52 Tips for Apologists

Just a word or two about Apologetics 315. This website is one of the best, I go there often to read up on many issues within Christian Apologetics. It hosts a wide variety of Apologists and Theological positions so you will probably find something there to your liking. This website is a deep mine and if you spend some time there it will yield an abundance of help to you. 

52 Tips for Apologists

by Brian Auten

 

52-tips-for-apologistsThis month marks 5 years of blogging at Apologetics 315. With that in mind, I went back to review a guest post I did with Cloud of Witnesses three years ago to see if the advice I offered then still sounded good to me. The question was: “What advice do you have for those who want to learn more about apologetics?  What kinds of attitudes and character traits should Christians adopt as they use apologetics in conversations with skeptics?”
Here’s was my answer, in 52 Tips for Apologists:
As a learner myself, I am on the lookout for good advice for learning more. My advice to others would vary depending on how involved in apologetics someone wants to get. It is such a wide subject, dealing with theology, philosophy, history, textual criticism, science, culture, evangelism, etc. Everyone is going to have a different level or area of interest, so my advice here is for those who want to learn as much as they can on the subject. Here are the things that I would have told me when I first got interested in apologetics:
‘Like’ The Poached Egg on Facebook!
1. Be first a person of prayer with a goal to know the Lord.
2. Be a continual reader.
3. Know both sides of the issues.
4. Listen to as many good lectures as possible.
5. Listen to every debate you can get your hands on.
6. Learn from the best debaters.
7. Learn from the worst debaters. (what not to do)
8. Find a mentor if you can.
9. Apologetics is not a boxing match; it’s walking along side another in dialogue.
10. You’re not in it to win arguments; you are in it to win people.
11. Be mindful of your spiritual life above your apologetics studies.
12. Allow your apologetics studies to be worship unto the Lord.
13. Your wife doesn’t want to hear about your online debates.
14. Don’t talk about apologetics at the dinner table, unless you are with apologetics buddies.
15. Find like-minded friends to fellowship with and reflect on apologetic issues…
FOLLOW THE LINK BELOW TO CONTINUE READING >>>
This is a repost from Brian Auten’s website Apologetics 315.

New Town Shooting a partial Apologetic answer

NEW TOWN SHOOTING, A partial Apologetic answer

Most of you know this is a little dated and much discussion has been made over the issue. I offer this re-post in order to bring to memory that human life has great value and as my little article goes on to show, Atheism may have a feeling about it, but cannot in truth condemn it. Those who have not lost their moorings in objective moral truth can condemn such actions and can value human life equally for all humanity, not just an elite.

In the wake of this massacre of the innocents a rage has arisen to lash out at anything and anyone that might be culpable. The immediate response? Its to place a safety net around ourselves, a shield to distance ourselves from the fear grips all of us, anger burns within that such a tragedy, no, atrocity occurred while our children attend school. Small town USA, not New York or Chicago or Los Angeles were big city crime can include some very large numbers, but New Town, population a little over 1900 people. A fairly affluent community, middle incomers with around 100K income.

What has been the response? Ban guns, ban assault rifles, ban big rifle clips, ban weapons that can easily be made automatic-firing. The NRA is partly responsible say some; “It’s those gun nuts that put weapons like this in the hands of loonies that murder”. Some even looked so far as genetics to try and find the “type” of person that could do such a thing, they say “lets find out who they are!” While the elected officials scramble to find some solution that would have enough horsepower to carry them away from falling victim again to this kind of insane
murder/suicide, no simple answers appear to work. A country branded in their minds with secularism cannot discover the truth that bond men together and place value upon all human life. A Pluralistic society pretends to tolerate those differences within people, but because they are moving away from the Christian foundations that made pluralism remotely do-able all we find is hatred and violence arising because the pragmatic thing to do is remove the problem people.  We don’t know what a ‘killer’ looks like because he looks like everyone.

But before we get on the gun ban wagon, there’s another headline.

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/14/15901085-villager-slashes-22-kids-with-knife-at-elementary-school-gates-in-china?lite

Just when you thought getting rid of guns would solve the problem we find its no problem to kill children with a knife. 22 children killed, another 28 elsewhere. Bombs take more in another kind of violence in another part of the world, huffing glue takes its thousands in South America; just where we are to turn seems like a spin to hit the pinata while we are in pitch darkness, not knowing even if there is a pinata to hit.

