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?
Good luck.
Christianity is based on faith, not proof.
Science is based on evidence, not faith.
They are completely different disciplines.
Science is based on evidence, not faith.
They are completely different disciplines.
True. So what?
That's a curious statement. What did he mean by that?
Some people have doubts that need answers which should not be confused with doubts which answer needs.
Mr. Ham is no where near as clever as he thinks he is.
The Bible time and again uses words like willingly ignorant and yet the Heavenly Father gave the freedom and liberty to each soul to make their own choice. Some people are born never to believe in this flesh age.
If you have never questioned God’s existence,
you have never really believed in him.
Curious then, that Chritianity (religion) doesn't change much over time, but what was scientific fact 150 years ago is almost completely discredited now.
ML/NJ
He’s the guy with the “creation museum.”
I am therefor I is.
Many deny they even have them but every one does. You have to, to even have a point from which to debate.
But it's hard to talk with someone in denial.
Evolution:
1) we didn’t see it
2) because we weren’t there
3) and it’s not happening today.
Creation:
1) buildings (duh) have builders
2) paintings (duh) have painters
3) creation (duh) has a creator
All you need, are eyes that see, and a brain that works to know that 1-3 are true.
A lot of reading on the computer screen, but so worth it. I may send this to my Pastor.
God Bless us all.
Isn’t this one of the fundamentalists who believes (among other things) that the earth is only 6,000 years old and that dinosaurs and man inhabited the earth at the same time?
Yes but then again, there are religious dogmas that have evolved over time as well. Science produces cures for diseases, advances in technology (like what we are communuicating over right now), transporation, energy, etc.
There’s room for both.
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.
This reads like it's straight out of a Jack Chick tract.
The Theory of Evolution (of Man) is just that - A Theory.
The Theory of Intelligent Design (of Man) is just that - A Theory.
Both theories have some facts that support them - and other facts that don’t support them.
It used to be that places of higher learning taught students to think for themselves based on scientific facts and evidence.
But what “facts” support intelligent design?
1. Evolution doesn’t explain anything on how it all began. As a theory, it is grossly incomplete. At least intelligent design has a theory on the “absolute beginning.”
2. Where did the laws of nature and physics come from? They shape nature and effect evolution. Do we ignore the “architect” and just focus on the designs? Would this make any sense in any field of science or engineering?
3. Esteemed mathematicians and scientists have put forward fully vetted and accepted theories that the complex life we see on earth could have no way “accidentally” evolved in the “short” accepted age of the universe. The time period is too small and the complexity of life is too advanced or that there is no scientific way a cell could have evolved over any period of time in the life of the universe and in stages (as evolution demands). If these scientifically based theories can just be ignored, why not other theories?
4. The millions of miracles that have occurred and the hundred of thousands that have been documented since written history. Are they all fakes and hoaxes? Just because we can’t explain them should we just ignore them? Does this remind you of the 14th century “the world is flat” belief system or the universe revolves around the earth closed mindedness?
5. The historical accuracy of the Bible. Nearly a year doesn’t go by where some archeologist finds a city/people/event/ruler exactly where the Bible said it was or medical/scientific breakthrough proves the validity of a Biblical historical point. So, if historically, the Bible can be trusted, why not on some spiritual level?
6. We have free will. We have morals and a conscience. We make ethical choices every day. Where did that come from? If we just “evolved” we should be just be following our natural DNA pre-programming as near robots (like flowers or wolves or fishes do - they do what they do because that is what they are - they can not choose to do different). Are we just blobs of DNA - and that is it? Then I/we are responsible for nothing - the DNA made me do it.
7. It is interesting that nearly all cultures and peoples in nearly every corner of the globe since the dawn of mankind have “invented” a God. Almost like we were preprogrammed to do so? If it was just a “random thing,” why is it so prevalent?
8. I can blow huge holes in the theory of evolution in explanation on how humans got here. For instance - evolution can not explain the “origin of life” from dead chemicals and the fossil evidence is unviable and dubious (at best) from animal to man. We know more on how the Brontosaurus evolved than man. Why is that? Is it because we have not looked hard enough or is it we are looking for something that doesn’t exist?
This is actually a very old argument: St Paul, the Apostle, once wrote of pagans: “Behold they have exchanged the Truth for a lie and worshipped the creation rather than the Creator.”
It doesn’t mean the theory of evolution is wrong - but it may mean that it needs to be updated and that it may only be a partial explanation (like micro-evolution of lizards on two separate islands over some time to adapt to their surroundings).
As I said - The Theory of Evolution is just that - a Theory. And when we let a Judge decide what theories are correct and what theories are incorrect (or can NOT even be mentioned) we have truly lost something.
It seems like “progressives” or “secular humanists” or “naturalists” want it both ways - they believe in a “philosophy” that puts man at the center of the universe. That all can be explained by science, that humankind is neither good or bad, neither right or wrong and that all bad things can be done away with if you have the right people in charge and the right laws. Their basic belief is that Man (or the state) is God.
They want what they “believe” to be taught in schools (at taxpayer expense, of course) and to the exclusion of any other philosophy.
