luther excommunicated.

    Calvin and Eck agreed with the statement. Melanchton did not. The Diet eventually failed to reconcile the Western Church over issues of papal authority and transubstantiation.

  33. Calvin was *there* but his sides spokesman finally did not agree. Calvin went home a Protestant.

    Soon after, Trent declared the Protestant doctrine of justification by faith alone, which Calvin promulgated, the be “anathema.”

    Can Ron show why Calvin’s claims on justification in is institutes would not have been declared anthema according to Trent?

    And, does Ron seriously think that Calvin thought there was no major difference between his view and that of the Catholics?

    And, given my quotes, how would Calvin’s view fit with the Diet’s use of the word “inherent” righteousness, which Calvin staunchly disagreed.

    The problem at the Diet, as with the currect debate now, is that the inital statements were unclear and ambiguous. As it dragged on, and terms were defined and debated, why did Calvin go home a protestant? He would not and did not agree to the full meaning of what was expressed at the Diet.

    Furthermore, Ron doesn’t know much about Rome. The Doet was *not* an infallible teaching of the church, and so had no right to represent Rome. There were Catholics who wanted to compromise their doctrines too. So, this was *not* a compromise with offical Catholic teaching. Perhaps some Protestants and some Catholics tried to agree on something, but that’s a far cry from saying Calvin agreed with *Rome.* Ron is simply not representing either side correctly! The Diet failed to win support at Rome as well!

    Trent was the first official response to the Reformers teaching of faith. To Calvin, Luther, et al. And *trent* does not agree with Calvin. And *that* is what matters. Ron *cannot* say that Calvin agreed with *Rome,* since *Rome* did not authorize the Diet!

    Furthermore, it was not Calvin who officially agreed. It was the three representatives. Calvin only *heard* about the agreement. And, he was surprised that the Catholics “conceeded” so much.

    Ron cannot substantiate his claim that Calvin agreed with *Rome.*

  34. I did not say that Calvin agreed with Rome wrt justification. I just noted that the disagreement was not as sharp as modern protestants make it out to be.

    And I already noted why the diet failed and it wasn’t because of justification.

  35. Actually Ron, you said,

    You are right that I, with John Calvin, do not think I would be losing much in the Justification department by going RC.

    You then used what happened at the Diet as *evidence* back up your claim. I pointed out that the Diet in no way serves to support *the claim you were originally trying to defend.* I was merely holding you to the standards you set for yourself. I’m not accoutable for goal post shifting. ;-) The diet *was not* the RC view of justification. *That* is found in Trent et al. Didn’t you know that Diet’s and meetings of that sort do not speak for Rome.

    So, yes, the issues *were* as big as Protestants make them out to be because Protestants are taking the Catholoics at their own word. That is, the Pail councils, official church teaching, the infallible word from the magistrate, is what counts as Rome.

    See Ron, when you go to Rome you don’t get the freedom to debate like this. I mean, you can blabber on and on all you want, but it’s really meaningless. You’re not a Pope. You’re not infallible. Your theological insights are simply opinions, and they do not express the teachings of the church; unless, of course, you simply puppet what the church had proclaimd. But, if you do that, then you must hold Trent’s, or the different Vat. councils (or whatever, depending on what kind of RC you are) teaching on justification.

    So, yes, the differences between Protestantism and RC teaching, *as RC would’s have themselevs be understood,* ARE as big as we say.

    As Calvin and Rome pointed out, the “Catholic” *opinions* at the diet *did not* express Rome’s position on the subject.

    You’re simply wrong historically, and on your comparative religions, here.

  36. You then used what happened at the Diet as *evidence* back up your claim.

    And what *claim* was that? That JC *agreed* with RC? Or that JC did “not think I would be losing much in the Justification department by going RC”?

    I pointed out that the Diet in no way serves to support *the claim you were originally trying to defend.*

    Actually, no. You pointed out that the Diet in no way serves to support the claim *you say* I was originally trying to defend. But as indicated above, your man was made of straw, and therefore burned easily.

    You’re not a Pope. You’re not infallible. Your theological insights are simply opinions, and they do not express the teachings of the church;

    Now I don’t know who you are arguing against. Did I argue in favor of the Bishop of Rome’s exaltation above all the other Bishops in the Church? No, I did not.

