Author Archives: Mark Waller

About Mark Waller

Mark has been a Christian since 1971. He became a Christian on a Wednesday night at the First Baptist Church of Edmond, Oklahoma under pastor Eugene Stockwell. He holds a BBA from the University of Okklahoma and is a Certified Relocation Professionals. Mark has been a student of the Bible for more than 40 years. He has participated in numerous Bible conferences including a three year study with the Faith Bible Institue (FBI). He is married and is the father of four girls and a boy; and now, five grandchildren. Mark lives in the Dallas, Texas area and works as General Manager of a transportation company.

The Fact Value Dichotomy and Neutral Ground

Posted on by
Reply

The Fact Value Dichotomy is the idea that truth can only be known through empirical science, i.e. observed or experienced.   Value judgments, on the other hand, are subjective and therefore, matters of opinion or personal preference.  Many of us were trained to think this way from birth.  Our lives have been divided into organized, distinctive departments or compartments.  Most consider Monday the beginning of the week containing compartment number one, school.  Evenings are for dinner and homework; Friday and Saturday nights are for time spent with friends.  And, Sunday, the last day of the week (actually the first) is for church, where we conform to a different standard of behavior.  We cannot have religious discussions at school because those are related to value preferences and are reserved for the Sunday compartment.  Someone at school may not share my values, and the school compartment requires tolerance of others views and values. Being raised this way has corrupted our thinking and we fail to understand that the Lord Jesus Christ has domain over every area of our lives.

So, when we stand for truth, for example, that marriage is reserved for one man and one woman for life, we are told to keep our value judgments in the church compartment and out of the public square compartment. Because many of us lack the training or confidence to stand on the authority of God’s Word, we are silenced; even believing that our opponent has raised a reasonable objection, i.e. tolerance. In our silence, our opponents gain confidence and become more vocal. Their movement gains ground while Christians submit to what Chuck Colson described as the spiral of silence.[1]

As much as opponents of Biblical Christianity want to remove the value discussion from the public square, the reality is, none of us can live this way.  One set of values will simply be replaced by another.  In our example above, the values of a biblical marriage are replaced by values of tolerance and equality, even though the latter values are fluid and difficult to define.  We replace values rooted in the truth of God’s Word and His natural law, with the relativistic changing whims of man’s ideas.

Many times our opponents want us to make our arguments on neutral ground.  In other words, make a case for your arguments without the exclusive truth claims of the Bible and natural law.  But as Ken Ham argues[2] in his book The Lie, there is no neutral ground.  Once a Christian steps onto the “so called” neutral ground of human reasoning, he has lost the argument; he has been silenced.  Michael Miller argues that we have only two choices: either questions about the nature of humanity and the common good are settled on the basis of truth (God’s Word), or they are settled on the basis of power.[3]

Christians cannot allow values to be separated from what we observe or experience.  Doing so enslaves us to “the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and the mind” Ephesians 2:3. We must stand upon the truth of God’s word “…and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear…” 1 Peter 3:15.

[1](Colson C. , 2011)

[2](Ham, 1987, 2012)

[3](Colson C. W., 2011)

 

Colson, C. (2011, 11 2). Break the Spiral of Silence (Part 1). Retrieved 2 23, 2013, from the Chuck Colsen Center for Christian Worldview: http://www.colsoncenter.org/twominutewarning/entry/33/18133

Colson, C. W. (2011). Doing the Right Thing Participant’s Guide, Special Edition. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

Ham, K. (1987, 2012). The Lie. Green Forest: Master Books, a division of New Leaf Publishing Group, Inc.

Putnam, H. (2002). The collapse of the fact/value dichotomy and other essays. In H. Putnam, The collapse of the fact/value dichotomy and other essays. President and Fellows of Harvard College.

 

Prometheus, Postmodernism, and the Fact/Value Dichotomy

Posted on by
Reply

“What is truth?” ~ Pontius Pilate

As I mentioned in a previous blog, this past summer, I saw the movie “Prometheus[i]”, a prequel of sorts, of the movie “Alien[ii]”.  As I discussed in the first blog which you can read here, there were several worldviews on display throughout the movie.  The most prominent was Postmodernism.