Just what is the Christian Apologist to say to all of this? I read on the internet an Atheist saying “This is proof there is no God, I rest my case”. But little did the Atheist finish typing that out, the glaring inconsistency of his own morality crippled any hope he had of making his case. For no sooner than he finished judging God, he parked his philosophy and dared anyone to prove it invalid. Well, some Christian Apologist did just that. With just a few sentences the Apologist answered that he must agree that God is a moral law giver in order for God to be culpable. In short, The Atheist denied that there was any objective moral law that could actually once-and-for-all label this atrocity “morally wrong”. To the Atheist, he chose to call this crime against children ‘wrong’ because he ‘thought so’. What he meant was that for him this atrocity was morally wrong, but could not base that decision in any morality outside of himself. He had to allow in his mind the relativism that permits a diametrically opposed morality so he could stay consistent. But in doing so, his consistency paves the way for im-moral monsters.

Now to the Atheist this seems very astute, but underneath it contains the very license to commit such crimes. Why? Because the only difference between this Atheist and the Murderer of New Town is one of opinion. It was the Atheist’s opinion that this atrocity was wrong, but for the murderer it was not, it was a solution to his problems. Do you see, when the Atheist opted to make morality a matter of personal choice he forged a link between his ideology and the non-condemnation of murderous actions; the link is simply how his a-moral opinion of the matter could not demand moral restraint of the murderers actions. Where is the restraint? We see that in the Atheist mindset It’s no where to be found, where’s the anger and rage? It’s just an emotion that has no more validity than the emotion of the shooter while killing. The Atheist validated the killers morality because the Atheist lifted up personal opinion of right and wrong and placed it into the hands of autonomous human beings,  he took it out of the context of God’s will for men into the arena of personal choice and thereby had no power to veto the killer who simply opted to act upon his own morals that were right in his own eyes.

Now, any one not duped into the Atheist amoral thinking says “NO, this is wrong all the time every time”. He appeals to a morality not self-discovered but transcendent, outside of himself that he imagines that is imposed upon every other human being. This kind of Morality is Absolute and is given by God and imposed upon the consciences of all men everywhere. We know that ethically right and wrong is worked out differently in various cultures, but, we know that murder is always wrong, theft is always wrong, lies and deception are wrong. When we speak of citizen to citizen human relation, and one man dealing fairly with another man, these Moral Absolutes are assumed by everyone.

If you steal from an Atheist its still theft even if his amoral philosophy leaves the loophole for you to exploit him through his personally-chosen-morality. While your personal morality may justify you stealing from him, it is fortunate that the world at-large has not believed the Atheist amoral philosophy. Otherwise he ( the thief)  may sit in court and hear the judge say “what is right for him is his own personal choice and you (the atheist) have no say in the matter, not you or God or the state, therefore he (the thief)  may keep what he possesses.”. It would not take seconds before civil order would collapse into anarchy. As ridiculous as this analogy is, a real truth emerges; human beings cannot function on moral relativism and societies that attempt to do so plunge themselves into mindless permissions of the wildest and most insane treatment of human beings.

When someone decides that God is culpable for the evil that has occurred, take a hard look at the people who committed those acts. Did they do what God’s commands have said? Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt no murder, thou shalt not bear false witness? You will suddenly see that they did exactly what God has forbidden them to do. Someone will say OK, but why didn’t God intervene? I mean those were just children; multiplied millions of testimonies will attest to the fact that God has intervened in multitudes of evil events. The last chapter on this terrible event has not been written and how God brings this out for good for his people can only be answered by God himself. But to judge God or pretend he does not exist because evil occurred begs the question “how do you know evil unless you believe in a good that is outside of yourself and outside everyone else?” The standard of Good cannot be located in any sinful human being. There is only One human being where God’s goodness and God’s judgment meet, that is Jesus Christ. If you create your own morality, you cannot impose that morality on anyone else. Because Jesus Christ is God and has come in the flesh, he alone imposes his morality on the whole world according to his standard. All other pretenders, and that’s exactly what they are, will be judged according to his moral standard; a moral standard that is in the minds and hearts of everyone in the whole world. Pretending God doesn’t exist or pretending your own personal morality is as good as anyone else s…well, that’s put to the test all over the world and it comes up as a horrifying end note to the pretense.