    But, if you do that, then you must hold Trent’s, or the different Vat. councils (or whatever, depending on what kind of RC you are)

    I thought they “simply puppet what the church had proclaimd”? How could there be different kinds of RCs? It’s almost as if they have the freedom to think and debate and blabber on…

    So, yes, the differences between Protestantism and RC teaching, *as RC would’s have themselevs be understood,* ARE as big as we say.

    I don’t see it that way. This is the difference the way I see it. One says you have to obey God in order to be justified and the other says if you are justified, you have to obey God. I, with Calvin, don’t see that distinction as something to part over. The Pope and saint veneration, sure, but not “faith and life” over against “living faith”.

    The real issue for the Church today is the Supreme Lordship of Jesus Christ over all things Heaven and Earth. God never curses a people because they try too hard to obey His Law. Quite the contrary.

  37. Ron,

    And what *claim* was that? That JC *agreed* with RC? Or that JC did “not think I would be losing much in the Justification department by going RC”?

    The latter, Ron. This pretty much dispells the myth that I set up a straw man, but I’ll continue since you’re having trouble following the argument.

    Actually, no. You pointed out that the Diet in no way serves to support the claim *you say* I was originally trying to defend. But as indicated above, your man was made of straw, and therefore burned easily.

    No, the Diet does not serve to back up ANY claim about ROME’s view of justification. Does that make sense? ROME’S view IS NOT FOUND at the Diet. It’s found in the “infallible” councils of the church. My man is steel. You cannot burn steel. All you’ve shown, AT BEST, is that Calvin didn’t have a problem with SOME CATHOLICS presentation of a view of justification that ROME DID NOT ACCEPT. (Sorry for all the CAPS, but I hope it makes it easier for you to get.)

    Now I don’t know who you are arguing against. Did I argue in favor of the Bishop of Rome’s exaltation above all the other Bishops in the Church? No, I did not.

    I’m arguing against your original claim that you would go to Rome and just be “a little off” on justification. After all, Calvin didn’t have that big of problems with ROME. This is *your* claim. I am debunking it. I am showing that *if* you went to Rome, you don’t get the DIET”S view of justification, you get TRENT’S! You don’t get to make up your fluffy, eccumenical doctrines in order to show that the divide isn’t as wide as you want to portray. So, I’m dealing with the hypothetical we’ve been talking about.

    I thought they “simply puppet what the church had proclaimd”? How could there be different kinds of RCs? It’s almost as if they have the freedom to think and debate and blabber on…

    You’re evidencing perfectly why you’ve been taken in, hook, line and sinker, by false teaching. The one argument is about what you’re *allowed* to do, or what you *ought* to do. That there are Catholics who don’t *follow* that is no more a critique against what I said than is the fact that people do not follow God’s law a critique against the fact that they all should. It’s not my fault that there are Catholics who think they are more Catholic than the Pope. Indeed, this is a criticism against Rome and their stupid arguments regarding all the “schisms” within Protestantism.

    I don’t see it that way. This is the difference the way I see it. One says you have to obey God in order to be justified and the other says if you are justified, you have to obey God. I, with Calvin, don’t see that distinction as something to part over. The Pope and saint veneration, sure, but not “faith and life” over against “living faith”.

    I don’t care how you “see it.” And, I’ve shown that Calvin didn’t side with ROME, or didn’t say that they weren’t too far off, or, whatever . . . I said that ROME’S teaching, the teaching OF THE CHURCH *IS* that far off. Indeed, even THEY knew it. That’s why they called the Protestant view an ANATHEMA. Am I supposed to believe that you know more than Rome about their own teachings now???? It’s not “faith and life” vs. “living faith” (and, quite going to the Diet!!! You don’t get to do that. That’s not ROME’S teaching. You’re cheating.) It’s much more than that. All you’ve done now is confirm that you don’t even understand the BASICS of the Protestant teaching on sola fide. No wonder you think there’s not a big difference, and that FV isn’t problematic. Read Calvin in the institutes. Read where he condemns infused righteousness. Rome DENIES him there. Read where he speaks of faith ALONE. He denies Rome, and Rome denies him there. You don’t understand these issues very well at all, do you?

