On "the Scientific Explanation of the Origin of Life" and the Self-Contradictory Worldview of Anti-Theism

Sir James Jeans

Sir James Jeans [in The Mysterious Universe (NY, 1931), p.3] tells us that some millions of years ago certain stars wandered blindly through space, and: “In the course of time, we know not how, when, or why, one of these cooling fragments gave birth to life.”

The quote above is representative of the kind of “scientific explanation of the origin of life” that can be found daily from multiple sources in educational institutions, public broadcasting, and the mainstream media throughout our nation and beyond. These days, of course, those offering this kind of “scientific explanation” say “billions of years ago” instead of “millions,” in order to give more time for chance working upon natural processes to produce orderliness, intricate systems, and life. But what are we really reading/hearing when we are exposed to supposedly neutral “scientific explanations” like the one above?

Cornelius Van Til

Responding to the quote by Sir Jeans, Cornelius Van Til writes: “Thus, in the same breath we have an assertion of agnosticism [through Jeans’ statement: ‘we know not how...’], a denial of Christianity [through proposing an explanation for the origin of life that is diametrically opposed to the Christian explanation], and the assurance that Chance rules the world.”

Greg Bahnsen

Concerning Van Til’s response to Jeans, Greg Bahnsen notes: “This is a brief but blistering example of Van Til’s internal critique of an unbeliever’s rationalism (a scientific explanation of the origin of life… [emphasis added]) allied with irrationalism (‘agnosticism:’ ‘we know not how…’) for the purpose of precluding Christianity (this much is clear about any possible explanation [for the origin of life by scientists such as Jeans]: it was not religious).

In Romans Chapter 1, the Holy Spirit declares by the Apostle Paul that unbelievers “suppress the truth” “by their unrighteousness” (verse 18), and “claiming to be wise, they became fools” (verse 22). This foolish suppressing of the truth, though sometimes clothed in educated language, is demonstrated through their implicit embracing of contradictory philosophical pre-commitments and impulses, like: irrationalism and rationalism; agnosticism and assurance. The presuppositional critique of anti-Christian systems demonstrates that denials of the gospel are not what they often claim to be: they are NOT due to a philosophically neutral pursuit of facts, NOR are they due to lack of information [as in: ‘if you would only show me more convincing proof, then I would believe’]. Rather, denials of the gospel are a moral issue. People do not believe in the gospel because they do not want to believe. And in willfully rejecting belief in God, who created the universe in a way that is consistent with the truth of who He is, unbelievers necessarily devolve into self-contradictory positions: not just falling short of the principles that they espouse (as we all do, through weakness), but through clinging tenaciously to self-defeating principles.