The Christian has an answer to evil, not a complete explanation for all the events that occurred, but an answer that can take the victims forward one day at a time into hope and healing. The Atheist, he cannot even offer a morality that absolutely condemns such an atrocity, let alone offer a solution built on moral relativism that is not fully self-destructive to the community at-large. Let God be glorified in restoring these families, may God heal and help everyone of them and those affected by this atrocity. May Jesus Christ be seen as the true life and hope that this world desperately needs. In Jesus Christ is forgiveness and the offer of eternal life where deliverance from this present evil world awaits. The Atheist offers meaninglessness which is a breeding ground for monsters; the Christian offers their Lord and Savior who is the hope of the afflicted.

Creationist Evolutionist Debate

CREATIONIST EVOLUTIONIST DEBATE

Listen to this debate between the scientific community and the Theists. Both Christian and Islam were paired up to present the Theistic view against the Darwinism construct. The mediator was clearly antagonistic toward the Theists but only got away with bullying those who were too polite to resist him.
In my opinion the scientific group had not thought through their own worldview to any extent. It seemed as though they have not pitted their views against the genuine claims of Christianity.

The first speaker Matt Ridley gave us the first unsubstantiated portion of the Evolution myth by asserting absolute proof and undoubted scientific evidence for Evolution that can be found by genetic science.
To this, it can only be said that he is asserting a blind faith in Evolution without proof. He is saying he has proof and I am saying genes do not talk, he is talking and that from a Darwinistic construct. What Mr. Ridley seems to assume is all the missing links between his assertions and what can be called real proof.

Robert Asher probably the most confused begins to tell the Pastor that “Its not all random chance”. He begs the question then if not chance then design. But he will not admit design. Dr. Asher is doing his best to keep the two tier system in place. Faith over fact or feeling over evidence dilemma. This slight of hand trick is to say that its OK to have a faith and a feeling about what you believe but the theory of Evolution has opposing facts that cannot be reconciled with that kind of faith or feeling. In short, its perfectly acceptable to be irrational about faith because the nature of faith is believing against the facts of the world.
The problem with this two tier construct is it deconstructs the facts of the Christian faith. The Christian faith is based upon historical fact where God intervened in the world and made himself known by evidences within this physical world. His answers later sound like a page from Hegel where he has worked out his own dialectic and now presents it as truth. Thesis=the Christian faith, Antithesis=the theory of Evolution, Synthesis=A Christianity that contains no historical proof, it consists only what we want to make of it. But listen, the assertions were a little more sly, he asserts the unproven theory of Evolution as fact and dismisses Christianity as a pick and chose religion that need not concern itself with disclaiming Evolution. The real joke ends up being that the synthesis is considered a fact itself. The admixture of Evolution and Christianity is synthesized and what you have is a falsehood that appeals only to the agnostic or atheist. The Christianity (if it  can be called that) is now effectively no more than a meta-physic or a brand of existentialism that holds to moral platitudes and God but doesn’t believe what God has said.

The Senior Pastor brings up the subject that radiometric dating is dangerously in error, the Paleontologist gets a free pass to side step it from the moderator while the Pastor is addressed as if he was in error as to his statements. Young earth creationists work is a research that cuts against the Darwinistic construct and because of that is dismissed as if they are presenting a flat earth policy.

The geneticist says..”we will admit we are wrong…you guys will never do that!”. Well, why should they if the final authority for the creation of things is God and he knows exactly what he did and told us in Genesis?

Later on the debate becomes located in much more philosophical postulates and this is where the scientific group begin to loose ground rapidly. The scientists begin to use logic and it comes out as fallacies, they begin to use reasoning that only brand new thinkers would use to couch their theories in. Their reasons are unsound and present no new information, only old stuff that has been debunked ages ago.

The gentlemen with the collar on the Evolution side is a Theistic Evolutionist, he is probably the worst of the panel, offering even more hideous synthesis of bible and evolution. In the end he presents the agnostic Christian view (if there is such a thing) while protecting the name of evolution more than God’s name.

