Posted on 02/24/2008 4:18:12 PM PST by no nau
Over the years, many people have challenged me with a question like:
‘I’ve been trying to witness to my friends. They say they don’t believe the Bible and aren’t interested in the stuff in it. They want real proof that there’s a God who created, and then they’ll listen to my claims about Christianity. What proof can I give them without mentioning the Bible so they’ll start to listen to me?’
Briefly, my response is as follows.
Evidence
Creationists and evolutionists, Christians and non-Christians all have the same evidence—the same facts. Think about it: we all have the same earth, the same fossil layers, the same animals and plants, the same stars—the facts are all the same.
The difference is in the way we all interpret the facts. And why do we interpret facts differently? Because we start with different presuppositions. These are things that are assumed to be true, without being able to prove them. These then become the basis for other conclusions. All reasoning is based on presuppositions (also called axioms). This becomes especially relevant when dealing with past events. Past and present
We all exist in the present—and the facts all exist in the present. When one is trying to understand how the evidence came about (Where did the animals come from? How did the fossil layers form? etc.), what we are actually trying to do is to connect the past to the present.
However, if we weren’t there in the past to observe events, how can we know what happened so we can explain the present? It would be great to have a time machine so we could know for sure about past events.
Christians of course claim they do, in a sense, have a ‘time machine’. They have a book called the Bible which claims to be the Word of God who has always been there, and has revealed to us the major events of the past about which we need to know.
On the basis of these events (Creation, Fall, Flood, Babel, etc.), we have a set of presuppositions to build a way of thinking which enables us to interpret the evidence of the present.
Evolutionists have certain beliefs about the past/present that they presuppose, e.g. no God (or at least none who performed acts of special creation), so they build a different way of thinking to interpret the evidence of the present.
Thus, when Christians and non-Christians argue about the evidence, in reality they are arguing about their interpretations based on their presuppositions.
That’s why the argument often turns into something like:
‘Can’t you see what I’m talking about?’
‘No, I can’t. Don’t you see how wrong you are?’
‘No, I’m not wrong. It’s obvious that I’m right.’
‘No, it’s not obvious.’ And so on.
These two people are arguing about the same evidence, but they are looking at the evidence through different glasses.
It’s not until these two people recognize the argument is really about the presuppositions they have to start with, that they will begin to deal with the foundational reasons for their different beliefs. A person will not interpret the evidence differently until they put on a different set of glasses—which means to change one’s presuppositions.
I’ve found that a Christian who understands these things can actually put on the evolutionist’s glasses (without accepting the presuppositions as true) and understand how they look at evidence. However, for a number of reasons, including spiritual ones, a non-Christian usually can’t put on the Christian’s glasses—unless they recognize the presuppositional nature of the battle and are thus beginning to question their own presuppositions.
It is of course sometimes possible that just by presenting ‘evidence’, you can convince a person that a particular scientific argument for creation makes sense ‘on the facts’. But usually, if that person then hears a different interpretation of the same evidence that seems better than yours, that person will swing away from your argument, thinking they have found ‘stronger facts’.
However, if you had helped the person to understand this issue of presuppositions, then they will be better able to recognize this for what it is—a different interpretation based on differing presuppositions—i.e. starting beliefs.
As a teacher, I found that whenever I taught the students what I thought were the ‘facts’ for creation, then their other teacher would just re-interpret the facts. The students would then come back to me saying, ‘Well sir, you need to try again.’
However, when I learned to teach my students how we interpret facts, and how interpretations are based on our presuppositions, then when the other teacher tried to reinterpret the facts, the students would challenge the teacher’s basic assumptions. Then it wasn’t the students who came back to me, but the other teacher! This teacher was upset with me because the students wouldn’t accept her interpretation of the evidence and challenged the very basis of her thinking.