For instance:
The Progressive agenda wants abortion on demand for any reason. If you believe in the opposite - that must be a “religious” belief and can/must banned from the schools, government or public grounds. Just look at the debates for the next Supreme Court justice.
The Progressive agenda wants only man at the center of morals and judgment. If you believe in the opposite - that must be a “religious” belief and can/must be banned from the schools, government or public grounds. Just look at the debates about gay marriage, drugs, pornography, divorce, adultery, cloning, prayer in school, vouchers, stem cell research, obscenity on the public airways, etc.
The Progressive agenda wants only “natural law and evolution” to explain how we got here. If you believe in the opposite - that must be a “religious” belief and can/must be banned from the schools, government or public grounds. Just look at the debate of evolution vs. creation.
And ETC. on nearly every issue.
See my point? One side gets all the benefits because they are only a “philosophy” and not a religion. The other side gets hammered because they are a “religion” and not a “philosophy.” In reality, there is not a bit of difference between the two - it is all how a person personally views life (worldviews and ideologies). But somehow we have allowed one at the total exclusion of the other and called it “Constitutional,” when it is about the furthest thing from the Constitution as the Founding Father wanted or desired.
Let’s face it, “Darwinism has become Naturalism” and it is just as much religion as Christianity, Judaism, etc. Naturalists “worship” the idea that matter is all there is. What you see is what you get. Humanity is a product of time, chance, and natural selection. There can be nothing else outside of the natural system. Period. Any other claim is nonsense and nothing but superstition.
Actually, when you think of it - quite an intolerant religion at that.
Regards,
2banana
Creationists have no problem with their presupposition. Yet evolutionists will simply not admit that their entire belief system is based on the idea that evolution is true from the beginning.
Many epicycles have been added to the Ptolemaic system.
byno ==
I can prove there is a GOD.
Science uses faith.
It presumes that the laws of nature are consistent and going to remain the same because of precedent.
It presumes the current interpretation of the geologic evidence is correct.
It presumes the scientific method will be able to be applied and is applied correctly when scientists run experiments.
It presumes that the peer review process works.
The thread earlier today about dark matter demonstrates that science works on faith when they state things like this: The theory, published in the journal Physical Review Letters, depends on particles that astronomers can't see, but are certain exist, and physicists have never detected. But the indirect evidence for their existence is overwhelming.
Forces can't be seen, felt, or sometimes even measured. They are believed to exist because of the behavior of other objects they are working on. It's circumstantial evidence that points to their existence.
It takes faith to believe that the universe came into being without any outside cause. There's no evidence to support that.
Completely wrong! Christianity is real. It is a real religion. The only thing you base your faith in is Yeshua. Is He who he said he claims to be? Different from evolution, people actually witnessed real events and had relationships with real people in biblical times and then wrote about it afterwards. Evolutionist on the other hand have to have much more faith that there guesstamation is somehow correct and even then they can't adaquately explain from where life originated logically.
Part of the problem is that people tend to try to prove science through the Bible. The Bible is not intented as a scientific document. For one thing, it was written in Hebrew and Greek—the translators have had a difficult time in correctly interpreting some parts of it. For example, what was the light that was refered to in Genesis 1:3
And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. But the sun was not created until the 4th day:
Ge 1:16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. u He also made the stars. I believe that the light he refered to on the first day was His Shikinha Glory—Rabbi’s say that you could see from one end of the earth to the earth by this light. I am saying that as a professional Geologist, I have no problem reconciling the Word of G-d with Science. A point of proof might be the First Law of Thermodynamics: energy cannot be created from nothing. So at some point the universe was created.
Does that make what he’s said here untrue?
We do all have the same evidence; it is interpreted based on our presumptions.
No problem. Creationists just make stuff up. That’s why they’re called creationists.
Never said there wasn't. My degrees are in science.
ML/NJ
No, if you are a scientist as I am, then you know that a lot of science is based on faith, but with a different data set.
PFLR
If you take the words Evolution, Atheism, God, Creation, etc. out of this article, he has written what most critical thinking textbooks state in the first couple chapters.
INBN.
++++++++++++++++=
Science is based on facts, that are then put into a theories, and the scientist has faith that he guess is right.
For example, evolution from species to species, is based on observed evolution, or changes with in a species.
Then on faith in a theory, a scientist says that evolution happens between species, even though we have not seen it, nor observed it.
“But it’s hard to talk with someone in denial.”
I’m in Chicago.
Give it up.
All can be said this way about religion; for those who believe an explanation is not necessary, for those who disbelieve an explanation is impossible.
Learn from Proverbs 26:4...Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him. In modern terms, if you take the decision to argue with a fool soon others will not be able to tell which of you is the fool.
I would rather live my life with faith there is a God, and die to find out there isn't, than live my life as if there isn't and die to find out there is.
"Faith is different from proof; the latter is human, the former is a Gift from God." -- Blaise Pascal
My mother pointed out to me at a young age that man had a finite, or limited mind, as opposed to the infinite mind of our creator. We will never understand his realm, no matter what the “proof”, or the IQ of the inquisitor.
You want random, look in a dumpster. Our creator designed our world of beauty. I don’t know what other “proof” is required. Have faith!