Though Postmodernism comes in many forms, there are three unifying  values: (1) a commitment to relativism; (2) an opposition to rationalism; and (3) the promotion of culturally created realities, all of which are designed to deny any true worldview or belief system for which we would be willing to kill or die.[iii]  In other words, what is true for you may not be true for me, and vice versa.

Consider the following statement by the main character, Elizabeth Shaw, (Noomi Repace) when she contacts Peter Weyland (Guy Pearce), the character responsible for funding the Prometheus mission:

“Hello, Mr. Weyland. My name is Dr. Elizabeth Shaw. If that name sounds familiar to you, it’s because I’ve called every day for the last month. I think your people were hoping I’d give up. I am not good at giving up. What I am good at is my job. I am an Archaeologist. I have doctorate degrees in Paleontology, Anthropology, Human Ethology and Memetics — all of which I received from Oxford. I graduated first in my class at the age seventeen. This is not who I am – It is simply what I know. I make the distinction, sir, because there is a difference in what a scientist knows and what they believe…That difference is proof. My partner and I have found something, Mr. Weyland. Something very important.”

Now consider this exchange between a father and his daughter as they observe a funeral in the distance.  The father is wearing a priest’s collar and the sun glistens off the cross dangling around his neck as he prepares stew over a small fire:

GIRL – What happened to that man?

FATHER – He died.

GIRL – What are they doing?

FATHER – Saying goodbye.

GIRL – Why aren’t you helping them?

FATHER – They don’t want my help. Their God is different than ours.

GIRL – That doesn’t make any sense.

FATHER – I know, sweetheart.

GIRL – Why did he die?

FATHER – Because sooner or later, everyone does.

GIRL – Where is he now?

FATHER – Everyone has their own word. Heaven. Paradise. Whatever it’s called… It’s someplace beautiful.

GIRL – How do you know it’s beautiful?

FATHER – Because that’s what I choose to believe.

And again, consider the following exchange between Shaw and the crew when she makes reference to an advanced form of humans that she believes created humans on earth:

SHAW – We call them “Engineers.”

FIFIELD – Uh huh. And what’d they engineer?

SHAW – Look at them. Two eyes. Two arms. Two legs. What did they engineer? They engineered us.

MILLBURN – You… know that? For a fact?

SHAW – No. But it’s what I choose to believe.

HOLLOWAY – What we “believe” doesn’t matter. What we can prove does. And we have the opportunity to be the very first of our kind to literally meet our makers.

What’s really fascinating about the film is that the main character (Shaw) claims to be a Christian!  Religion is not absent from the movie. 

Postmodernism is ubiquitous throughout this movie.  I heard the phrase, “it’s what I choose to believe,” several times from different characters.  Each of us can choose to believe whatever we want; the only sin is criticizing another’s belief.

While postmodern ideas are easily seen and promoted throughout the movie, what is not as easily observed is the fact/value dichotomy.  As you can discern from the dialogue above, you may choose what you want to believe as long as that belief relates to values, e.g. morality, theology, etc.  Facts, on the other hand are scientific, empirically testable, and universally valid.  In Saving Leonardo, Nancy Pearcy uses the upper story/lower story house to describe the fact/value dichotomy; one house, two stories.  The upper story is private, subjective, and relative.  The lower story is public, objective, and universal.[iv]  The upper story represents my values (private); while the lower story contains universally accepted facts (public). What we believe (upper story) does not matter.  Therefore, it becomes impossible to make a case for our values or beliefs in the public square.

Notice the statement above from Holloway, “What we believe doesn’t matter. What we can prove does.”  With the fact/value dichotomy in place, anything that those in power want labeled as truth is simply tagged as science.  The type of molecules to man evolution displayed in this movie is a perfect example.  Evolution is portrayed as fact (scientific), while Christianity is simply a personal belief.

