Logical Fallacies
Uniformity of Nature
Evolution is anti-science and anti-knowledge. If evolution were true, science would not make sense because there would be no reason to accept the uniformity of nature upon which all science and tehcnology depends. Nor would there be any reason to think that rational analysis would be possible since the thoughts of our mind would be nothing more than the inevitable result of mindless chemical reactions. Evolutionists are able to do science and gain knowledge only because they are inconsistent, professing to believe in evolution while accepting the principles of biblical creation.
The consistent Christian can use past experience as a guide for what is likely to happen in the future, because God has promised us that (in certain ways) the future will reflect the past (Gen 8:22 or Jer 33:20-21). But how can those who reject Genesis explain why there should be uniformity of nature? How would an evolutionist respond if asked, “Why will the future reflect the past?”
One of the most common responses is: “Well, it always has. So I expect it always will“. But this is circular reasoning. I’ll grant that in the past there has been uniformity (although even this knowledge is based on the uniformity of physics and chemistry in the brain to give us a reliable memory of the past), but how do we know that in the future there will be uniformity, unless I already assumed that the future reflects the past (ie. uniformity)? Whenever we use past experiences as a basis for what is likely to happen in the future, we are assuming uniformity. So when an evolutionist says that he believes there will be uniformity in the future since there has been uniformity in the past, he’s trying to justify uniformity by simply assuming uniformity – a vicious circular argument.
The consistent Christian can use past experience as a guide for what is likely to happen in the future, because God has promised us that (in certain ways) the future will reflect the past (Gen 8:22 or Jer 33:20-21). But how can those who reject Genesis explain why there should be uniformity of nature? How would an evolutionist respond if asked, “Why will the future reflect the past?”
One of the most common responses is: “Well, it always has. So I expect it always will“. But this is circular reasoning. I’ll grant that in the past there has been uniformity (although even this knowledge is based on the uniformity of physics and chemistry in the brain to give us a reliable memory of the past), but how do we know that in the future there will be uniformity, unless I already assumed that the future reflects the past (ie. uniformity)? Whenever we use past experiences as a basis for what is likely to happen in the future, we are assuming uniformity. So when an evolutionist says that he believes there will be uniformity in the future since there has been uniformity in the past, he’s trying to justify uniformity by simply assuming uniformity – a vicious circular argument.
