Murder and Monogamy: Lessons in Presuppositions

Readers of these pages will know that we often refer to worldviews and presuppositions. What are these creatures and why are they important?

1. Worldviews and Presuppositions:

A worldview is exactly what it says. It is a lens through which you interpret and make sense of the world around you. It is a lens through which you view your world; a lens that makes your world intelligible.

Just as a lens would gather light from without and transfer that light to the eye manipulating that light as it moves through the lens, so to a worldview acts in much the same way.

For example, if you place dark lenses over your eyes, you see less in some circumstances and more in others. If you place coloured lenses on your eyes, you may see things that were previously hidden to the naked eye. If you put a patch on your eye, you obscure your vision totally, regardless of the degree of light available, because you have placed a barrier over your eye.

If a worldview is like a lens, then a presupposition, to continue the analogy, is like the prescription in that lens. When we have our eyes tested, the optometrist moves through a range of lenses to ascertain which will give the clearest vision. Having established the best arrangement for our eyes, he gives us a pair of glasses with the appropriate lenses. Built into those lenses are the specifications that enable us to see – the right thickness of lens; the right curvature of the lens; even down to multiple lenses to give our eyes flexibility.

These specifications are the equivalent of presuppositions. They are simply there. They are assumed in that they are inbuilt. We do not need to adjust them each time we pick up our glasses.

Of course, worldview and presuppositions belong to the realm of philosophy and epistemology – the realm of knowledge, ideas, and concepts. However, they work exactly as the lens analogy shows. When you look out to the world, you are faced with observable facts. How you choose to interpret those facts depends entirely upon your worldview (lens), which in turn rests on certain presuppositions or faith assumptions (prescription or type of lens).

2. Purpose:

Why do I raise this topic? I do so in order to try and help my brethren by equipping them. Too few Christians today understand these concepts and, as a consequence, are often bamboozled by scientific claims or supposedly rational arguments that are presented. These arguments sometimes cause distress to Christian’s because the new claim runs counter to a Biblical doctrine or statement.

Thus, my intent is simply to help Christians to better navigate the world in which they live for Jesus Christ – always being prepared to give a reason for the hope that is in them.

3. Neutrality:

Having outlined briefly what worldviews and presuppositions are, we need to address the most fundamental point in regard to these concepts – everybody has one! Worldviews and presuppositions exist in every person, whether they realise it or not, whether they are formed in detail or not.

In this regard, worldviews and presuppositions are like eyes. Everybody has them.

Understand this point well, please. It is extremely important. Oft times when you speak up for the faith, you will encounter someone who will tell you that you are biased whilst they feign neutrality. Do not believe them. There simply is no neutrality.[1] As the late Greg Bahnsen said so well in regard to the myth of neutrality, “They [the world] are not and you [the Christian] shouldn’t be!”

Therefore, when you hear censorious claims concerning Christianity, your first question or task should be aimed at discovering the presupposition of your critic. They have one, though they will, as stated, try and hide it and feign neutrality. There is, in a philosophical sense, not one person in this world who does not wear glasses!

Please grasp this. Please work to understand it. Every person wears glasses. All begin with the prescription of sin and rebellion. From that point, they may take on a further definition or prescription (set of presuppositions). Some of those glasses carry the prescription of Humanism. Some carry the prescription of Evolution. Thankfully, some of those glasses carry the corrective lens of Jesus Christ.

The point is simple. Do not believe anybody who seeks to feign neutrality. That very insistence on their part shows them to be a charlatan and a deceiver.

4. Basic Presuppositions:

When we consider a person’s presuppositions they can be myriad. However, they all begin from one fundamental presupposition – the existence of God. This is the initial presupposition that gives rise to all others.

Atheists and God-haters are prone to throw out the challenge, “Prove that God exists!” Many Christians pale at such demands and usually respond with some incoherent rant concerning faith. This gives the opposition the upper hand as they then denounce this faith – a choice to believe in something without proof[2] — and posit they stand upon that which is proven. The Christian’s response should be a simple, “Prove … (whatever it is that they are peddling)!”

In reality, both people adopt a faith position. The Christian cannot prove God. He can point to proofs for the existence of God, but he cannot prove the existence of God. This is primarily because the opponent is wearing his prescription glasses that block out all light on this subject. Similarly, the opponent cannot offer concrete proof for their position. They have started with the presupposition that God does not exist and built from that foundation. Thus, they will interpret the observable facts through their prescription lenses.