Watch out for Postmodernism.  It’s probably best defined in Judges 21:25 “In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did what was right in his own eyes.[v]

Watch for the fact/value dichotomy or separation.  Value cannot be separated from fact.

Lastly, watch out for those who would tag their ideas or beliefs as science.  If scientific claims are made, make sure their ideas fall within the scientific method.  You can read more about operational versus historical science here.

If you go out to the movies this weekend, evaluate the worldviews that are on display.  Afterward, discuss them with family and friends.


[i]Prometheus, July 28, 2012 <http://www.prometheus-movie.co.uk/#>

[ii]Alien, July 28, 2012 < http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0078748/>

[iii](Noebel, 2006)

[iv](Pearcey, 2010)

[v](New King James Version Bible, 1982)

 

New King James Version Bible. (1982). Thomas nelson, Inc.

Noebel, D. A. (2006). Understanding The Times, The Collision of Today’s Competing Worldviews (2nd ed.). Manitou Springs, CO: Summit Press.

Pearcey, N. (2010). Saving Leonardo. Nashville: B&H Publishing Group.

Prometheus

Posted on by
2

And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their pre-appointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings, so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us  ~ Acts 17:26-27.

I recently went to see the movie “Prometheus[i]”, a prequel of sorts, of the movie “Alien[ii]”.  While I enjoy science fiction movies, I’m always amazed to see the various worldviews or belief systems communicated or expressed by the writers, directors, actors, and our culture at large.  In Prometheus, you can easily identify Postmodernism, Secular Humanism, and Cosmic Humanism.  What was most interesting to me, however, was seeing the universal consciousness of God evident in every human being in the film.

The movie opens with a spacecraft hovering over a waterfall, presumably, on earth.  An advance human, from elsewhere in the universe, stands next to the waterfall with a container in hand.  He opens the container and drinks black bubbling goo.  After drinking the goo, his body begins to break up and disintegrate and he falls into the waterfall where his DNA is broken down to its lowest level by some kind of genetic reaction.  We get an underwater molecular view of the earth being “seeded” by this advanced race of humans.  The spaceship departs.

The opening scene reminded me of an interview from the documentary “Expelled, No Intelligence Allowed[iii],” between interviewer Ben Stein and Dr. Richard Dawkins, an evolutionary biologist and author.  Dr. Dawkins is one of the most well know atheists and author of several books, including The God Delusion.  That portion of the interview is reprinted below:

Ben Stein: What do you think is the possibility that intelligent design might turn out to be, uh, the answer to some issues in genetics or in evolution?

Richard Dawkins: Well, it could come about in the following way. It could be that, uh, at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved by probably some kind of Darwinian means to a very very high level of technology, and, designed a form of life that they seeded onto, perhaps, this planet, and now, that is a possibility and an intriguing possibility.  And I suppose it’s possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the, um, at the details of our chemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer.

After anthropologist discover a distant planetary system from cave paintings left by primitive cultures, they embark on a journey to find their maker. The name of their spaceship is Prometheus.  Prometheus is the Greek Mythological god who created humans from clay.  For various reasons, each of the characters hopes to find their creator.  All of them discuss and wrestle with a fundamental question of existence.  “Where did I come from?”

What caused these scientists, anthropologists, physicians, and businessmen to seek out their creator?  I think Dr. Dawkins hit the nail on the head when he suggested “you might find a signature of some sort of designer.”   That signature is the imago Dei, the image of God, written on every human heart.

In subsequent posts, I’ll explore some of the various worldviews from Prometheus. In the meantime, you can watch the six minute interview with Dr. Dawkins referenced above:

[i]Prometheus, July 28, 2012 <http://www.prometheus-movie.co.uk/#>
[ii]Alien, July 28, 2012 < http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0078748/>

[iii]Expelled, No Intelligence Allowed, July 28, 2012 < http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1091617/>

Where is Everyone?