What was happening was that I had learned to teach the students how to think rather than just what to think. What a difference that made to my class! I have been overjoyed to find, sometimes decades later, some of those students telling me how they became active, solid Christians as a result. Debate terms
If one agrees to a discussion without using the Bible as some people insist, then they have set the terms of the debate. In essence these terms are:
1. ‘Facts’ are neutral. However, there are no such things as ‘brute facts’; all facts are interpreted. Once the Bible is eliminated in the argument, then the Christians’ presuppositions are gone, leaving them unable to effectively give an alternate interpretation of the facts. Their opponents then have the upper hand as they still have their presuppositions — see Naturalism, logic and reality.
2. Truth can/should be determined independent of God. However, the Bible states: ‘The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom’ (Psalm 111:10); ‘The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge’ (Proverbs 1:7). ‘But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned’ (1 Corinthians 2:14).
A Christian cannot divorce the spiritual nature of the battle from the battle itself. A non-Christian is not neutral. The Bible makes this very clear: ‘The one who is not with Me is against Me, and the one who does not gather with Me scatters’ (Matthew 12:30); ‘And this is the condemnation, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than the Light, because their deeds were evil’ (John 3:19).
Agreeing to such terms of debate also implicitly accepts their proposition that the Bible’s account of the universe’s history is irrelevant to understanding that history! Ultimately, God’s Word convicts
1 Peter 3:15 and other passages make it clear we are to use every argument we can to convince people of the truth, and 2 Cor. 10:4–5 says we are to refute error (like Paul did in his ministry to the Gentiles). Nonetheless, we must never forget Hebrews 4:12: ‘For the word of God is living and powerful and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing apart of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.’
Also, Isaiah 55:11: ‘So shall My word be, which goes out of My mouth; it shall not return to Me void, but it shall accomplish what I please, and it shall certainly do what I sent it to do.’
Even though our human arguments may be powerful, ultimately it is God’s Word that convicts and opens people to the truth. In all of our arguments, we must not divorce what we are saying from the Word that convicts. Practical application
When someone tells me they want ‘proof’ or ‘evidence’, not the Bible, my response is as follows:
‘You might not believe the Bible but I do. And I believe it gives me the right basis to understand this universe and correctly interpret the facts around me. I’m going to give you some examples of how building my thinking on the Bible explains the world and is not contradicted by science. For instance, the Bible states that God made distinct kinds of animals and plants. Let me show you what happens when I build my thinking on this presupposition. I will illustrate how processes such as natural selection, genetic drift, etc. can be explained and interpreted. You will see how the science of genetics makes sense based upon the Bible.’
One can of course do this with numerous scientific examples, showing how the issue of sin and judgment, for example, is relevant to geology and fossil evidence. And how the Fall of man, with the subsequent Curse on creation, makes sense of the evidence of harmful mutations, violence, and death.
Once I’ve explained some of this in detail, I then continue:
‘Now let me ask you to defend your position concerning these matters. Please show me how your way of thinking, based on your beliefs, makes sense of the same evidence. And I want you to point out where my science and logic are wrong.’
In arguing this way, a Christian is:
1. Using biblical presuppositions to build a way of thinking to interpret the evidence.
2. Showing that the Bible and science go hand in hand.1
3. Challenging the presuppositions of the other person (many are unaware they have these).
4. Forcing the debater to logically defend his position consistent with science and his own presuppositions (many will find that they cannot do this).
5. Honouring the Word of God that convicts the soul.
Remember, it’s no good convincing people to believe in creation, without also leading them to believe and trust in the Creator/Redeemer, Jesus Christ. God honours those who honour His Word. We need to use God-honouring ways of reaching people with the truth of what life is all about. Naturalism, logic and reality
Those arguing against creation may not even be conscious of their most basic presupposition, one which excludes God a priori, namely naturalism/materialism (everything came from matter, there is no supernatural, no prior creative intelligence).2 The following two real-life examples highlight some problems with that assumption:
1. A young man approached me at a seminar and stated, ‘Well, I still believe in the big bang, and that we arrived here by chance random processes. I don’t believe in God.’ I answered him, ‘Well, then obviously your brain, and your thought processes, are also the product of randomness. So you don’t know whether it evolved the right way, or even what right would mean in that context. Young man, you don’t know if you’re making correct statements or even whether you’re asking me the right questions.’
