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?
No God: where’s the proof?
[[This is a religion thread, and if posters had the faith they claim, there would be no need for arguing with science.]]
We’re not arguing for arguments sake- we’re presenting refuting science in most htreads on this site- Misinformation is being shovelled into our kids minds at schools- so your assertion is false- there IS a need to present the facts.
[[Quite simply, if science appears to contradict one’s interpretation of one’s religion, the better approach is to seek more understanding or accept the apparent contradictions]]
Science in no way contradicts our religion- it is ONLY when the apologists for Macroevolution begin asserting issues BEYOND the science that it becomes necessary for the strict facts to be presented which contradict the assertions of Macroevolution.
[[Trying to challenge cosmology, geology, chemistry, physics and biology and promulgating half truths and sometimes blatant untruths does no honor to any self-respecting religion]]
Lol- so Christians should just roll over- and not question false assumptions? No- hte reason the scientists left this forum was precisely for hte reasons I listed. Noone is presenting ‘blatant untruths’ in defense of strict science/ID- The FACTS speak for themselves and show the issue of Macroevolution in it’s TRUE light- a biological impossibi9lity.
[[If there were a God, then He would be powerful enough to communicate the same message to all humans on the entire planet.]]
He did- However, it is fallible error prone man that has the problems with His word- not God.
Where’s the proof? It’s all around you- You just choose to ignore it and believe something else instead- God hasn’t failed- you’ve just failed to accept what has already been established.
[[But observing all the various faiths across the world, the only common thread between them is faith itself]]
It is apparent that you haven’t done a very careful examination of various faiths- many faiths have a lot in common and differ only on moot theoological issues that have nothign to do with the core message of God’s word- Your broadsweeping shallow characterization of Religion is innacurate
[[FR used to have quite a few very well spoken and knowledgeable people, on many different subjects.]]
I’ve read through their ‘well spoken’ posts and I find htem completely lacking in substance and evidence in support of Macroevolution- every ‘evidence’ they brought to the table is easily refuted with hte biological facts and hsow that their ‘evidences’ for Macroevolution were nothign more than disguised MICROEvolution- a common tactic used to sneak an imaginary, scientifically unsupported hypothesis into our schools- their ‘well spoken’ diatribes have indeed fooled many, but careful examination exposes htem for what they truly are- shallow rehashings of issues already soundly refuted
Or how do we look at a cockroach and say that it is ugly?
The answer, of course, is that we are ALL made in His image. We see things as He sees them.
Then I take it further, especially for evolutionists: How come there are so many varieties of flowers? Why don't they all look the same, smell the same?
If people can look at things in a very basic fashion, it's like common sense--you have to believe because that's what common sense says.
One of the stupidest pro-evolution teachings I have come across (in a biology class that I took in recent years to meet my graduation requirements) is that one proof of evolution is that all living organisms have DNA. Their arugment is that DNA proves that everything came from the same thing--primordial soup. I refute that with "Why would the Creator change what works--why not use that particular part of creation over and over? If it is the basis of life, then it should be found in every living creature." What a thin argument.
Very true, very true. Thank you so much for your post, dearest sister in Christ!
By definition faith is a belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. Your response is evidence that nothing is incontrovertible.
"You can do very little with faith, but you can do nothing without it." -- Samuel Butler
So you follow the Holiness Code in Leviticus?
If he is trying to steer the direction of the dialogue wouldn’t that be considered beneficial to the overall agrument? You’re calling the end result an un-provable conclusion yet both sides of the argument are un-provable, by scientific standards, no?
Matt 5:17 "Do not think that I (Jesus) have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
It's filled in me through my faith in Him. Faith is what's required for a right relationship with God. Man cannot do that on his own, so God Himself came to Earth in the flesh to do it for us and said that if we accept by faith what was done, then we would be righteous.
Hebrews 11:6And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.
Galatians 3:6 Consider Abraham: "He believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness."
The law hasn't changed. Those are God's standards for us, they always have been. The requirement to live by them no longer applies but that doesn't mean the truth of them has changed.
You have made statements but not backed them up.
I continue to find the effort to disort the world of science to support weak faith to be inappopriate.
How, for example, were the laws against cattle breeding, sowing fields with two kinds of seed, and wearing clothes of mixed linen and wool fulfilled in Christ?
And were the laws against homosexuality also fulfilled in Christ, and hence don't need to be followed any longer? How about the laws against defiling your daughter by making her a prostitute? Fulfilled? Don't need to be followed anymore?
The law hasn't changed. Those are God's standards for us, they always have been. The requirement to live by them no longer applies but that doesn't mean the truth of them has changed.
If these laws remain true, why aren't we required to live by them? Because they aren't "as true" today?
How anyone can be opposed to the idea of God after reading his book is beyond me.
schu
If you want to work at trying to prove a negative, that's OK with me. I'll stand by and watch.
If many faiths differ only on "moot theoological issues", then why your opposition to evolution? Many faiths, even many Christian faiths, the Catholic Church for one, have no problem with evolution. Why clutter up FR with "moot theoological issues" like Evolution?
There are many more interesting, and important, issues to be discussing on FR than one so divisive thats only a "moot theoological issue" anyway.
It troubles me also. I do not have the answer and I have talked to many clergy who think they do and when pressed fold up.
Check the spelling of Judgment.
None of our business.
My “criticism” is to all who would assume to condemn any other human.
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.