Yes, that’s exactly what he said in the movie, “Expelled.” As long as the intelligent designer isn’t God, Dawkins is happy. Check out the movie clip at Wintery Knight. It’s well worth the visit.
Monthly Archives: March 2009
Great News for the Tough Questions Answered Blog
This week, we are able to announce an awesome new partnership with one of the premiere apologetics ministries in the world: The Ankerberg Theological Research Institute. John Ankerberg and his staff have been producing television shows, writing books, and speaking around the world for almost 30 years on Christian apologetics. My wife and I have had the pleasure of knowing the Ankerberg’s and consider it a blessing.
Their website will now feature a link to our blog and will publish our blog posts as articles from time to time. We are very grateful to ATRI for this opportunity and we want to encourage all of our readers to visit their website, as it is rich in apologetic resources. I look forward to working with their ministry as we both seek to knock down intellectual barriers to the Christian faith!
My Views On the Age of the Earth
Over the past several years, I have moved from believing in a young earth (6,000-10,000 years) to an older earth (4.5 billion years). I wouldn’t say that I’m totally convinced, but I do think that the biblical and scientific evidence is much stronger for an old earth. This position, unfortunately, alienates me from some of my evangelical brothers and sisters, but I cannot claim to believe something that I don’t believe any more.
For those who wonder about my views on the Bible, I am a strong believer in the infallibility and inerrancy of the Bible. I am not, however, convinced that every human interpretation of the Bible is infallible. We make mistakes and sometimes misinterpret. Some passages in the Bible are more difficult to interpret than others. I believe that correct interpretation of the first chapter of Genesis is not obvious. Intelligent and conservative Christians disagree on the meaning of these passages.
In addition, I affirm the historical-grammatical method of Bible interpretation. I believe that we should read the Bible as the original author intended it to be understood in the historical context within which he wrote.
The issue of interpreting the “days” of Genesis is a fascinating and important issue, but it is not one of the essentials of the faith. The age of the the earth is not a test for orthodoxy and there are several literal views of the “days” in Genesis.
Consider this post to be an introduction to several more posts on the age of the earth. It is my fervent prayer that we will have fruitful and respectful conversations about these issues. As always, I will welcome comments from all sides. I look forward to the discussion and I hope I can learn along with everyone else.
Can Naturalistic Evolution Yield True Beliefs About Reality?
Post Author: Bill Pratt
Philosopher Ken Samples, in a recent “New Reasons to Believe” (Vol 1 , No 1) publication, argues that naturalistic evolution cannot explain how human beings can have true beliefs about anything. Naturalistic evolution posits that there only exists the material, natural world around us.
Everything that exists is the result of random, material processes working over billions of years. According to naturalists, the ultimate result of those natural processes is the wonder of the human mind. So why doesn’t this theory make sense?
Samples offers three reasons. First, “Naturalism postulates a nonrational source for man’s rationality.” Naturalists believe that nonrational, impersonal, unintelligent, and purposeless processes produced rational, personal, intelligent, and purposeful human minds.
But, as Samples argues, every effect must have a cause greater than itself. This is exactly the opposite of what the naturalists would have us believe! The effect of the human mind is orders of magnitude greater than its alleged cause, the matter of which it is composed. Samples concludes that the naturalist “is assuming a trustworthy reasoning process only to conclude that his reasoning is is ultimately untrustworthy.”
Second, Samples argues that “evolution promotes a species’ survivability, not its true beliefs.” Natural selection, the primary evolutionary mechanism, only selects for survival. But having true beliefs about the world is not always required for animal survival. One can think of examples where an animal’s beliefs about its surrounding environment are irrelevant to its survival.
Human beings survived for thousands of years without knowing about the theory of relativity or quantum mechanics or the DNA double helix. Are knowledge of the laws of logic and geometric proofs necessary for humans to reproduce? Our knowledge about the world seems to be complete overkill for evolutionary survival.
Third, Samples reasons that “false beliefs illustrate evolutionary naturalism’s epistemological unreliability.” Many atheists today argue that mankind’s beliefs about God, morality, and life after death are mere evolutionary vestiges that must have served some survival purpose in the past.
It seems that almost all of humankind, through recorded history, has held that God exists. Evolutionists admit this, but answer that this belief was necessary in the past, but is no longer necessary. It is left over from man’s earlier evolutionary stages.