Toward the end Professor Woodhead asserted that the conversation was all very anthropocentric, then cast it in a dim light as though that’s not the truth. I couldn’t help think to myself “now that’s very anthropocentric of her to dismiss anthropocentrism”. Its all amusing at times to see the incoherence of thought in order to suppress the truth of God ἀλήθειαν τοῦ Θεοῦ. Professor Woodhead distances herself from Richard Dawkins because of the angry man image, but she left in place the foundations of Atheism and Evolution which in the end means she just wants a better speaker for the subject than Dr. Dawkins.

Professor Steve Fuller did the best burn down when he caught the spirit of the argument. He basically told them that Darwinism is a diminished view of man. Dr Asher jumps in to protect Darwin and prove he’s dug more rocks than thought very much about the ramification of Darwins view. Dr Brown caught on that the game is up, Evolutionists are being exposed as a pick and chose science community when Professor Fuller defends the work of the Y.E.C. The interaction becomes more heated.

The Islamic view is inert for the most part proving the claims of the scientists that religion resists facts with nothing to put in its place except authoritarianism. The Christian world view is the only one that can meet them head on and pull down their strongholds. I was glad to see it didn’t turn sideways and become a Christian against Islam debate and spare the Evolutionists from critique.

The video is posted for you to see, make your own judgment and evaluate it.

Please comment if you like.

Marvin Torgeson

Is Testimony a real Apologetic?

IS TESTIMONY A REAL APOLOGETIC?

I’ve been told by successful apologists that testimony is a weak and subjective method to offer the skeptic reasons to believe. Further, it’s devoid of a good argument used to prove God, Jesus Christ or the validity of Christianity. It seems obvious to the apologist that because the skeptic dis-believes all religions equally and holds human testimony as personal preference that method has no reward.  So, the apologist abandons testimony because of the skeptic and of course other apologists are using the logic-track as their method, the intuitive thing to do is presume testimony is off the table. Relational Apologetic is poo-pooed and testimony has become irrelevant. The more I look at this subject the more interesting it becomes.  Things do not progress with the skeptic and agnostic like we believe they should…seeing the apologist has accommodated himself to the mindset of the skeptic. As I look deeper into the needs of the skeptic and unbeliever I find all the signs that they need relationship, they need a human-story to relate to that opens the door to inviting in another person. Not just any person, but a person of faith.

Well, it seems the apologist should take a tip from Joshua, for the walls to come down we must circle the city. I’ve been on a circular journey of leaving testimony to prove apologetically the things of God by taking the path of logic, evidence, philosophy, argument and theories; after lengthy study, I am striving to master these, or at least attempt to gain a solid grasp of these methods of delivering truth and reason, I’m trying to get in the zone so to speak. Yet the biblical apologist now sits down and begins to read the scriptures and listen to Christ speak in the gospels; the astute apologist recommends that we look carefully at the apologetics of Christ that offered no syllogism and no advanced philosophical jargon; instead, narrative and ontological challenges to their preconceived ideas. Christ speaks from the authority of scripture paired with the existence and watchful eye of his Heavenly Father.

What then? Why the very idea of testimony becomes more relevant than ever and suddenly the apologist has recovered its value because it’s relational to the hearer. So after a long dutiful journey into discovering apologetics, all of the above logic, evidence, philosophy and argument really only prepare the apologist to speak confidently in relational terms to the unbeliever. In short all of the acquired knowledge is needed to shore up the in-confident speaker; the unbelieving listener need not know or understand the depth of knowledge the apologist has.  It’s credibility not credential where grace is given. Fortunately the grace of God brings wisdom, having been instilled by the Holy Spirit to equip the apologist to engage relationally a person who is as far away from you logically, philosophically and biblically as one can get. The sinner is dead spiritually, the Apologist is alive in Christ.

This I believe is a good insight; equipped to engage relationally instead of engaging academically alone. It’s the constant pitfall of the apologist to be argument-centered in his thinking. Now in all fairness remember many times the apologist is engaging someone who is antagonistic to him and has no interest in befriending the apologist. I think we apologists understand this because the undercurrent of dis-similar worldviews denote opposition and mentally causes the drawing of the proverbial line in the sand and dares each other to step over.