Posted on by
2

A general perusal of various evolutionary websites indicates that human beings appeared in the evolutionary chain anywhere from 400,000 to 150,000 years ago. Did you ever wonder what the population of the earth should be given the evolutionary timeline?

According to the United States Census Bureau, the world population is, as of June 9, 2012, 7,018,788,797.[i]  When I was born in 1962 the world population was 3,139,723,532.  So, in one generation (about 40 years), the population has more than doubled.[ii]  In 1920, one generation before, the world population was 1,834,000,000.[iii]

If the population doubles about every 40 years, where is everyone?  Consider the world population doubled twice during the 20th century.  The 20th century is considered by some historians as the bloodiest ever[iv] with WWI and WWII, the Korean conflict, and the Vietnam War, Stalin, Hitler, et.al.  More than 50 million people were killed by abortion in the 20th century[v]; more than 20 million since Roe vs. Wade in1973.[vi]  Also consider sickness that killed millions during the 20th century. The Spanish Flu in 1918 killed 50 to 100 million people worldwide; Typhus killed 3 million people between 1918 and 1922; Aids killed 25 million people; and Smallpox killed more than 300 million people worldwide during the 20th century.[vii]  Yet, during the bloodiest century in history the population of the world double two times.

When we look at the Biblical timeline we start with Adam and Eve about 6,000 years ago and Noah and his family (eight people) preserved on the Ark about 4,500 years ago.  If you take a conservative rate of population growth and double the population every 150 years instead of every 40, you easily arrive at today’s population of 7 billion people.  Actually, you end up with about 8.5 billion people after doubling the population 30 times over the last 4,500 years.[viii]

Now consider the evolutionists timeline.  Even a conservative estimate of humans being around for 50,000 years would result in 332 doublings and the world’s population would be a staggering figure of 1 followed by 100 zeros![ix]

So my question to the evolutionist is, “where is everyone?”  Even if you went back only 10,000 years we should easily see more that a trillion people on the planet yet we see less than one tenth of that amount.  One study estimates that only 110 billion people have ever lived.[x]

The reason we do not see more than a trillion people on earth today is because Genesis 1:1, 26-27 records, “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth…  And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness…So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.” about 6,000 years ago.  The Bible confirms the 7 billion person population in the world today.


[i] United States Census Bureau, (retrieved June 9, 2012), U.S. & World Population Clocks, <http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html>

 [ii] United States Census Bureau, (retrieved June 9, 2012), International Data Base, <http://www.census.gov/population/international/data/idb/worldpoptotal.php>

 [iii] Aubuchon, Vaughn, (2003, 2004, 2011), World Population Growth History Chart, <http://www.vaughns-1-pagers.com/history/world-population-growth.htm>

 [iv] Montefiore, Simon Sebag, (November 10, 2006). The world’s bloodiest century. <http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/10/arts/10iht-IDLEDE11.3482547.html?pagewanted=all>

 [v]Abort 73, (May 24, 2012), <http://www.abort73.com/abortion_facts/us_abortion_statistics/>

 [vi] United States Census Bureau, (2011), Health, United States, <http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/2011/012.pdf>

 [vii]Oddee, (October 15, 2007), 7 Worst Killer Plagues in history. <http://www.oddee.com/item_90608.aspx>

 [viii] Dr. Monty White, (September 5, 2006) Billions of People in Thousands of Years? <http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n2/billions-of-people#fnMark_1_2_1>

 [ix] Dr. Monty White, Ibid.

[x] Aubuchon, Ibid.

 

Turn Off the Dark

Posted on by
Reply
Foxwood Theaters, NYC, NY
Spider-Man: Turn off the Dark

I recently attended a Broadway show in New York called Spider-Man: Turn off the Dark. The show was terrific. There was never a dull moment. The music, choreography, and acting were simply magnificent. Patrick Page (Green Goblin) was masterful. While I enjoyed the show very much, and realize it is a fictional story played on a stage for entertainment, I was struck (even saddened) by the stark contrast of the fictional story against the truth of the underlying human motives on display throughout the play.