Let me show you what is meant with a Biblical example. John the Baptist was questioning whether Jesus really was Messiah. So he sends his disciples to Jesus to ask, “Are you the One?” Jesus’ response was very simple and empirical in nature – ‘Go and tell John what you see. The lame walk, the blind see, the deaf hear, and God’s Gospel is preached!’[3] Now, we are not told anymore in regard to John’s response, but presumably he was comforted and settled by the answer and the testimony of his disciples who had witnessed these miracles. John wore God’s glasses and understood these happenings as a sign that Jesus was the Messiah.

Then there was another group of lads with whom Jesus had many interactions. These were the religious rulers of the day. They got their Pharisaic “knickers” in a huge twist when Jesus came along and began to set a few things straight. They too wanted to know if Jesus was the Messiah. So they asked Jesus, “to show them a sign from heaven.”[4] What was Jesus’ response? In essence, He denied them a sign and told them that no sign shall be given but the sign of Jonah. Was this a bit uncooperative on Jesus’ part? Not at all. These Pharisees and Sadducees had witnessed and heard about all the miracles that Jesus had completed. They had seen the signs. They had witnessed great acts of power. They had, in truth, witnessed the proofs for God and His Messiah come in the flesh, but they did not receive these proofs. They chose to deny them and reinterpret them – even attributing Jesus’ works of power to the devil!

Then there is the case of the people amongst whom Jesus moved. At one point, we see Jesus speaking to the crowd and making comment to the effect that these people had sought Jesus because He filled their bellies, not because of the signs. Their comment, ‘What sign will you show us that we may believe?”[5] Now the irony here is that Jesus had just fed the five thousand with but a few loaves and fishes. However, they did not consider this a “big deal” because their forefathers had eaten manna in the wilderness.

What was the difference between John the Baptist and these other two groups? It was their basic presupposition. John believed God. John believed that God had promised a Messiah that would come to save His people eternally. Therefore, when he was confronted with a specific set of works, he understood clearly what those works declared.

The others, whilst belonging externally to the covenant community, did not truly believe in God or His promise. They beheld the same miracles. They benefitted personally from the signs. They even knew about the promised Messiah. However, the lenses that they had constructed for themselves perverted what their eyes beheld. These lenses blinded them to the truth.

Jesus Himself speaks to this issue:

To you it has been granted to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been granted. … “Therefore I speak to them in parables; because while seeing they do not see, and while hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. “And in their case the prophecy of Isaiah is being fulfilled, which says, ‘You will keep on hearing, but will not understand; And you will keep on seeing, but will not perceive; For the heart of this people has become dull, And with their ears they scarcely hear, And they have closed their eyes Lest they should see with their eyes, And hear with their ears, And understand with their heart and return, And I should heal them.’ “But blessed are your eyes, because they see; and your ears, because they hear.[6]

These Biblical examples clearly show us how basic presuppositions will shape our outlook on life and eternity. Two people can behold the very same proofs and do vastly different things with those proofs.[7]

Therefore, I encourage you to begin to think more in these terms. Understand the basic presupposition of your enemy and you will go a long way to silencing their poisoned tongues.

5. Logical Consistency:

Another aspect of a presupposition, at least a good one, is that it will have a logical consistency in which it never contradicts itself. To put it simply, a good worldview must verify itself. That is to say, if the worldview has to appeal to another source for verification, then that source is, in fact, the true root of your worldview.

It is at this point that the Christian worldview, based in the existence of Almighty God, shines through when all others fail. The Christian appeals to the existence of God as his presupposition. Then, if he is consistent, he constantly returns to God as the touchstone which gives both authority and verification to the claims made.

God exists. Who made the world? God. Who made Man? God.  Why does Man speak? God. Why does man love? God. Even on the flip side, where we would explore the darker side of human nature, the answer still reaches back to God as the touchstone. In this case, God’s revelation explains that Man rebelled against God and fell under God’s judgement – just as God had specified.

Evolution, as an example, cannot answer these questions by appealing to itself. If Man is the product of random chance, then there simply is no reason, no justification, or ability to explain aspects of Man’s being. Thus, when the evolutionist opens his mouth in an attempt to explain his position, he does nothing but place his foot into the open cavern.

In the last weeks, I have heard two evolutionists speak of design. Random chance becomes design! What of the designer? This is but one example of how evolution steals terms and concepts from the Christian worldview in an attempt to make itself intelligible.

6. A Practical Example:

The following news piece was published recently. Please read it. As you do consider what we have discussed regarding presuppositions and worldviews.

MURDER is the main reason why humans and other primates mate for life, according to scientists.

Infanticide was the key driving force that caused us to evolve into a monogamous species, it is claimed.