But that means that evolution can produce false beliefs about reality. Naturalistic evolutionists strongly urge that religious beliefs are false, but they also believe evolution produced these beliefs. Samples asks:
If evolutionary naturalism can cause a person to believe that which is false (such as religiously oriented beliefs) in order to promote survivability, then what confidence can evolutionists muster that their convictions are reliable, true beliefs? And if evolution cannot guarantee true beliefs in a person’s mind then how does one know that belief in evolutionary naturalism itself is a true belief about the world?
Maybe naturalism is just evolution’s false belief du jour. There is no way for evolutionists to know! Now that is some serious irony.
Christians, on the other hand, are able to easily explain the human mind and its ability to have true beliefs. A rational, personal, intelligent, and purposeful God is the source of our rational, personal, intelligent, and purposeful human minds.
Samples concludes, “Such conceptual realities as logic, mathematics, knowledge, and truth flow from a supremely intelligent divine mind.” In this case, the cause more than adequately explains the effect.
Who or What Is the Cause of Moral Evil?
Post Author: Bill Pratt
In a previous post, we showed that God is not the direct cause of moral evil. But if God is not the cause, then who is?
Christians answer that free creatures are the direct cause of moral evil. How does this work? God gave human beings the power of free will. Free will is defined as self-determinism. It is the ability to make choices that are not forced by an external state or condition.
Free will is a good power that God gave human beings. Nobody marches against free will. In fact, to argue against free will is to use free will! Every one of us is happy that God has given us this power. It was supposedly Socrates who said, “It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied.”
But there was a price to be paid for giving finite creatures free will. By giving us this power, God introduced the possibility that we would abuse or misuse this good power. According to Christianity, that is exactly what happened. When given the choice to love God or to reject God, humans rejected him. This is known as theFall. Ever since the Fall, humans have been actualizing moral evil upon themselves and one another. Every person who searches his heart for even a moment realizes that they are tinged or stained with evil. We think evil thoughts and we often act on those evil thoughts.
God is responsible for creating the possibility of evil, but free creatures are responsible for making it actual.
One final note. Many people, when they hear this argument, blame God for giving humans free will. They argue that he could have done better. I’ve noticed, however, that the very people who blame God for allowing evil to exist refuse to relinquish their own free will in order to make the world a better place. The truth is, almost every person would rather live in this world which contains both good and evil than live in a world where they aren’t free. Until the critic of God agrees to be the first to give up his free will, his protests ring hollow.
"For Not The Hearers Of The Law Are Just Before God…"
Romans 2:13 says:
“For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.” (KJV)
A few years back I was listening to an LDS General Authority talk about how we need to do more… a better job with our home teaching, visiting teaching, magnifying our callings, etc. To support his point he quoted Paul… ” Brothers and Sisters we need to lengthen our stride and do more. If we don’t are we really doing our duty as members of the church? We must do more! As Paul says ‘For not the hearers of the law are just before God but the doers of the law shall be justified.'” In a recent comment on The Book of Mormon… Another Testament Tom linked to an article written by LDS General Authority Elder Christofferson here [link no longer works]. In his article Elder Christofferson used this quote from Paul in a similar manner in an effort to emphasize the necessity for good works to enter Heaven.
To be classed among the truly penitent, random acts of obedience will not be adequate. We must properly enter into the covenants and persist in keeping them to the point that our expectation of salvation is affirmed by the Holy Spirit of Promise (see D&C 132:7, 19). It is not simply the promise of obedience in our contracts with Deity that brings grace, but the performance of our promises: “For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified” (Rom. 2:13).
What I find most disturbing is the context in which these General Authorities used this passage. The fact of the matter is they are quoting Paul completely out of context. Looking at the first three chapters of Romans closely one can see that Paul was not using this passage to emphasize the need for good works. Instead Paul was using this passage to point out how no one can do enough good works to enter Heaven because no one will ever be able to keep the whole law.
In chapters 1 – 3 Paul builds his case for the depravity of mankind – both Gentile and Jew. In 1:29-32 he sums up the state of the Gentiles.
29Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, 30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: 32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
In chapter 2 Paul talks about the state of the Jew. In verse 12 he tells us:
12For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law
The Jews, who have been given the law, will be judged by the law. What must they do to keep the law? That is the question Paul answers in verse 13.