The story is about a high school student in Queens, NY named Peter Parker (Reeve Carney) who is very much a “nerd” and is bullied by a group of other boys at school after giving a book report about the Greco-Roman god Arachne.  Peter has a crush on a popular girl at school, Mary Jane Watson.  After the bullying incident Mary Jane tells Peter, “You are a good person Peter.”  Peter responds as he walks away saying, “Good person; what does that get you?”

Norman Osborne (Patrick Page) is a scientist working for Viper Worldwide, a military organization, and is attempting to speed up the evolutionary process by genetically altering a spider to create a serum that would allow soldiers to see in the dark (i.e. Turn off the Dark). Peter is bitten by one of his genetically altered spiders that had escaped its confinement.

As a result of the bite, Peter becomes super strong, with 20/20 vision (no more glasses), and can shoot spider webs from his wrists.  The first use of his new found power is to enter a fighting contest with a $1,000 prize so that he can buy a car, although, he later regrets his actions.  Peter vows to use his powers to save the world.

Norman Osborne, meanwhile, believes that Spider-Man has stolen his formula.  He decides to experiment on himself and accidentally kills his assistant Emily.  He becomes the Green Goblin.

Peter is visited by the Greco-Roman god Arachne in a dream who tells him she is watching over him.

While Peter ultimately chooses to do what’s right and becomes the hero of the play, the problems with the human heart are very evident.

First, Peter feels he deserves something for being good and when he doesn’t get it, he concludes there’s no benefit to goodness.  The Bible tells us that no one is good except God.  Matthew 5:44 tells us, “do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you.” We are commanded to do good to bring glory to God and not to ourselves.

Peter has a lust for power and for the approval of men.  Peter’s first acts after receiving his super-human powers are selfishly motivated.  He beats up the bullies who had been picking on him and then enters a fighting contest to win money.  Romans12:1 tells us, “present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.”

Norman Osborne, who also lusts after power, fame, and fortune, believes in molecules to man evolution and works toward that end bringing disastrous results. His motivations are selfish as well, and his true heart is revealed in the character of the Green Goblin as he desires to destroy Manhattan, and then, the world.  The Green Goblin looks, acts, and sounds a lot like the Devil himself. Jesus described children of the devil in John 8:44 “You are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father you will do…”

It’s interesting that Norman Osborne’s evolutionary objective is sight in the dark, i.e. Turn off the Dark.  John 3:19 tells us that men loved darkness, rather than light, because their deeds were evil.  So, man’s solution to the problem of “groping in darkness” is to reject the Light of Christ and invent a man made way to see in the dark.

Peter worships the Greco-Roman god Arachne and believes he derives his power from her.

How sorrowful our world would be without the love and sacrifice of the Lord Jesus.  ALL of our human hearts are filled with all kinds of lusts, selfishness, and wickedness.  Jeremiah 17:9 “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?”  But thank God for the new birth in our Savior and Lord Jesus.  “I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh.”  Ezekiel 36:26

Only He can save us.  Only His light can help us see clearly and do what is right.

For more information on the Broadway show Spider-Man: Turn off the Dark, go to: http://spidermanonbroadway.marvel.com/

Conversation with an atheist

Posted on by
Reply

I have reprinted the first comment from a recent blog post titled, My Opponent Hijacked Science! along with my response.  I want to say how much I appreciate the courtesy shown, and thoughtful questions asked, by the anonymous person who posted this comment.  His comment is separated point by point and bulleted in bold print.

  • But seriously, why do Christians accept science in pretty much all of its findings, until it disagrees with the Bible?

Christians do accept scientist’s conclusions when those conclusions are developed using the scientific method, that is, when they are hypotheses that can be observed, tested, and repeated.  All rational Christians believe in science.

The disagreements come when scientists begin to draw conclusion about subjects outside the scientific method.  For example, studies of the origin of the universe are outside the scientific method.  The theories that have been developed by many scientists cannot be observed, tested, or repeated.  Therefore, many assumptions have to be made in order to arrive at various conclusions.  These conclusions are ultimately man’s opinions.  See my blog post Do you believe in science?