So, where do relational apologetics begin to come into play? It comes into play when the apologist determines how he is going to engage the skeptic. Either from the outset of the discussion or at some point later, the apologist makes the move to care for the person, not just for the ‘truth’ that he is attempting to express; now there is much written on this subject so I won’t digress into it. But my input along these lines considers the human interaction.

I believe Christ considered the human interaction because His Father considers all things, the depth of God’s understanding is beyond our comprehension, yet within that consideration is care for the human condition. Jesus knows humanly and divinely the depth of sins destruction within the psyche of people. Jesus engaged argument and excuses because behind it is a person using those things to hide from God. He was after them, the victory of divine truth over human confusion is so vast it’s not worthy of debate. But to the Christian apologist coming out of a world of lies and deceptions it’s not bare fact it’s an increase of faith. The Christian apologist is escaping the lies of the world and learning to tell the truth in a myriad of new ways. The central focus of the Christian worldview can get lost in philosophy, truth, evidence and more; but I am seeking to remember Christ is the central focus. My apologetics must not be compartmentalized into a specialized format where it morphs into high-resolution explanation of all things apologetic. My Christianity is my apologetic to everyone listening and watching.

So I end up coming full circle, I am back to a starting point where I was as a young Christian with no apologetic knowledge at all. All I had was a testimony and short list of scripture I knew. But now after all this time I have arrived at testimony again; I am back with a full arsenal of academics, wisdom, knowledge and I’ve picked up along the way patience, long-suffering, love, kindness, gentleness, perseverance and compassion. But what is the real improvement? Is it academic knowledge? Yes I have that. Is it maturity in the faith? Yes I have a small piece of that. But more than all of that I have the ability to forget myself, to concentrate upon the person I’m engaged in discussion. I need not concern myself with winning; I’ve already won in faith and prayer and stand an overcomer in Christ. Now I come to do battle, for the souls of men I resist deceptions, because of compassion I patiently endure abuse, for loves sake I attempt to represent Christ to those who cannot see him in anything.

My prayer is that God opens their eyes to see Him. It’s not about me and my apologetics, it’s not about the war of words, it’s not about the terrible things the Atheist would do to Christians or the bible; it’s about being Spirit-led as a man of God who for the sake of Jesus Christ employs apologetics to win to him more worshippers.  Are these grandiose words? Yes they are and more than I can do alone, I count upon Christ to work in me these things I’ve stated. By faith I am a usable apologist to Jesus Christ.

It must be remembered as well that to do what I am suggesting is to become far too Christian for some Christians to endure. For the Atheist, agnostic and skeptic I cannot be too Christian. It may be that for the first time they get to see one in the flesh, not just hear about a hero of faith who died a martyr.

The final fine-tuning must be done by the Spirit of God, whereby the fruits of the Spirit manifest along with academic knowledge. The pairing of this apologetic knowledge and spiritual fruit delivers truth and love together the way Jesus did it. May the Spirit of God lead us into Christ-likeness being conformed into his image and bearing his fruit for the glory and praise of God.

Marvin Torgeson

Reasonable Doubt? Who interprets Genesis 1?

REASONABLE DOUBT? WHO INTERPRETS GENESIS 1?

Old Earth Creationism otherwise know as O.E.C exists because various Christian scholars have decided to put their faith in science as a greater authority than the bible when it comes to origins. For them to believe anything the bible says about creation they must get permission from their favorite Ph.D. So far the science dept that dates rocks with carbon 14 and radiometric dating win the day.

I personally think that the only reason, and I mean the major reason we have O.E.C. is because the pride of education in a secular world demand some appreciation for the humanistic thinking that develops the un-biblical origins. In short, their secular peers and teachers need to feel included; now, if they abandon their secular peers they have no “peers” to appreciate their writings and works; they have no peer-review and thereby kill their writings and works by a peer-ostracizing of their writings.

To me its a form of denial, a form of compromise, where the biblical authority for origins is denied and then relegated to poetry and linguistics. Of course there is really no good proof for that, but the lie/deception that Gen 1 and 2 are poetry is out there and wrapped up in the garments of scientific proof and legitimate theorizing.