The young man looked at me and blurted out, ‘What was that book you recommended?’ He finally realized that his belief undercut its own foundations —such ‘reasoning’ destroys the very basis for reason.
2. On another occasion, a man came to me after a seminar and said, ‘Actually, I’m an atheist. Because I don’t believe in God, I don’t believe in absolutes, so I recognize that I can’t even be sure of reality.’ I responded, ‘Then how do you know you’re really here making this statement?’ ‘Good point,’ he replied. ‘What point?’ I asked. The man looked at me, smiled, and said, ‘Maybe I should go home.’ I stated, ‘Maybe it won’t be there.’ ‘Good point,’ the man said. ‘What point?’ I replied.
This man certainly got the message. If there is no God, ultimately, philosophically, how can one talk about reality? How can one even rationally believe that there is such a thing as truth, let alone decide what it is?
Just because you say so?
So how did you determine that this is a thread for those of little faith?
What scientific process did you use to discover that?
Or are you speaking outside your area of expertise, passing judgment on the level of faith of the participants on this thread?
[[The only reason that evolution ideas have become popular is because people do not understand the importance of the consistent results of repeatable, scientific-method based experiments for verifying scientific facts. In other words, evolutionists long ago came to the realization that they could not substantiate their macroevolution ideas by proper scientific experimentation. This is for the simple reason that experiments that would conclusively verify that single cell organisms evolved into humans over the course of billions of years, for example, would likewise take billions of years to conduct; an impossibility.]]
Precisely!
[[Also, to paraphrase another poster who was involved in experiments that simulated great periods of time in order to try to observe evolution processes in fast motion, the harmful mutations that were actually observed in the experiments cast doubt on the integrity of macroevolution ideas (corrections welcome).]]
No correction needed- that was spot on. Even intelligent design coupled with excellorated mutation via fallible man’s efforts couldn’t produce the desired results of Macroeovlution
[[The truth of the matter is that evolutionists long ago resorted to “scientifically verifying” their claims about evolution by putting on “lawyer’s hats, trying to “sell the “jury,” that’s people like you and me, their subjective conclusions about their inconclusive evolution evidence]]
Yup- precisely! To Na Nau- I would challenge the students to find one single example of Macroevolution- there of course will be none. What there will be however are copious examples of MICROEvolution that scientists try to pass off as MACROEvolution to the unsuspecting.. Notl ong ago, a scientist on TalkOrigins presented 29 of sciences BEST examples of supposed MACROEvolution, but upon close examination, they ALL turned out to be nothign more than MICROEvolution OR symbiotic relationships between dissimiliar species. Now, if that was their best evidence to support the hypothesis of MACROEvolution, then by golly MACROEvolution is in pretty bad shape.
We’re told that Time + an accumulation of Mutaations can lead to NEW information- but the sad truth is that #1 this has NEVER been shown to be the case and #2 it is as you said, a biological impossibility. A species can NOT gain NEW information necessary for MACROEvolution simply by altering their OWN genetic information- the only thing that can produce are mutants, freaks, and at best neutral results (although this is ongoing as to whether they truly are neutral- some beleive that even the so called neutrals are infact deleterious at sublevels somewhere in the system)
Bottom line is that MACROEvolution has NEVER been scientifically verified or produced- it’s nothing but an unscientific imaginary process that violates biological laws, natural laws, and statistical laws.
Scientists and those with faith (sometimes also scientists, the groups overlap) don’t belong here.
"Don't belong here?"