  • All of a sudden there’s a conspiracy, or scientists are just pursuing their atheist agenda, or they’re bring deceived by the devil.

When looking at the present to draw conclusions about the past, the geological record, for example; all scientists approach the same evidence, each, with his own biases (the point of my blog post).  An atheist comes to the evidence with the presumption that God does not exist.  A Christian approaches the same evidence with the presumption that God does exist (based on observable evidence).  Their presumptions will result in different assumptions, and therefore, lead them to different conclusions.  A Christian recognizes that the complex geological record was laid down by a world-wide flood described in Genesis 7. Thousands of feet of sediments clearly deposited by water and later hardened into rock and containing billions of fossils.[i]   An atheist, on the other hand, needs millions and millions of years to allow time for the geological record to be laid down one layer at a time.

Sometimes scientists are pursuing an agenda and will manipulate or ignore evidence in order to arrive at their desired conclusion.  The scientists recently involved in Climategate, for example, manipulated data to support their claims of a sudden and dangerous increase in the earth’s temperature.[ii]  

  • Many Christians can accept the fact of evolution, save for the most fundamentalist variety.

Another point of the blog post was defining terms. Everyone believes in evolution, micro-evolution, that is.  We have always been able to observe change within kinds or even within species. Everyone recognizes the wide variety of dogs, for example.  But macro-evolution has never been observed.  Even evolutionary professor Dr. Richard Dawkins, admits that evolution has never been observed while it’s happening.[iii] It’s interesting that the theory of evolution is constantly changing.  The idea of molecules to man evolution was made popular by Darwin’s theory of small changes over long periods of time until the theory ran into problems like irreducible complexity. So we moved to neo-Darwinism and mutations until scientist determined that most mutations are bad and that it would take millions of good mutations to produce just one functioning organ.  So, Dr. Stephen Jay Gould introduced Punctuated Equilibrium.  This idea postulates that the significant evolutionary changes in a species occur all at once.  The problem with these ideas or theories is that they would have occurred in the past, are not observable, and are outside the scientific method.  If they occurred in the past and cannot be repeated, you need an eye witness and a reliable record of the events.  (More on this in a moment)  Christians who accept these ideas as fact have substituted man’s ideas in place of God’s Word, the Bible.  By the way, even a scientist who is an atheist, if he is intellectually honest, will admit that molecules to man evolution is theory, not fact, even if he believes it to be true.

  • The ones that promote creationism typically do not understand biology or evolution but have an opinion about it nonetheless. Maybe some education is required?

What we do know about biology is what we observe.  That is, there is no known method or observation whereby the genome gains new information.  This is what would be required for evolution (molecules to man) to occur.  What we observe is the genome loses information, it doesn’t gain it.

Observational science, Spontaneous Generation (Louis Pasteur), and the First and Second law of Thermodynamics prove evolution of the molecules to man variety is impossible.

In order to understand and participate in this conversation, it is imperative that we distinguish between observational and historical science; fact and theory.  When looking at evidence in the present to draw conclusions about the past, we can only deal in hypotheses or theories.  Unless we have an eye witness and reliable record to tell us what actually happened in the past.  And, as Christians, of course we do.  God the creator is our eye witness and our reliable record is His Word, the Bible.

In the beginning, God created…

[i] Ken Ham, The New Answers Book 1, Master Books 2009, Kindle Edition, pp. 349-354

[iii] Ken Ham, et al, 2009

My Opponent Hijacked Science!

Posted on by
8

Do you ever find it difficult to have a conversation with an atheist?  Do you sometimes feel backed into a corner and unable to successfully argue your position?  Don’t feel alone.  This happens frequently in discussions and many times we’re trapped because we allow our opponent to “hijack” terms and definitions.