But seriously, which way can our Christian scholars go if they want the approval of secular scholars? They must go in the direction of Evolution and Old earth theorizing.
Of course none of what I’ve said is provable and Ill I’ve done is make assertions. But I ask you, just what turns a man away from the historical narrative of Gen 1-3 and begin to claim its not historical narrative but a vague poetic discourse describing poetically the events of creation.

This is the real question I have for those who claim its poetry; just how do you translate the poetry back into physical creation, what hermeneutic do you use and where are the interpretations of Genesis that take the days of Genesis and show within the rest of scripture how the bible translates the poetry for us. The bible interprets the bible, I’ve not seen the interpretation of the poetry within the bible to clarify the poetic verses and bring them into human reality.

In my opinion the poetry issue is a complete fabrication and secondly let those who claim it is poetry show us how that poetry is interpreted through the rest of scripture. Show us the metamorphosis of metaphor becoming physical reality.

The Historical Grammatical hermeneutic is rejected. Good bible scholars use the historico/grammatical hermeneutic to interpret bible passages from Genesis 1 to Revelation 22. But now, the case is changing. Various ones are no longer using one hermeneutic for scriptural exegesis, Now a modern science/linguistic approach is being used. The obvious question then needs to be asked; who’s science? The Evolutionist?, The Creationist? The skeptic or Atheist? From which of these people are we asking to supply the ‘science’ in which to backfill Genesis so we can understand the creation days?  The morphing of exegesis to eisogesis has many Christians confused. Instead of the scriptures declaring from a narrative the events of God’s creative works, the linguist has arrived to call it poetry and the scientist has arrived to supply the new-narrative, one that conforms to current anti-biblical evolutionary models.

So far, what Ive seen from O.E.C. Is their dependence upon science to interpret Genesis for us, they don’t use the bible to interpret the biblical account in poetic form in this case. So, the bible remains silent while Mr. Evolutionist and Old Earth theorist is asked to speak from the pulpit. This raises a serious question; for what purpose did it serve God to leave Genesis un-interpretable for 6000 years until the necessary science was developed to understand it properly? Why did God wait, and then after all that waiting, dismiss the power of the Holy Spirit to interpret scripture and reveal its truth, it seems as though God circumvented the Holy Spirit and chose to use 21’st century science to ‘tell us what Genesis really means’. Unless, God said, “wait, instead of assuming the Holy Spirit is directing you to believe that account is a biblical narrative of what I’ve done, I have a group of secular/humanist scientists that will offer you a better interpretation”. But since the average Christian doesn’t trust the secular humanist scientist, the Christian scholar who has agreed with the scientist is ready to step up and declare his findings and use a Christian mouth to spout humanist conclusions.

The Atheist can offer no comfort in tragedy

SANDY HOOK NO CONSOLATION

For a good article on the ability of the Atheist community to offer consolation and comfort to suffering people please click on this link. http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/337673/atheist-response-sandy-hook-dennis-prager#

In opposition to the Atheist cold comfort response the bible offers this.

2Co 1:2  Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
2Co 1:3  Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and God of all comfort,
2Co 1:4  who comforts us in all our affliction, so that we may be able to comfort those who are in any affliction, with the comfort with which we ourselves are comforted by God.
2Co 1:5  For as we share abundantly in Christ’s sufferings, so through Christ we share abundantly in comfort too.
2Co 1:6  If we are afflicted, it is for your comfort and salvation; and if we are comforted, it is for your comfort, which you experience when you patiently endure the same sufferings that we suffer.
2Co 1:7  Our hope for you is unshaken, for we know that as you share in our sufferings, you will also share in our comfort. ESV.

It’s so true, when you know that God has comforted you in your affliction, you have the ability to comfort those who encounter affliction as well. When you do not acknowledge God, it becomes well understood that you are devoid of offering consolation and future hope.