This article was posted in the News/Activism forum, not the Religion forum.
where is the anti-science in that Coyote? You’ve NEVER once showed how it is anti-science- everythign listed in those statements is scientifically sound. Getting a little tired of your unexplained accusations- If you haven’t the wherewithall to show that any of that is inconsistant with scientific investigations, then refrain from ignorantly posting ad nauseum.
Res ipsa loquitur.
C’mon, you know this is religion and not science.
So it’s been put in the wrong box.
No, that’s the basis for the interpretation of the physical evidence that exists in this universe.
It’s not different data, fossil record, physical laws, forces, chemical reactions, or any other data collected about the physical creation.
No, but the world of science does work within the guidelines set forth by science. This is called the scientific method.
>>>And yet scientists can’t even agree on THAT! I’ve seen too many occasions where scientists of equal degree claim the other wasn’t even using ‘scientific methods’ to get to their conclusions and vice-versa and so on.
You can follow some other set of rules if you want, but if you do you are not free to call what you do science.
>>>>>Sure I am! I can call whatever I want to do science...and somtimes I can even get approval from other like-minded people with similar, less than or equal to scientific degrees as mine, to boot!
Equal time? In science class? For each of the “various entities that define our realities?” I assume by “entities” you mean ideas or fields of belief. Well, here are a bunch of “realities” (each is real to some group):
>>>>>>So, by that logic, when the professor gets a question from a student at the beginning of science class...”Ummm, where is the closest restroom”...The science professor is obliged to reply...”Well that’s ummmm not SCIENCE, therefore you’ll have to wait until AFTER science class to learn that information”!
It never ceases to amaze me that the people most likely to assume they can somehow set the rules on what science is or isn’t are the ones that can’t argue their way out of a wet paper bag! Not that such rules could ever HOPE to be set all along! Science, the scientific method...all of it, isn’t etched in stone or even defined SOLELY by today’s standards, no more so than they were in the 1st century!
Alchemists and midevel barbers were CONVINCED what they were doing was “real science” back then (just like some people are convinced that studying poltergeists and UFO’s are considered to be “REAL” science today) and who KNOWS what will be considered REAL science in the 30th century, (providing we make it that far)!
I know a group that thought if they wanted to snip their nuts off and catch a space ship in the tail of a comet to get to heaven after killing themslves...and this is considered a religion and there are actually people that climb on Christians for DARE saying this is a FALSE religion!
No ONE group gets to determine what religion is, no more than one group gets to determine what science, math or history “is”!
But I’ll stick to science.
>>>>>For however you decide to define it, accept it and so forth and so on, no doubt!
Good luck with THAT!
That’s a really good question. You should ask Him that when you are standing before His throne.”
Except that he will be naked and unable to speak.
A point worth pondering.
I happen to believe in God and creationism, but my beliefs are categorized by some as "fables" or "unsubstantiated by science."
These same people who denigrate my beliefs are perfectly comfortable telling me my coffee table is comprised of a kazillion little nuclei orbited by a kazillion more little electrons.
They can't show me, of course...but I'm sure they have faith in their theory.
ya think? We are made in Jis image and likeness.?
Follow the context.
read later
I disagree. Both science and religion rely on faith and facts.
As we go along, it seems that both tend to coexist much more easily than both sides want to admit.
Yeah, but it’s no fun when you can’t mock Christians because you’re so blinded by your obsession with the physical world that you reduce everything to simply it’s physical properties.
Being created in the image of God is not the same as being created AS God, or an exact duplicate, able to do everything He can. Photographs and paintings are images of the objects in them, they aren’t the objects themselves.
It’s beyond some people’s comprehension that not being able to speak when in front of a judge means that you have no answer for the charges brought against one. People get tongue-tied in front of mere humans and are *unable to speak*, IOW, just don’t know what to say.
Somehow, I don’t think questions about God’s origin will be foremost on their minds when standing before Him. They’ll be having much more serious things to worry about.
Except that he(uncbob) will be naked and unable to speak.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.