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?
God is perfect. If He changed, then He wouldn't be because the only thing to change to is imperfect.
It isn't a *rule* either. Just a fact.
Yeah, that will help.
[[You have made statements but not backed them up]]
They have been backed up many times by myself and others on this forum- every instance of supposed macroevolution presented as evidence in this forum has turned out to be nothing more than microevolution being passed off as macroevolution- I know full well you have participated in such threads, but if you still want to claim ignorance of the htreads that’s fine, but the fact is there are plenty of htreads here that do just what I state
‘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).
[[If many faiths differ only on “moot theoological issues”, then why your opposition to evolution?]]
I said moot theological issues- not major ones- many religions agree that God is true to His word and that when God said he created man in His image, He meant it- If some denominations wish to call God a liar by doubting His word- that’s not my problem, but the fact remains that many religions do infact agree on major theological issues
[[Many faiths, even many Christian faiths, the Catholic Church for one, have no problem with evolution.]]
You’re wrong on that- the whole catholic institution does not agree Macroevolution is fact- painting hte whole denomination as doing so based on a few that preach a different gospel than the one God gave doesn’t lend credence to your argument, nor does your twisting my words to mean I speak of an obvious major theological issue as being anythign but major.
Your mistake is using a broad brush to descibe people that hold no such views- there are many many catholics that do not beleive in Macroeovlution- just because some pontiff somewhere has abaondoned God and logical science to beleive a lie and declare that lie alright to beleive in does not mean every branch of catholicism believes that way.
I’m not here to defend one religion on the whole or any religion for that matter, but I am here to point out that your claim that religions don’t agree on anything- or even agree on most htings is not a factual statement. You can use whatever you like to keep yourself from believing, but at least be honest to both yourself and others about the reason you choose not to, and don’t use a general broad condemnation of institutions in a dishonest attempt to make it appear as though it’s ‘religion’s fault’ that you don’t beleive- Own up to you refusal instead of pawning hte blame off on something else.
[[Where did that rule come from “ God can’t deny himself “
Supreme being create that rule that he can’t deny himself
ain’t very supreme then is he]]
You don’t know much about philosophy eh? It isn’t that God can’t deny Himself, He could, but that would render His supremacy inneffective- It is God’s Supremecy that keeps Him from doing foolish things liek denying Himself and thus creating disorder- He has supremacy over disorder, and His supremacy mandates that He not deny Himself the perfection of His Godship over everything
and just for hte record bob- omnipotence doesn’t mean ‘able to do all things’- it means power over disorder- everythign in this world is in an ordered state after disorder was conquered, everythign we know of relies on order- God overpowered disorderorder in order to create. His omnipotence doesn’t mean He is capable of everything- Atheists like to ask the silyl questions assuming that omnipotence must mean the ability to do everythign and anything, and htis is a false strawman silly attempt at trapping Christians to make hteir God look foolish- yet it is very clear that there are soem thigns that God simply can not do, and most of the silly atheistic questions posed to Christians are nothign but speudoquestions that assume there must be two aspect of God if God is to be truly omnipotent in their eyes- If they understood what true omnipotence means, they wouldn’t make the silly mistakes of askign psuedoquestions that assume God is capable of everything ‘or else’ He must not be God. His very Godship demands that His supremacy inhibit disorder as a result of His actions
[[Please explain how a perfect being MUST do anything like punish]]
Not that you’re itnerested in learnign anythign about God as I’ve witnessed your posts for a long time now, and it is clear that you seek any inkling of a wiggle room to justify your denial of God- you lay traps hoping to trip unsuspecting Christians up, make htem look foolish, just so your own denial of God will have a reason to stand on- it’s funny htough that you seem content with tripping up error prone Christians who don’t infact have al lthe answers, but you won’t go directly to the source- the one who does have all the answers- after all- it is Him that you be facign when the game is over
However, having said that, let’s address just one more of hte endless silyl questions thrown at Christians- Why must God punish. As you full well know, Absolute moral law dictates that evil must be addressed- Suppose you awoke every day, and from second number one, until you went to sleep, people did nothign but evil to you- Would you not then demand justice be served? Of course you would- Evil must be countered with righteous judgement- The absolute moral code demands unjust be met with just. If a person WILLFULLY makes the descision to do some horrible act of evil toward you, or some injustice that deprives you of your rights, then you know that you would be the first person to ackowledge that somethign must be doen to rectify the situation.
Now, if free will didn’t exist, then you’re right, there would be no need of punishment, because everyone would robotically love and obey God- the fact of hte matter htough is that in order that free will should be a reality, there MUST be an alternative to good to choose from.
This is why God must punish
You seem to be confused between the singular and the plural use of the word “you.”
I used it as a singular, addressing you.
As a biologist I am aware of many instances of speciation, but this is a religion, not a science, thread. The point I am making is the lack of faith exhibited when science is misrepresented and twisted to conform with some people’s interpretation of some particular translation of the Bible.
God cannot change because He is perfect and changing would render Him imperfect. Which raises an interesting question. If you were perfect would you want to change?
Or... If you were perfect why would you want to change?