Darwinism and Intelligent Design Book Review

DARWINISM AND INTELLIGENT DESIGN

I fully enjoyed reading this work by Jonathan Wells Ph.D. The focus of the book is to deliver a fair hearing to the reader of the validity of I.D Intelligent Design theory. Jonathan points out the many difficulties I.D. has in moving forward as a legitimate methodology within science to discover design. The book also goes to fair lengths to expose the dirty-Darwinist and his tricks to keep I.D from the minds of people. There are no lack of cronies that are willing to do anything in order to maintain the status-quo of Evolution; when this status quo is threatened out comes the fangs and claws in order to vilify I.D, the scientists or anyone that could possibly kill the flow of funds to a dying and doomed evolutionary theory. The P.I.G. book pulls no punches in regards to provoking the reader to anger at the Darwinist. Its not that Jonathan is railing from one page to another, its the expose’ of rage from the Darwinist that reveals their not-so-scientific proof of Evolution cannot stand much scrutiny. The chief method of making sure Evolution Theory stays in the forefront of people thinking is to silence any other voices that expose Evolution as the biggest pseudo-science philosophy to be propagated since the flat-earth. When good evidence is lacking, attack the Christian as a loon, anti-scientific bible-basher that is illiterate and illogical. The method is vilify the Christian and persecute any scientist that has the decency to willing listen to the other side.

From Colleges to High schools to Churches the methodology of science has a-priori dismissed God and design as though God is against science. But we all know that God is not against science, man is against science and Jonathan Wells proves that the scientist is not always seeking to learn the truth about the world he lives in; rather, we see that in the case of Darwinism it is about money=funding, mind-control=schools and teaching, anti-religious agenda=keeping Christianity out of the conversation about science. All of this betrayal of supposed open-mindedness to learning reveals what Christians have said over and over again since the beginning

Rom 1:18  For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.
Rom 1:19  For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.
Rom 1:20  For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.
Rom 1:21  For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened.
Rom 1:22  Claiming to be wise, they became fools,

This very explanatory section of Romans declares the real problem with Darwinist and skeptics, “Its not that they don’t know about God, its that they don’t want God and therefore disapprove of him”

Jonathan goes on to show just how I.D really works and how it is not a religious or Christian “back-door” into science to destroy Evolution. It is a methodology of discovering design in the things that are studied in the name of science. If no design is there, then there is none. No God-of-the-gaps insertions, no forcing the issues by inserting theology in the place of good scientific investigation. So far from killing science it opens the possibility of understanding the created world we see. I know I know I used the dreaded word ‘created’ and that’s what the anti-religious scientific community doesn’t want to hear. But that’s the benefit of learning isn’t it? Learning that God is not against science and neither are Christians who appreciate knowledge and learning about this present world. Instead of isolating science from Christians and everyone else, it integrates the physical world that can be known from true and good scientific research and the true and good theological truth that transcends natural boundaries. This integration is everyday contained within the human mind and soul, its the backwards and ignorant assumptions of skepticism and Atheism that lock science into a closet, or theology into a closet to forever demand they never meet. This mindset is old enlightenment thinking that has long since worn out its welcome and now needs to make a quick exit.

Of course this synthesis of Theology and Natural sciences is the dread of the present state of skepticism and agnosticism. To them, its a war that must not be lost, otherwise their skepticism and Atheism will translate into “ignoring the obvious”; science will show the validity of a transcendent designer is justified to accept. The skeptic will no longer be able to justly hold on to their skepticism just as they claim now that Christians ignore the science behind Evolution. Jonathan did not go into details about the synthesis, but he made a great argument for I.D and showed that the anti-I.D community are doing so at the expense of their credibility in years to come. This of course does not mean the skeptic will not find another avenue to escape this conclusion, its just that its hard to do with design staring them in the face in terms of hard evidence.

This is of course why the gospel is so necessary, without it the skeptic has no hope of finding God.
Seeing a designer in creation doesn’t save the man, it only introduces him to what he has already known but denied by other means.

Buy the book, or like I did find it used in a book store and bought it out of curiosity. It was a great buy and well worth the read. Jonathan Wells is not a reviler, he is not demanding an unfair hearing, he is in fact the genuine article and that will be seen in time to come. I believe God will vindicate I.D. and scientists in time to come will have to admit the necessity of design in order to advance our culture. The scientists of the day who demand Philosophical Naturalism will eventually be proven wrong and embarrassingly denounced by their peers in time to come as ‘snake-oil’ pushers of the era.

By Marvin Torgeson