I’m Irish and Catholic so I know the answers to this one. I don’t need to discuss or debate someone’s lack of faith with them. It’s them that don’t know. I already know.
Colossians 1:16
I suggest you google the text “Case for Creation” there is allot of stuff written on the matter and books available. Expecting one of Freepers who believe in Creation to come up with the perfect answer is asking too much. And these type of theological questions always invites comments from those who think God and creation is nothing but a fairy tale. Yes, even here on FR where you would expect almost all to be believers in a Creator, you will find a few who just can’t believe.
"Nothing exists.
If something does exist, its nature is ultimately infinite and can not be understood.
Assuming something to exist, and that it could be understood, you could never explain it to someone else: there simply aren't enough words."
I can never remember which text it was from...possibly the Tattvarthadhigama Sutra.
And with science there is plenty of dogma to go around as well...
Did the universe have a starting point?
Has the universe existed forever?
Then science was relegated to General/Chat and religion took over the News/Activism Forum.
In the process, most of the scientists were banned or gave up in disgust.
Result? Threads like this where science is denigrated as a belief system, while belief in biblical literalism is claimed to be based on science and scientifically proved.
George Orwell did not live in vain.
Paging Nehemiah Scudder. Pick up the white courtesy telephone please.
No kidding! Talk about missing the point! It's all about faith. No proof necessary. Either you believe or you don't.
“True. So what?”
So they should not be competitors. You can’t scientifically prove that the Bible is wrong. You can’t prove Biblically that science is wrong.
Yet we’ve got these people trying to judge science by a Biblical standard, and we’ve got others trying to judge the Bible by a scientific standard. They are comparing apples to oranges.
I'm glad for you. I read it and it seemed mostly gibberish.
6. Never using gay British spelling.
How do you know the Bible is not fiction?
“Does that make what he’s said here untrue?” ~ metmom
This is what is true:
Those who have a _need_ to believe something will believe it no matter what - and they can’t be reasoned with.
You may, or may not find this of interest:
7/3/2003
http://www.christianforums.com/t43741&page=12
Poster: Ok, I just got a email from Dr. Wise. This is what he said:
Dr. Kurt Wise: “..Given what we currently think we understand about the world, the majority of the scientific evidence favors an old earth and universe, not a young one. I would therefore say that anyone who claims that the earth is young for scientific evidence alone is scientifically ignorant. “
Who is Kurt Wise? Read on:
Towers Online - The News Service of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary http://www.towersonline.net/story.php?grp=news&id=344
April 13, 2006 By Jeff Robinson
Excerpts:
“Trustees at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary on April 11 unanimously approved the creation of two new theological study centersthe Center for Theology and the Arts, and the Center for Theology and Law, during the board’s annual spring meeting.
Seminary President R. Albert Mohler Jr. said the new study centers aim at equipping pastors and church leaders to think biblically about pivotal issues which dominate contemporary culture.
“One of the ways we want to lead Southern Baptists is through helping evangelicals and Southern Baptists in particular to engage some of the most critical issues of our day,” Mohler said.
“This is not a time for Christians to be out-thought by the world, but in general that is what happens. We find the church behind the times in thinking about some of the most crucial issues of our day.”
...Mohler also named Kurt Wise as the new director for Southern’s Center for Theology and Science, and professor of theology and science. ..
Wise earned both a doctor of philosophy and master of arts in paleontology from Harvard University. He and his wife Marie have two daughters.
Wise replaces William Dembski, who is leaving Southern Seminary to join the faculty at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary so he can be closer to his family.
“With the addition of Kurt Wise, we are recognizing that creation is a ground zero theological crisis point right now in American culture and even in our churches,” Moore said. [snip] ..
Romans 1:20 (NIV) “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities — his eternal power and divine nature — have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.”
" . . . so that MEN ARE WITHOUT EXCUSE." Chilling.
So if there is proof that God exists, then his statement that he created the world has likewise credibility.
I look at the world around me . . . nature . . . pregnancy . . . the eye . . . the hand . . . hormones/antibodies/digestive enzymes . . . gravity/momentum/centrifugal forces . . . the revolution of the solar system . . . and know that it did not just happen (i.e., evolve).
As an engineer, it seems OBVIOUS that it is a skillfully created, well-DESIGNED, well-CRAFTED, intricate, complex, interactive, carefully balanced, self-healing system.
I know that God exists. And because of what he did for us, sending his own son as a sacrifice, I know I can trust him, and his word. And his word says that he created the world we know.
Darwin’s theory, at least to me, has been completely destroyed by science. My understanding is that, despite massive effort, no direct evolutionary links between species has been found. My opinion is that it is impossible. When Mendel studied the fruit fly, one gene determined the characteristics he described. Not so in most cases. My favorite example is clotting. Clotting is a very very complex relationship between pro and anticoagulants which are naturally occuring. I cannot say how many genes are involved but there are at least hundreds. Perturbation of these processes leads to excessive clotting or bleeding. For an animal to develop enough genetic mutations at one time to keep homeostasis appears, to me, impossible. Some great engineer must have done it. I call this person God.
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.