For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
They have to be doers of the law! How much of the law? Will they be OK if they keep 90% of it? How about 99% of it? James gives us a clear answer.
10For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.
Unless one keeps the whole law they are guilty of breaking it all. Can anyone keep the whole law? Can anyone stop sinning? Paul tells us just a few verses later in Romans Chapter 3 that the answer is clearly no.
10As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: 11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. 12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. 13 Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips: 14 Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: 15 Their feet are swift to shed blood: 16 Destruction and misery are in their ways: 17 And the way of peace have they not known: 18 There is no fear of God before their eyes. 19 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.
The next verse is one of my favorites because it tells us what the purpose of the law is.
20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
The purpose of the law is to convict us of how bad we really are. No one can keep all the commandments. No one is perfect. The law acts a perfect mirror to tell us just how bad we are and in 3:9 Paul tells us the state that we are all in.
“we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin”.
So what are we to do? Can we ever get out of this situation? Fortunately in 3:23-28 Paul gives us the most glorious answer:
21But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; 22Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: 23For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; 24Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: 25Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; 26To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. 27Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. 28Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. (Emphasis mine)
Romans 2:13 is not given to convict us that we need to do more or work harder. Those who use it in this manner are lifting it out of context and are using it to support a false works based theology. Rather the verse is there to tell us that we cannot work hard enough to be saved. For no matter how hard we work we will always fall short. We instead need to turn to Jesus Christ and trust in Him for our salvation. It is a free gift to all who believe! By so doing we will be justified freely by His grace without the deeds of the law. All praise be to Christ!
Darrell
What Is a Good Illustration of the Trinity?
Did God Create Evil?
Post Author: Bill Pratt
Now here is a question that many people struggle with. Here is how the argument generally goes:
- God is the Author of everything.
- Evil is something.
- Therefore, God is the Author of evil.
This is a valid syllogism, meaning that if premises 1 and 2 are correct, then the conclusion follows.
Looking at premise 1, is God the author of everything? Well, if he isn’t, then we don’t have a sovereign creator, but that’s what the Bible teaches. We can’t reject this premise.
Looking at premise 2, if we deny that evil exists, then we deny a basic truth about reality. There clearly is evil in the world and we all know it. To deny the existence of evil would be to deny a fundamental aspect of life.
Are we stuck? Not exactly. It turns out that premise 2 is problematic because it misunderstands the nature of evil.
Christians argue that evil is not a thing or a substance. There is no glob of evil floating around the universe. Instead, evil is a perversion of a good thing. It is a privation or lack in something good. Evil takes what ought to be and twists it into what ought not to be. According to Norm Geisler, “Evil is like rust to a car or rot to a tree. It is a lack in good things, but it is not a thing in itself. Evil is like a wound in an arm or moth-holes in a garment. It exists only in another but not in itself.”
That last statement is extremely important to understand. Evil cannot exist by itself. It can only exist where there is already good. You cannot imagine a creature who is pure evil, for instance. Even Satan has many good qualities: 1) he is persistent, 2) he is beautiful, and 3) he is intelligent. What makes Satan so evil is that he was originally created so good!
Good and evil are not opposites, contrary to what many believe. You can have good without evil and that is, indeed, what God promises to those who believe in Christ and dwell in heaven with him. Evil is truly a parasite that leeches on to good and ruins it. Evil is not a real substance, but it is a privation or lack in a good substance. If evil completely destroyed a good thing, then there would be no evil left, because nothing would be left. According to Geisler, “A totally rusty car is no car at all. And a totally moth-eaten garment is only a hanger in a closet.”
So how would the Christian re-frame the argument?
- God created every substance.
- Evil is not a substance (but a privation in a substance).
- Therefore, God did not create evil.
Who is responsible for the evil in the world if God did not create it? That’s a question for another post!
Did the New Testament Writers Record Fact or Fiction? Part 8
Post Author: Bill Pratt
In this series of posts, we have shown that the NT writers claimed to be eyewitnesses or associates of eyewitnesses; we have shown that we have multiple witnesses, and we have shown that the eyewitnesses were trustworthy. How? They included embarrassing details about themselves and difficult details about their subject of worship, Jesus; their accounts contain divergent details, just as we would expect from independent witnesses; and they wrote about historical facts that have been thoroughly corroborated by ancient non-Christian writers and modern archaeology.