    The real issue for the Church today is the Supreme Lordship of Jesus Christ over all things Heaven and Earth. God never curses a people because they try too hard to obey His Law. Quite the contrary.

    That’s not the issue.

    Jesus noted that the *Pharisees* tried harder than alomost anyone to obey the law, “Unless your righteousness exceeds that of the pharisees . . .”

    And, ony those who have been regenerated can “try to obey God’s law.” And so OF COURSE God does not condemn THEM. There is NO condemnation for those in Christ Jesus.

    Those who REALLY try to obey the law are regenerate, justified, born again Christians. They are putting to death the deeds of the flesh. So, yes, God does not condemn them, he has saved them! By Grace. Alone. Through faith. Alone. On the basis of Christ’s life and death. Alone. To the Glory of God. Alone. And all that SO THAT they can do the works prepared for them to do.

    Justification is inseperably joined with sanctification but distinct from it.

    Rome, as almost all agree, errs here:

    Q. 77. Wherein do justification and sanctification differ?

    A. Although sanctification be inseparably joined with justification,[330] yet they differ, in that God in justification imputeth the righteousness of Christ;[331] in sanctification of his Spirit infuseth grace, and enableth to the exercise thereof;[332] in the former, sin is pardoned;[333] in the other, it is subdued:[334] the one doth equally free all believers from the revenging wrath of God, and that perfectly in this life, that they never fall into condemnation[335] the other is neither equal in all,[336] nor in this life perfect in any,[337] but growing up to perfection.[338]

    Anyway, I hope I’ve been clear. You have been shown to be in error that Calvin was IN ANY WAY more congenial, or hip, to ROME’S view of justification. You CANNOT show that by citing the Diet. Rome would disagree with you. And that is enough to show that you’re flat out in the wrong here.

    Does all that make sense?

  38. Clark on Regensburg:

    what is a “living faith”? “That faith is living therefore, which apprehends mercy in Christ, and believes that justice which is in Christ is imputed to him and at the same time receives the promise of the Holy Spirit and love. Therefore justifying faith is that faith which is efficacious through love.”

    Brilliantly and deliberately ambiguous, this definition would satisfy everyone at Regensburg–and no one else. First of all, it was “living faith” under discussion rather than “true faith” or “faith alone” (sola fide). Yet, no Protestant could deny that he believed that any saving faith must be a living faith, but the Romanists could say that any faith which is living is a working faith and therefore sanctification is included in justification!

    …Thus it seems obvious that the document contained just enough concessions to both sides to make it truly, as Luther said, a “gluing together” of irreconcilable views. It was apparent as soon as the colloquy broke up that there was no real agreement on justification after all. Contarini and Gropper interpreted Article 5 in a way which would ultimately be consistent with Trent. Bucer and Melanchthon put a Protestant spin on the article. Bucer wrote to Charles V to say that if the Romanists persisted in interpreting Article 5 to mean that we are justified because we are sanctified, then he wanted no part of it. Though it was sufficiently vague to suit the Emperor’s purposes, it was not unclear to Luther or Rome. Both rejected it categorically. Both knew that double justification was an unstable formula because it attempted to combine two mutually exclusive doctrines of God and his justice, grace and faith.

  39. Hmmm, that’s what I was saying.

  40. Yet in so many fewer words…

  41. Whoa — just noticed that forester snuck in a relevant comment! I’ll have to come back to read it later!

  42. From the Cambridge Companion to Calvin:

    In Regensburg the theologians succeeded in achieving accord on the themes of original sin, freedom of the will, and justification. Unfortunately, Luther and the pope rejected the doctrinal formulation of “double justification,” and the doctrine of transubstantiation remained in dispute. A great ecumenical opportunity was missed. From the very beginning Calvin was skeptical about these attempts and considered the proposed formulas of compromise to be questionable. According to Calvin, they represented a misleading and fictitious consensus. Therefore, Calvin left the Regensburg colloquy early.