For example, in a recent discussion, an atheist friend of mine attempted to “hijack” science.  As I explained how the evidence we see in creation confirms the Bible, he responded, “creationist say that, but scientists know through evolutionary biology that this is not true.”  In another part of the discussion he claimed “the Bible says this, but Science says…?  “Why are creationists against science?”

What just happened?  In two short sentences, the opponent has pitted creationists (Christians) against scientists, and the Bible against science!  Conversations like this usually go on to define scientists as intelligent and Christians as irrational.  And finally, science is defined as the source of truth and the Bible as interesting stories with some good moral guidelines.  How frustrating is this?

There are a number of logical fallacies that may occur in this type of discussion.  For example, the fallacy of equivocation, when someone shifts from one meaning of a word to another within an argument; science can have several definitions.  Or, a complex question, where the arguer asks a loaded question.  In Discerning Truth, Dr. Jason Lisle gives the classic example of a loaded question: “Have you stopped beating your wife?”  Either a yes or a no answer would seem to imply that the person did in the past beat his wife, which may not be the case.  The question is “complex” because it should be divided into two questions: 1. Did you ever beat your wife? 2. If so, have you now stopped doing this?[i] Likewise, “why are creationists against science?” is a complex question.  The real question is, “are creationists against science?” and the answer, of course, is no.

When you find yourself in these conversations, make sure to ask questions and define terms.  Scientists with a Christian worldview look at the same evidence as scientists with a naturalistic worldview.  Our worldview and presuppositions lead us to different conclusions.

[i] Lisle, Jason (2010-07-01). Discerning Truth (Kindle Locations 307-311). Master Books. Kindle Edition

If Religion Were Wiped Out

Posted on by
Reply

An atheist friend of mine had this quote posted on his facebook:

“If every trace of every single religion were wiped out and nothing were passed on, it would never be created exactly that way again. There might be some other nonsense in its place, but not that exact nonsense. If all of science were wiped out, it would still be true and someone would find a way to figure it all out again.” – Penn Jillette

Could this be true?  Let’s take a closer look.

First, in his statement, the arguer presumes God does not exist. This is not logically provable and must be accepted by faith, not scientific evidence.  In his book, Why I Believe, Dr. D. James Kennedy describes atheism as a universal negative which cannot be proven.  He cites an example of proving that little green men cannot be found in our universe.  There’s no way to prove it.  You’d have to travel through every planet and every star and inside every star through every galaxy in the entire universe and you’d have to examine every single part of the universe, at the same time.  Likewise, atheism is a logical contradiction, and to affirm a logical contradiction is not rational.[1]  Since the presumption is not true (God does not exist), then the argument is not valid.

Second, referring to religion as nonsense is a logical fallacy known as a begging the question epithet.  In Discerning Truth, Dr. Jason Lisle indicates that a begging the question epithet occurs when an arguer uses biased (often emotional) language to persuade people rather than using logic.[2]  In this case, the arguer uses an emotionally charged word (nonsense) that asserts all religious people are irrational.  Again, this is not a valid argument.

Third, the arguer also presumes that observational, operational, and historical sciences are equal.  Furthermore, he presumes that science equals truth.  As we have discussed before, science is a concept that describes the processes used to gather and interpret evidence and draw conclusions.  Observational science (what we can observe) and operational science (what we can test and repeat) is the kind of science that has led to the invention and building of everything from the telegraph to the space shuttle.  Historical science is always based on assumptions because it is outside of the scientific method, is in the past, and cannot be repeated.  Conclusions about the past, like the age of the universe, are always hypothesis or theory.  You can see a short video that gives a good explanation here (scroll half way down the page).

Scientists have been wrong in the past.  Not just a few times, but numerous times.  One example is, scientists always assumed that heavier objects fell faster than lighter objects.  It wasn’t until Galileo came along in the late 16th century and proved (using the scientific method) that gravity accelerated all objects at the same rate.  There are many examples of scientists making wrong assumptions and, therefore, drawing wrong conclusions from the evidence.  As a friend of mine pointed out, it was only three decades ago when many scientists announced the coming ice age.  For the last 20 years all we’ve heard is global warming.