There is one final piece of evidence that you should consider, though. I think it is one of the strongest historical evidences we have.
Here it is. The apostles, some of whom wrote portions of the NT, were all killed for their beliefs, except John. According to Christian tradition, Paul was beheaded and Peter was crucified upside down – both of them killed in Rome. James, the brother of Jesus and leader of the Jerusalem church, was thrown off the top of the Jerusalem temple and stoned to death. The other apostles met similar fates. Before they died, they were beaten, stoned, imprisoned, mocked, and persecuted, mostly because of their professed beliefs in Christ.
I was having lunch with a couple of bright engineers a few years back, and we started discussing religions, Christianity in particular. They challenged my belief in the NT documents by saying that many people have created religions in order to gain fame, fortune, and power. They thought it was quite possible that the NT writers were merely doing the same. I asked them if they knew what happened to the apostles after Jesus died, and they did not know. When I shared the facts above, they became silent. Fame, fortune, and power eluded all of these men while they were alive. Their lives would have been far easier if they had just kept quiet.
Maybe the apostles weren’t in it for the money, so to speak. Maybe they had been lied to or deceived. Maybe they just died for their false religious beliefs like so many other fanatics do. Many people die for their religious beliefs, don’t they? The Muslim fanatics on 9/11 certainly died for their beliefs. Aren’t the apostles just the same?
No, they aren’t. There’s a fundamental difference between the disciples and the 9/11 extremists. The 9/11 fanatics died for contemporary beliefs that reflected someone’s modern-day interpretation of the Qur’an, a book which was written 1,400 years ago. They had no way of knowing if the source of that book, Muhammad, was telling the truth or not. They weren’t there to see it. They believed based on what they had been taught by their contemporary religious teachers.
Not so with the disciples. They all went to their deaths claiming that they saw Jesus risen from the dead. But they knew this, not based on information delivered 1,400 years after the fact, but based on their own two eyes!! If Jesus did not rise from the dead and the NT is a pack of lies, then the disciples knew it. They were there.
But if they knew Jesus didn’t rise from the dead, then we must explain why they willingly went to their deaths. Many people die for a false belief, but nobody dies for a false belief they know is false, especially not 12 different people! The martyrdom of the apostles is strong evidence for the truth of the historical resurrection of Jesus. There exists no other theory which can adequately explain their behavior.
I conclude this series with an extended quote from Chuck Colson, who is often asked about why he believes that Jesus rose from the dead, which is the central event and miracle of the NT. Here is Colson:
Watergate involved a conspiracy to cover up, perpetuated by the closest aides to the President of the United States, the most powerful men in America, who were intensely loyal to their President. But one of them, John Dean, turned state’s evidence, that is, testified against Nixon, as he put it, “to save his own skin,” and he did so only two weeks after informing the president about what was really going on – two weeks! The real cover-up, the lie, could only be held together for two weeks, and then everybody else jumped ship in order to save themselves. Now, the fact is that all that those around the President were facing was embarrassment, maybe prison. Nobody’s life was at stake.
But what about the disciples? Twelve powerless men, peasants really, were facing not just embarrassment or political disgrace, but beatings, stonings, execution. Every single one of the disciples insisted, to their dying breaths, that they had physically seen Jesus bodily raised from the dead.
Don’t you think that one of those apostles would have cracked before being beheaded or stoned? That one of them would have made a deal with the authorities? None did.
You see, men will give their lives for something they believe to be true – they will never give their lives for something they know to be false.
The Watergate cover-up reveals the true nature of humanity. Even political zealots at the pinnacle of power will, in the crunch, save their own necks, even at the expense of the ones they profess to serve so loyally. But the apostles could not deny Jesus because they had seen Him face to face, and they knew He had risen from the dead.
No, you can take it from an expert in cover-ups – I’ve lived through Watergate – that nothing less than a resurrected Christ could have caused those men to maintain to their dying whispers that Jesus is alive and is Lord. Two thousand years later, nothing less than the power of the risen Christ could inspire Christians around the world to remain faithful – despite prison, torture, and death.
Jesus is Lord: That’s the thrilling message of Easter. And it’s an historic fact, one convincingly established by the evidence – and one you can bet your life upon. Go ahead researchers – dig up all the old graves you want. You won’t change a thing. He has risen.