Males of some animals, including lions and brown bears, kill the young of unrelated females to improve mating opportunities.

The practice arises when females nursing slowly developing and vulnerable young are forced to delay further conception.

Monogamy both provides extra protection for the infant and, by sharing the burden of care, shortens the period of infant dependency.

Females are then able to reproduce more quickly, and can afford to have more costly young that mature slowly.

A long childhood appears to be necessary for growing a large brain, making monogamy distinctly advantageous to humans.

It could explain why, uniquely among primates, humans have both a very long childhood and mothers who reproduce quickly.

Scientists explored the evolutionary pathway that led to human monogamy by gathering data from 230 primate species.

The information was used to construct a family tree of inter-species relationships.

Analysis of evolving traits revealed that male infanticide was the chief reason for the switch from a multi-male mating system to monogamy.

The findings are published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Lead researcher Dr Kit Opie, from University College London, said: “This is the first time that the theories for the evolution of monogamy have been systematically tested, conclusively showing that infanticide is the driver of monogamy. This brings to a close the long running debate about the origin of monogamy in primates.”

Colleague Dr Susanne Shultz, from the University of Manchester, said: “What makes this study so exciting is that it allows us to peer back into our evolutionary past to understand the factors that were important in making us human.

“Once fathers decide to stick around and care for young, mothers can then change their reproductive decisions and have more, brainy offspring.”[8]

These are the obvious presuppositions:

1. God does not exist;
2. As God does not exist; revelation to explanation of our world is also non-existent.
3. As a consequence, study of the world in a closed system is the only possible means by which understanding and explanation may result.
4. Studying the world, it is obvious that Man stands apart.
5. Therefore, it is necessary to explain Man’s otherness.
6. Enter the theory of evolution; an explanation of Man’s origins and progress up to the present.
7. Man is not separate from the animals, but is simply a more evolved form of animal.
8. Therefore, to explain Man’s behaviour, we study other animals, bears and lions, to understand Man’s practices.
9. Studying these animals, it is noted that a practice of infanticide is present.
10. Studying these animals, it is noted that males, wishing to dominate, will kill the offspring of other males in order to procure mating rights.
11. Therefore, the logical conclusion is that Man evolved the practice of monogamy, to combat this infanticide.
12. Similarly, by adopting monogamy it meant that smarter, but more dependent, offspring could be raised.

As a consequence of placing the “God is dead / Evolution is alive” lenses in their glasses, these deluded scientists have not only wasted their time, but money from the public purse, in a futile quest that proves absolutely nothing.

We have tried to outline, in a basic way, the presuppositions in the article. These presuppositions have formed for these scientists a set of lenses that cause them to view the world as nothing more than a closed system of animalia. In essence, the earth is just a cosmic zoo. Man is simply an animal at the top of the food chain. For now, he is dominant. In eons, who knows? His practices are just hollow actions. They have no consequence and no meaning outside of the purely pragmatic.

The tragedy before us is that these scientists, in order to form these conclusions, had to deny substantial parts of themselves. These people had to deny their own rationality, morality, eternity, being, and status.

7. Some Obvious Holes:

When we look at this piece of scientific research, there are a number of glaring inconsistencies that are immediately apparent. Let’s look at some:

1. Murder. The very first word is unwarranted. Murder is the unlawful killing of a human. Those other primates studied are not Human and they have no law-code. This term cannot apply.
2. Infanticide. This too is a word properly reserved for the offspring of humans. Whilst there is a zoological category, it is a recent taxonomy.
3. Evolution. This term is mentioned several times. It is assumed to be factual and thereby a correct interpretive worldview.
4. Evolution knows nothing of anything. In short, evolution knows naught of absolutes. A thing is what it is. There is no compulsion for it to advance or retreat, for no judgement can be passed upon its current form, its lack of progress or regression.[9]
5. As evolution knows naught about absolutes, from where did the conscience and the morals derive? If the male had to change his behaviour from infanticide based on ego to nurture based in “care”, from where did this rational ability to moralise originate?
6. Why have lions and bears been so slow to catch on?
7. Prepare for the Feminist backlash. Monogamy is only a mechanism to allow women to “spit out babies” on a regular basis. Women’s Lib just got shot down by evolution. There it is ladies, of with the shoes, back to the kitchen – baby bump and all!
8. The article claims to have studied 230 species of primate. Wonderful. When did they study them? In recent living history or over the 50 million years or so since Primates appeared? If it is the former, then what you have is an exhaustive examination of current practice and not an explanation of how that practice came into being. Of course, option 2 is not really possible. If you find me a 45 million year old zoologist, I will apologise.
9. Beside the miracle of thought and morality that the male bears spontaneously developed, there is the amazing ability of the female, not only to have rationally worked out that a longer childhood would result in a superior child, but to actually be able to recode the DNA of her offspring to allow them to follow that pattern.
10. Why are Humans still set apart as the only ones who have adopted this concept? Research is based on 230 species. Obviously, 229 of these species have short childhoods and mothers that reproduce slowly? The article is built on the scientific presupposition of sameness between ape and Man, yet what seems to be proven is dissimilarity.