Lastly, the arguer fails to mention that modern science was born out of Christianity.  Many of the first scientists were Christians who studied creation to learn about God.  Romans 1:20 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 people are without excuse.

The universal consciousness of God is evidence for the existence of God.  Belief in God, if wiped out, would arise again because we are created in the imago dei, image of God.  Genesis 1:26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness…  In addition, He has written his law on our hearts, Romans 2:14  …They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.

Moreover, if God once again revealed Himself to men through His written Word, you can be assured that men would seek to learn about their creator by studying His creatures.

Mr. Jillette’s assertion is simply not valid.  We find truth in God’s special revelation, the Bible.  This Truth, which is self attesting, gives us a foundation upon which to interpret scientific evidence and draw conclusions about God and His creation.

[1] Dr. D. James Kennedy, Why I Believe. (W Publishing Group, 1980, 1999), pp. 42

[2] Lisle, Jason (2010-07-01). Discerning Truth (Kindle Locations 265-266). Master Books. Kindle Edition.

 

Do you believe in science?

Posted on by
Reply

In mid August of this year an ABC television camera caught a mother coaching her child to ask a republican presidential hopeful (who is also a Christian) a series of questions beginning with a question about the age of the earth, and culminating with this one, “Ask him why he doesn’t believe in science.”

The question itself is actually a logical fallacy known as a complex question.  That is, the arguer assumes something that is not true.  In this case, the arguer assumes that the candidate (a Christian) does not believe in science.  There are really two questions that should be asked.  First, do you believe in science? If not, why?  Once the first question is answered, the second one becomes unnecessary because, of course, Christians do believe in the concept of science.

Why do evolutionists pose these types of questions to Christians?  Because most Christians are unable to answer them and many fail to recognize fallacious assertions or questions.  The arguer above could also be guilty of the fallacy of equivocation.  According to Dr. Jason Lile’s book, [i]Discerning Truth, when someone shifts from one meaning of a word to another, he or she has committed the fallacy of equivocation.

Since the arguer above began with a question regarding the age of the earth, we know his question relates directly to historical science and not observational science.  Observational science is science based on what we can observe, test, and repeat using the scientific method.  It’s the kind of science that allows us to build space shuttles, automobiles, and laptop computers like the one I’m using now.  Historical science, on the other hand, is a conclusion about the past based on what we observe today.  Since the arguer began with questions about historical science and concluded with a question that includes observational science, he has shifted the meaning of the word science and is guilty of the fallacy of equivocation. 

How we interpret scientific evidence is usually greatly influenced by our worldview.  Most evolutionists believe in uniformitarianism, that is, that processes we can observe have always been the same in the past as they are today.  For example, radiometric dating assumes decay rates for various isotopes have always been the same.  Even with these assumptions, radiometric dating methods often yield varied results.  So, even with uniformitarian assumptions, none of the results are conclusive.  You can find a short video from the Answers in Genesis web-site that gives an excellent explanation of historical and observational science below.

The Bible tells us in 1 Peter 3:15 that we should always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear.  Therefore, as Christians we need to do a couple of things.  First, we need to equip ourselves by reading books and articles by trusted teachers like the one referenced above.  Once equipped we will have the confidence to; secondly, break the spiral of silence by talking to our friends and neighbors about the truth without the fear of a negative social judgment as described in Chuck Colson’s recent Breakpoint blog, [ii]The Emperor’s New Clothes.

Finally, as Christians, we need to understand that the Bible is trustworthy and true.  We should never accept man’s fallible ideas over the truth of God’s Word, the Bible.

On the resources page you will find powerpoint presentations on equivocation and complex question fallacies.

[i] Dr. Jason Lisle, Discerning Truth, New Leaf Publishing Inc., Master Books, 2010, Kindle Edition, pp. 121
[ii] Breakpoint, November 2, 2011. http://www.breakpoint.org/bpcommentaries/entry/13/18134.