[[Please explain how a perfect being MUST do anything like punish]]
One more quick point I want to bring up is that God, whether you choose to beleive it or not (Yuo’ve certainly been told enough times now about God to understand that you now make a conscious descision to disbelieve Him) is worthy of honor and respect. Judges on this earth are worthy of honor and respect, kings likewise, queens etc. Those who dishonor them are subject to punishment. Punishemnt is proportional to the offense of those offended. God created you, you refuse to honor Him by going before Him, and thus the punishment will be meeted out in the end- that’s your choice- but the point I want to make again is, don’t pass the busk- you need to take responsibility for your denial. God has offered you a free gift, you refuse it, and you’ve apparently made it your goal in life to denigrade those who have received the free gift from God and foudn Him to be true and to be truly worthy of honor and respect. Go gave you a free will to choose- you’ve chosen- Now, it might satisfy you to pull someone down, and you might get soem kick out of it, but it in no way will nullify your own personal responsibility before God in the end
actually you didn’t even use the word ‘you’ in your response to me- not sure what you’re referrign to there- but to address the issue again:
Discussions aren’t publications- the religious aspects of htis thread deal with scientific issues being discussed- I hope you weren’t suggesting that I have ever in this forum ‘twisted’ any science because I haven’t- when science supports the bible beyond a reasonable doubt I list it- when it isn’t clear- I don’t use it as any sort of defense of anything- I’ve been very clear and consistent here on FR about this.
As to the lack of faith of others- It isn’t a lack of faith to post facts when some Christian might have gotten some facts mixed up- settign the record straight based on facts of science in no way insinuates a lack of faith. Faith is strengtrhened, and shoudl be strengthened, by facts- scientific or otherwise.
While it might be true that some Christians Are less learned in scientific matters, or at least less researched, it is also a mistake to albel them as lackign faith when they, as you put it, ‘twist’ science- it might just very well be that they have a misunderstanding of what the science alludes to- a misinterpretation- I woudl say a great many of the sites pointed to many times in htis forum do just that- however, while htere might be soem sites that intentionally and knowingly misrepresent science ‘in hte name of God’ so to speak, to suggest that all sitres that get information wrong or twisted, and suggest a lack of faith for doing so would be wrong-
I realize that you didn’t mean the truly mistaken and less researched sites, and I realize you were talking about those sites or Christians that intentionally and knowlingly do so are showing a lack of faith- and I woudl agree- but I wanted to clear up just who were are talking about here.
Speaking of Christyians who knowingly do so however, still must be further cleared up. While some certainly do so out of real deceit- I might quesiton theiur salvation.
Secondly, we need to split this smaller group into two distinct groups for clarification as well as make a statement. The one group being true unbelievers, whom I would not be goign to for answers anyways, and hte second group being true believers, but overzealous defenders- who, as you state, would be demonstrating a dimished faith (You used ‘lack of faith’ but this is innacurate- there are stages of faith, and stages of spiritual growth). The more immature believers in Christ would naturally be defensive and overzealous in hteir liberal interpretations of scientific evidences- however, their sites and statements certainly shouldn’t be a reflection on whether science does or doesn’t support the bible objectively- it does.
The statement also needs to be made, that while some in the first group may actually be true Christians who print misinformation, there seems to be the imrpession that Christians, upon salvation, automatically are magically transformed into perfect mistake imune saints of God- and htis simply isn’t true- We are no different than anyone else, and are indeed still subject to lying and every other vice we had before salvation- I wouldn’t say that this first group is displaying a lack of faith, but rather a lack of discipline and willingness to lay down their vices before God- and as such, as I mentioned, these sites I certainly would not be going to for scientific information- not to say that their sites are totally devoid of scientific facts based solely on some instances of misinformation, but really, there are other, better sites with better information to go to.
Anyways-
[[Truth can’t change. Then it would cease to be true.
So you follow the Holiness Code in Leviticus?]]
first of all, the law is a result of truth- not the truth itself- second of all, The old laws, some still do, some do not.
Many of the old laws were fulfilled in Christ’s death- We no longer are required ot give sacrifices to God- Christ was the final sacrifice- We are no longer required to be circumcised, because Christ’s death signified the final circumcision- the ‘lopping off’ of sin if you will. etc etc etc.
Thirdly, many of hte ‘laws’ in the old testament were not infact spiritual laws, but laws that confomred to the times and cultures of everyone- including hte secular- they were infact secular laws that God demanded that man obey as God has said we shall obey the law-
Fourthly, many of hte ‘laws’ of the old testament were based on the conditions of the time- We no longer are ‘required by God’s law’ to destroy our homes when mildew is present- we now have cleanign products to safely remove the mildew.
Fifthly: You asked [[And were the laws against homosexuality also fulfilled in Christ, and hence don’t need to be followed any longer?]] Sins are still sins
Sixthly, truth still stands as unchanging
Not lately, I've been slacking.
I hope to blow up more stuff soon!
Hardly scientific.
By definition faith is a belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. Your response is evidence that nothing is incontrovertible.
Have you ever studied any philosophy? Do you actually disagree that all reasoning depends on presuppositions? e.g. tell me the difference between ‘faith’ and ‘presuppositions.’ I stuidied philosophy in college and saw again and again how hard science students were frustrated by epistemology. They actually got angry at finding out their scientific worldview was very small so they just dismissed the classes as hocus pocus. Of course they had no ‘logical’ answers to the challenges posed. But that didn’t matter, they were scientists.
Is that like ‘no purposeful direction in evolution’ - is that what you mean by proving a negative?
Okay that does put him as a good suspect
, you try this one;
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlContent.jhtml;jsessionid=JXWTHVY1DHO5NQFIQMGSNAGAVCBQWJVC?html=/archive/1997/03/20/npil20.html
Ping for later read
N-S Hardly scientific.
Are you kidding me?!?! Science makes no predictions?
I thought that's one of the things that was supposed to support the ToE, that it could be used to predict stuff, like where to find other fossils.
If predicting things is unscientific, then you might as well throw most of science out now.
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.