  43. This link explains that Luther considered the Reformation to be a temporary split from Rome, Regensburg “represented a last-ditch attempt to reach a compromise between Catholics and Protestants, which would allow the latter to rejoin the church from which they had temporarily withdrawn. … The failure of Regensburg put paid to that hope.” In the meantime, Luther’s ecclesiology was lacking (because he expected a return to Rome). “The second generation of reformers, among whom Calvin stands out as supreme, was faced with the challenge of developing a coherent and systematic ecclesiology, on the basis of the realization that separation from the main body of the Catholic church would continue indefinitely. Calvin rose to this challenge…” I.e. Regensburg caused Calvin not to halfway reconcile with Rome, but finally give up on it.

  44. And from here, what appears to be a quote from Calvin himself, from a letter.

    The debate in controversy was more keen upon the doctrine of justification. At length a formula was drawn up, which, on receiving certain corrections, was accepted on both sides. You will be astonished, I am sure, that our opponents have yielded so much. . . . Our friends have thus retained also the substance of the true doctrine, so that nothing can be comprehended within it which is not to be found in our writings; you will desire, I know, a more distinct explication and statement of the doctrine, and, in that respect, you shall find me in complete agreement. . . . However, if you consider with what kind of men we have to agree upon this doctrine, you will acknowledge that much has been accomplished.

    Sounds to me just like Clark described; both sides ended up agreeing on a statement which merely omitted the necessary qualifiers, so that each side could agree to the same words, though they (knew they) each meant them differently.

    And as Wacky has amply demonstrated (and other sources attest), Regensburg was a failure; Rome did not accept Regensburg any more than Luther or Bucer did. So even if Calvin did wholeheartedly agree with Regensburg, that says nothing about what Calvin thought about Rome’s doctrine of justification.

  45. Yet in so many fewer words…

    But I also had so much more to say . . .

    :-P

  46. Random comment, re:

    “There is nothing even faintly suggesting such a development of this human mind”

    You can trace the increase in the cranial cavity size, and the increase in blood supply volume to the brain, and just as importantly, the improvement in cooling capacity of that supply in the fossil record. I think if there’s a/some god(s), they set things off in a beautifully clever way to enable the emergence of things like you and me. She’d have to be less than omnipotent to have to keep prodding things to correct them. Or lazy about the original conception? You guys would be showing more respect by helping discover the (possibly infinite) complexity of the physics and everything that emerges from it gave rise to us.

    I understand your view to a certain extent – God made all of this, and we should take every opportunity to thank Him for it.

    It’s more important to help look after the environment and each other. Maybe he’s looking down on you and saying to Himself “Why do they insist on ruining the beautiful planet I made for them? They’re demanding that I fix their mistakes. Maybe I’ll just start again somewhere else. Maybe this time they’ll be genuinely grateful, rather than just talking loudly about it.”

  47. limejelly dropping in from thin air again, with another relevant comment!

    limey, I think Chesterton would relegate fossil record of cranial size/circulation/cooling as part of the “broken trail of stones and bones”. And he would probably distinguish between brain and mind. Certainly the difference between human and animal minds is radically greater than the difference between human and animal brains.

    As for “less than omnipotent to have to keep prodding things to correct them. Or lazy about the original conception?”, that’s why Augustine tried to collapse all of creation into a single instantaneous event. But it’s fallacious to assume that a creation with a duration denies God omnipotence (or that a longer creation makes him less potent).

    Good to hear from you, bro!

  48. ROME’S view IS NOT FOUND at the Diet.

    Rome’s view can be easily found in the Diet.

    1. The Diet proclaimed justification by a “living faith” (along with the WCF).
    2. James 2 defines the phrase “faith alone” as “dead faith”, which is the opposite of the “living faith” proclaimed in the Diet (along with the WCF).
    Therefore, when Trent states that we are not justified by “faith alone”, they are saying that we are not justified by “dead faith”, but rather “living faith” in accordance with James, the Diet, and the WCF.

    Jesus noted that the *Pharisees* tried harder than alomost [sic] anyone to obey the law

    This is a common misconception and frankly, I am shocked to see one who has been so familiar with Bahnsen assert it.

    The Pharisees problem was not that they were attempting to gain favor with God via obedience to the Law. They thought their heritage granted them that favor, so they did not need to obey the Law.