In this short list we have highlighted some apparent inconsistencies. Some are subtle, some more obvious. If you are struggling with some of these, then you will be helped by returning to the presupposition. Evolution adopts several presuppositions that are unprovable and contradictory. First, evolution is pure chance. Second, time equals improvement. Third, evolution rises to meet challenges.

Now, if you look at these three, you will see that the first contradicts the second and third. If evolution is chance and chaos, you cannot guarantee that anything will improve, even if you give it billions of years. Similarly, chaos and chance militate against transcending obstacles.

Think this through. Evolution gives no viable basis for either rationality or morality. Let me put it bluntly. How does a house brick begin to think, feel, and behave in a correct manner? How then does a primate begin to rationally make moral choices that result not only in a better external arrangement, but also in radical anatomical changes? From where did they glean the necessary data to understand that these changes were in fact improvements? If all is chance, then there are no absolutes, morally or otherwise; so how did the primate know what an “improvement” was and that this concept was for one’s betterment?

8. The Glaring Holes:

Whilst this article is all about proving where monogamy came from, it is interesting that the report does not seem to deal with the present. Upon first reading this article, I was struck by substantial questions:

1. Monogamy, heterosexuality, and family are declared to be the best option for Human existence and success.[10] These are the pinnacle of evolution, thus far. So why do current human primates clamour for promiscuity, homosexuality, and singleness?
2. Infanticide gave rise to monogamy. In short, Monogamy was embraced to “provide extra protection for the infant”. So why do the current human primates indulge in abortion and infanticide? Is this evolutionary regression? Have the recipients of this evolutionary marvel, monogamy, now grown tired of long childhoods and speedy reproductive systems allowing again for the wholesale slaughter of their offspring?
3. Why is it that the current human primates have systematically attacked monogamy in the last five decades? Why is it that, in the current climate, antimonogamic ideas abound and are regularly propagated?
4. One author is quoted as saying, “This brings to a close the long running debate about the origin of monogamy in primates”. ‘Game, set, and match!’ to the evolutionist. Not likely. The hidden invective is aimed at Christians whose worldview gives another explanation for monogamy and family. So let us throw out a real teaser for them. Why does the human primate have such an innate sense of God? Most evolved humans worldwide, gathered into their respective tribes, have a sense of religion and of God / a god? If God does not exist and has never existed, how do you explain this phenomenon which is also unique to humans? When will this study begin?

Conclusion:

When you break these ideas down, you can see that evolution as a worldview simply does not stand up to scrutiny. In this current case, monogamy for the protection of the young is hailed as a great evolutionary advance. Yet, these same advanced primates now seek to kill their young; turn their back on monogamy, and, in a startling turn of events, give up on reproduction altogether by turning heterosexuality to homosexuality.

The evolutionist must provide us with an answer for this turn of events from his own worldview. The problem is he cannot. Evolution is all about breeding and reproduction. Listen to any naturalist with an evolutionary worldview and you will hear often about sex and reproduction. So why are the advanced primates, after hitting such a high note, regressing in their evolution? Why is it that the evolutionary wonder of monogamy is now passé? Why is it that this marvellous primate, who wrought such marvellous rational, moral, and anatomical changes, is giving up on reproduction and simply settling for meaningless sex acts by adopting homosexuality?

Evolution cannot answer these questions. In one sense, it is not even in a place to proffer an answer or a hint of an answer. Let us be frank. In terms of an evolutionary worldview, this research and subsequent paper are illegitimate. After all, how do you study rationally and make sense of random acts, accidents, coincidences, and chaos?

Man is monogamous because God made Man to be such. God made Man male and female. God instituted the family. God gave Man the ability to reproduce after his kind. It is rebellion against God’s order that brings us trouble; abortion, infanticide, and homosexuality.

“Forever, O Lord, Thy word is settled in heaven.”[11] “The sum of Thy word is truth, And every one of Thy righteous ordinances is everlasting.”[12] “Sanctify them in the truth; Thy word is truth.”[13]