    The Pharisees taught others to obey the whole Law, but refused to obey it themselves (Matthew 23:1-3), which is why they earn the title “hypocrite” (Matthew 23:13). The Pharisees obeyed the easy, showy parts of the Law, but they neglected the weightier provisions of the Law (Matthew 23:23).

  49. OK, I declare the “what did Calvin think of RC justification” threadjack over! I wish it were possible to slide all those comments over to a new post, since they are so neatly separable. But we’ve got lots of great on-point feedback from forester (and limejelly), so I’ll be getting back to that. (But not until this afternoon!)

  50. That’s one of the most ridiculous, and historically ignortant thinsg I’ve heard, Ron. But, since the side-thread is over . . .

  51. Yeah, since the thread is over, you don’t have to handle the scriptures I cited that prove you don’t understand the New Testament.

  52. Ron, you have your own blog, if you want a place for everybody to watch Wacky smack you around

  53. Yeah, bare naked assertions and misinterpreting a fundamental point of Christ’s criticism toward the Pharisees (which faulty analysis is then imputed to the FV) is really smacking me around…

  54. I’ve never understood what justification Darwinists use for assuming cave paintings are in any way different from underpass graffiti. Any lout can crawl into a dark space and leave his mark. Just because one individual — or even one small community — did so doesn’t make that the high mark of civilizations at that point in time.

    Chesterton accuses the Darwinists of missing the caveman for the caves, as it were. He redirects us away from the qualitative nature of the cave paintings (are they primitive, are they good art, are they indicative of sophisticated culture/civilization), and towards the quantitative nature: they mark the existence of abstract, imaginative thought which is radically different than anything in the animal kingdom. As you say, “any lout can crawl into a dark space and leave his mark,” but no monkey would ever! From the middle of Ch. 1 of Everlasting Man:

    That is the simplest lesson to learn in the cavern of the colored pictures; only it is too simple to be learnt. It is the simple truth that man does differ from the brutes in kind and not in degree; and the proof of it is here; that it sounds like a truism to say that the most primitive man drew a picture of a monkey and that it sounds like a joke to say that the most intelligent monkey drew a picture of a man. Something of division and disproportion has appeared; and it is unique. Art is the signature of man.

  55. Chesterton: Now as a matter of fact, there is a not a shadow of evidence that this thing [the human mind] was evolved at all.

    forester: I hope Chesterton fleshes out this assertion in his book.

    Sadly, no.

    As it appears here, he seems to neglect actual evolutionary arguments….The trend seems clear: an increasing sophistication of human thought.

    But Chesterton’s statement is not directed at progress from cave paintings to now; he is asserting that the cave paintings came out of nowhere; or more specifically, that the human mind that the evidence did not gradually appear, but suddenly appeared.

  56. Chesterton: But if [evolution] means anything more, it means that there is no such thing as an ape to change, and no such thing as a man for him to change into.

    forester: If species are always in flux, then the term “species” is illusive to the point of unreality. Ultimately there is no such thing as a species; there are only organisms, some of which can reproduce with others.

    I think you subtly miss Chesterton’s point; if you look at the parts I boldened, “It means that there is no such thing as a thing. At best, there is only one thing, and that is a flux of everything and anything,” it seemed to me that what he was saying was more along the lines of, “if strong materialism/naturalism is true, then there exists nothing so meaningful as “an ape” or “a man” or any thing. So he goes beyond “there are only organisms, some of which can reproduce with each other” to “there is only a dynamic collection of matter and energy”

  57. Reading a little further on, I see that you do get the point I also got, but don’t find it productive:

    All that is to say I hold Chesterton up to a higher standard of whether or not I agree with him — I want something I can use in debate. In what you’ve presented he doesn’t give me much.

    I dunno, seems to me no different than the standard presupper argument of “your strict materialism cuts its own throat by denying you the use of logic itself,” which I’ve seen in plenty of debates. The only reason the argument is not effective is because atheists don’t seem to understand it, not that they stipulate it and don’t care.

  58. […] encountered a form of this delusion the other day on Blogorrhea from Paul Manata of Triablogue: “Jesus noted that the *Pharisees* tried harder than alomost […]

  59. […] but certainly not least, behold the Veritas Forum! I first went to Veritas on a recommendation to listen to Alvin Plantinga’s “Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism,” and […]

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

%d bloggers like this: