Tag: science

Why Evolution Isn’t A Problem

Should a Christian live in fear that evolution could be true? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

The new atheism doesn’t really seem to be doing much anymore, but if there’s anything I really remember from them, other than how weak and pathetic the arguments were, it’s to not speak where you don’t know. If these guys are this embarrassing when it comes to Christianity and philosophy and such, do I want to make the same mistake? Do I want to speak about science when I haven’t properly studied science?

To that end, I started rethinking a lot of things. I started pondering how much of my worldview in Christianity depended on science and asked if that needed to be the case. In the end, I even came to realize there was no need to argue against evolution. This was a shift for me since normally I think many of us when we come to the faith seem to automatically think it’s either evolution or Christianity.

I also thought that there seems to be a problem if all of our best arguments for theism depend on modern science. Are we really going to say that before the age of science, theists had no good grounds for believing in God? The greatest philosophers in Christianity history lived before the age of modern science. Why did they believe?

Largely, I have gone with the Thomistic arguments. None of them depend on modern science and I can pull the rug out from under some opponents when I tell them I will grant evolution to them, which sometimes is often their favorite defeater. Sadly, many Christians think the same way as I encountered one yesterday telling me that if we grant evolution, aren’t we undermining some of the best arguments for theism?

That’s only if we have a God of the Gaps mentality, which is really a problem. Are we saying that God’s only job is just working with the pre-existing matter and universe that we have to make creatures? If so, we don’t have the God of Christianity, but we have the demiurge of Plato. God isn’t someone who holds all of existence in His hand, but rather someone who just works with the existence that we have.

Furthermore, this is marrying our theism and/or Christianity to the modern science. So let’s suppose your best argument for the existence of God is the complexity of life and how did life come about naturally? What happens if one day science does find a naturalistic pathway including the origin of life? If you are consistent, then you will have to say your best argument for theism is undermined and your theism will be in danger. You will also give your opponent more grounds for their atheism.

This is not to say there are no scientific arguments for God’s existence or that the design arguments are entirely worthless. It is saying that you should not make your theism or Christianity dependent on them. This is especially the case if you don’t understand the science and wind up arguing something that you don’t understand, which will be disastrous when you meet someone who knows what they’re talking about. As has been said

“Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.”

Who said this? It wasn’t a modern writer commenting on the “warfare between science and religion.” It was Augustine said around 400 A.D. or so. The claim is old, but the information is just as relevant today as it was then.

If you are a Christian who knows science well and wants to argue against evolution after reading both sides, have at it. If not, I really urge you to stay out of this field. Please don’t be like the new atheists. Stick to what you know.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

The Cost Of Miracles

Who has more at stake on the question of miracles? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Years ago, Chesterton said that a theist believes or disbelieves in a miracle, rightly or wrongly, because of the evidence. The skeptic disbelieves in a miracle, rightly or wrongly, because he has a dogma against them. This would come as a shock to many unbelievers. A dogma? That’s the area of religion.

To which, Chesterton would also say there are two kinds of people in the world. Those who are knowingly dogmatic, and those who are unknowingly dogmatic, and the latter kind are always more dogmatic. We see this quite often today. It is the ones who are most shouting about tolerance who prove to be the ones least tolerant and don’t accept any arguments against their dogma.

The interesting question about miracles comes when you watch a miracle account being shared on any public forum on social media or such a place. The atheists are always the ones quick to show up to say why the miracle story is false. As a Christian, I tend to maintain some skepticism about miracles, but if there is good enough evidence, I don’t rule it out.

Who has the most to lose at this? It is not myself as a Christian. If a miracle story outside of the resurrection of Jesus is shown to be false, oh well. The resurrection is still true. If it is a true miracle story, then that is just further evidence for theism, but theism is still true even if the miracle claim is false.

We could go a step further. Let’s suppose all miracle stories are false thus far. Let’s suppose that no miracles have ever been done. Does this rule out theism? Not at all. God could have gone a deistic route and created the world and chose to do nothing with it, or God could somehow be co-eternal with the world and just doesn’t care about it. I don’t think either of those are true for a moment, but they are hypotheticals to accept.

But what if just one of these stories is true? Consider something like Craig Keener’s massive two-volume work Miracles. Is every miracle claim in that book a bona fide miracle? Doubtful. Some are better attested than others. In fact, aside from the resurrection of Jesus, it could be that every miracle story is false in there and Christianity and/or theism are still true.

Now, what of the other end? If even one of them does not have a materialistic or naturalistic explanation for what happened, then atheism is in trouble unless one is found. It simply has to be false. The same could hypothetically be said of evolution for some. As a Christian theist, if macroevolution is true, I lose nothing, but for the atheist, as Plantinga has said, evolution is the only game in town.

Watch next time a miracle claim is presented and see how both sides react. While it couldn’t hurt us to be cautious and not believe every claim that comes along, one side has to have it that their position on the claim is absolutely right. One side depends on only one option being the true one.

It’s not ours.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Book Plunge: Christian Delusion Chapter 15

Was Christianity responsible for modern science? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

We’re finishing up our look at John….John…John….Loftus! That’s it! John Loftus’s book! Anyway, for this last chapter, we have Richard Carrier brought back again. (Keep in mind, for Carrier, it’s important to have the Richard Carrier theme playing while reading anything he says.)

Anyway, Carrier is writing about how Christianity is not responsible for modern science. Of course, he still hasn’t responded that I’ve seen to Tim O’Neill’s work at History for Atheists. This time, Carrier is responding to the claim that Christianity is responsible for the rise of modern science.

Carrier starts with his usual kind of statement. He argues that it’s not only false, but it’s so egregiously false that if someone has the slightest academic competence they should know it’s false. Therefore, its defenders, who claim to be scholars, must be “embarrassingly incompetent, perversely dishonest, or wildly deluded.”

We can all give thanks that Richard Carrier has come to provide light for those who have been wandering in the darkness of sheer stupidity. The academy missed this, but thankfully, Carrier has come to enlighten us. We all eagerly await the entire overturning of the academy with Carrier’s Jesus Mythicism as well.

There are many claims in this chapter. I have no desire to go and peruse everything. Carrier has a habit anyway of getting claims remarkably wrong as we saw in our last chapter that we reviewed of his. Carrier says that Stark has been criticized by this point, but not by an expert in ancient science and Christianity. I was curious to see who Carrier had found to be an expert, but of course, he only meant himself.

I’m just more inclined to trust the editors of Newton’s Apple And Other Myths About Science where the very first chapter deals with science and Christianity and who is one of the main spreaders of the myth? It’s Richard Carrier! Carrier’s hubris has often come back to bite him in the end so I really recommend with anything he writes, read it with extra suspicion.

So if someone is wanting a step by step examination of everything, I’m not the one to do that. I have no wish to go and track down all the references that Carrier has given. I have enough of his history to know to be entirely skeptical and I am sure those wanting more can find it.

So we conclude Loftus’s book and I conclude that Loftus doesn’t really have much of anything here. I was challenged to read this book by an atheist and I didn’t really find anything in here that was a challenge to me. It’s quite interesting, but the more I read non-Christian literature, the more and more I find how weak it is. I think of how Chesterton got reading a book, I think it was by Ingersoll, and put it down and said, “Almost dost thou persuade me to be a Christian.” Sometimes, one of the best demonstrations of Christianity is seeing how its critics treat it.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Book Plunge: Christian Delusion Chapter 4

What do I think of the Outsider Test For Faith? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

So we’re returning again to a look at The Christian Delusion by John Loftus. I recently noticed that he’s not the guy who wrote about the Nazis but apparently, he’s someone who likes to make fun of disabled people, get drunk at conventions, and give the finger to amusement park workers. Anyway, in this chapter, we’re looking at what he calls the outsider test for faith.

The more I look at this, it reminds me of the Mormon test. Loftus is convinced that no faith can survive the outsider test for faith. This is akin to the Mormon claim because if you tell the Mormons that their test didn’t work for you, then the problem is not with the test, but it is with you. You must not have been sincere enough. So it is with the outsider test for faith. If you’re still a Christian, well you must not have been sincere enough in the test.

Basically, the test is to look at your position from that of an outsider. If you were a skeptic of your position, would it uphold? Fortunately, I do this as I regularly read books that critique my position. So far, it’s really solidified me in my position. If this is the best that they have, then Christianity is really looking good.

Loftus points to something Eller has said about how meeting people sincere in other religions is such a problem. Why should it be? Should atheists be concerned when they meet people not of a different religion but of a different worldview? What if I meet someone who is thoroughly convinced of geocentrism or that the Earth is flat? Why should that give me pause about my view?

Loftus also says brainwashed people don’t know they are brainwashed. It’s interesting that Loftus never seems to see this is a two-edged sword. Maybe Loftus is the one who is brainwashed in atheism. Will he deny it? Sure, but that is just because he doesn’t know it! Remember that brainwashed people don’t know that they are brainwashed.

Loftus also says that when we encounter Mormons or Muslims, we start with the idea that our worldview is true and then that the other is false for disagreeing. This is false. Now with Mormons, I do try to uphold the Bible since they claim the same, but I show the differences between the Bible and the Book of Mormon. With Muslims, since I am not an expert on the Qur’an, I choose to just try to uphold the New Testament.

Instead, it is atheists, who like Long in the last chapter, do what Loftus is talking about. After all, if atheism is true, there are no talking donkeys and since one book in the Bible has one, then Christianity is false. Loftus has no problem putting that in his book while telling others that’s not a good way to make arguments.

Loftus also says we adopt methodological naturalism to test extraordinary claims in other religions. This is false. For one thing, Loftus never defines methodological naturalism, which actually can be difficult to do. Second, I have no problem with miracles happening in other religions. Do I test the claims? Yes. I do the same for my own religion.

Loftus also says a believer should subject their faith to the best critiques of it. Done. When are atheists going to do the same? Loftus needs to write this for his own camp. He also asks how we would respond if Mormon faith was said to be properly basic or Muslims had an inner testimony. Simple. I would reject those just like I do for Christians. He also says Pascal’s Wager fails since we must decide what God to believe on. Not at all. Pascal’s Wager is not about deciding which faith is true, but it’s for the person who is considering Christianity but is still hesitant.

On p. 89, we get this delightful gem.

“The only thing we can and should trust is the sciences. Science alone provides consistently excellent results that cannot be denied, which are continually retested for validity. I’m claiming religious beliefs learned on our mama’s knees are in a different category than the results of repeatable scientific experiments, and that this claim is both obvious and non-controversial. We can personally do the experiments ourselves. When it comes to religious faiths, there are no mutually agreed upon reliable tests to decide between them, and this makes all the difference in the world. Besides, as David Eller has argued, Christians are not opposed to modern science anyway. They adopt its methods and conclusions in a vast majority of areas except a few limited ones concerning their faith. So the question is why should they adopt such a double standard with regard to science. Why do they accept the results of science the vast majority of time but subsequently reject them with regard to their faith?”

This is truly something remarkable. Many of us have already spotted one major problem. Nothing in this paragraph is scientific. Not a single word of it. We can do no experiments to verify any of this. Loftus has given a philosophical argument to show that science is the best style of demonstration.

Second, it’s not even true. Science always has tentative results. Some of these are more likely than others so much so that we can call them facts, but the reasoning is inductive at best. The only areas with absolute certainty are mathematics and logic.

Third, we can’t always do the experiments ourselves. Can we do an experiment involving what is found on Mars? Can we do an experiment that will require the CERN collider?

Fourth, I think there are many areas atheists disregard science. Consider the case of abortion. The science is in that life begins at conception. Many atheists deny this and go to philosophy and try to argue that what is in the womb is not a person.

Loftus also asks later on which evangelist will tell the ugly side of the Bible while preaching the good news or give a copy of a book alongside of Christian apologetics to read. As I’ve said earlier, when I do read Christian apologetics and scholarship, they interact with their opponents. Most atheists don’t. Also, where in this chapter does Loftus present the best scholarship for say, the resurrection of Jesus? Where does he talk about mass slaughters in the 20th century done under atheism?

He also says he liked Bill Maher’s movie Religulous. I can’t say I am surprised. I did review it and found it incredibly lacking.

Loftus also says that he knows the material world exists and the scientific method is the only sure way for assessing truth claims. Again, nothing in that is scientific. Second, could he give a scientific test to show that the material world exists? Anyone with a more Hindu world could do the same and just say this is how the illusion is about us. Peter Kreeft has talked about a professor of Christian Science who taught chemistry. He would say his religious beliefs tell him that this world is all an illusion and not real, but the illusion fits incredibly well and he’s going to describe it.

Loftus also says the idea we are living in the Matrix cannot be taken seriously by any intelligent person. We are sure that Nick Bostrom is happy to hear that he is not an intelligent person. While disagreeing with the Matrix idea, there are plenty of brilliant Eastern thinkers who would say the material world is an illusion.

Loftus then goes on to say that if it’s silly to say we are living in the Matrix, saying God is real should be silly too. Why? Your guess is as good as mine. Loftus never gives any reason for this.

Loftus also says it’s patently false to say atheism is a worldview or a religion. It would be like saying not collecting stamps is a hobby. Yet if one goes to the first big question of a worldview on God and answers in the negative, is not such a person taking a view on the world? The world is one in which God does not exist. How is this not a worldview?

Loftus also says saying someone is an atheist doesn’t tell you much about what they believe. Absolutely. An atheist can be for all intents and purposes living like a saint. They can also be Joseph Stalin. Neither one of them is violating atheism.

Loftus goes on to say that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and religious beliefs are extraordinary. Why? Because they believe one more thing than what atheists believe, that God exists. Why should atheists be the standard? Could I not say that atheism is an extraordinary claim since it claims to know there is no God and that all of existence is just chance? That’s extraordinary. Hence my problem with this idea. Extraordinary is too subjective.

Loftus replies that this is not extraordinary due to the outsider test. It’s worth noting he’s regularly given excuses for why he doesn’t need to apply it to his own position. Note that this assumes his position is the correct one which is the presuppositional atheism I have talked about.

When he looks at the counter-arguments of Victor Reppert, he says that he was not just taught to think the external world exists, but he experiences it daily. Such an argument would not be at all convincing to an Eastern mind or someone like Bishop Berkeley. He also says it would deny science. Again, Eastern thinkers would not think such a thing at all.

Loftus also says he knows of no skeptical person who wants to justify rape. If they are not there, give it time and it will come. Some do though, or else they wouldn’t commit rape. We can see Richard Dawkins providing some excuses for mild pedophilia. Loftus also says the same about Democracy. After all, only some religious believers want a theocracy. After all, we know the former Soviet Union, atheistic as it was, were all big time fans of Democracy.

He goes on to quote Carrier presenting his answer to Reppert saying that any rational 15th or 16th century man presented with all that we have today would agree that Democracy is better. Therefore, Democracy is better. The same applies with rape being wrong. Well, there you go. Let me make an argument then.

Any 5th or 4th century BC man presented with the evidence we have today for Christianity would be a Christian. Therefore, Christianity is better. Hence, we should all bow down and accept Jesus as Lord.

It’s easy to say your position is rational when you say that only rational people who you have no access to would agree. We can’t jump in our time machines and see if the 15th or 16th century man would agree with Carrier. Why should we go by what we can’t see, especially since Loftus has been all about scientific testing.

Reppert finally says that he has been putting his faith to the test since 1972. Loftus replies that he doesn’t think any religious faith can pass the test. And there you go. We have entered the realm of the Mormon test. Why does Reppert not count? Because no position can pass the outsider test. Therefore Reppert wasn’t sincere or something like that because the test has to be true.

There’s a reason Loftus isn’t really getting all the attention he desires much any more.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Book Plunge: Everyday Glory

What do I think of Gerald McDermott’s book published by Baker Academic? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

What does the world tell us about God? Quite a lot actually. In this book, Gerald McDermott seeks to open our eyes up to the realities that are all around us. We have lived in a world long enough where we take the world around us for granted and don’t really consider the revelation of God that is there.

As much as I am Protestant, this is also our problem. We, and I think rightly, say that Scripture is the final authority, but too often we make it the only authority. Thus, why do we need to look at the rest of the world to learn something about God? Why study natural theology at all?

McDermott urges us to avoid this way of thinking. The world is not an accident. God made it the way that He did for a reason. If we want to truly learn about God, we can learn about Him from the things He has made and ask why He has made things the way that He has.

To be fair, He does have a chapter on the Bible itself, but He encourages us to look for Christ everywhere in the Bible. Reading a chapter like this can help you to approach the Bible with new eyes.

From there, McDermott takes us to many other areas of the world around us. What can we learn from science? In this chapter, you’ll probably find many of the things you find in books that talk about scientific apologetics. Still, those who like that will be helped.

Animals are another aspect that are covered in the book. In this chapter, McDermott focuses on two specific animals. Those would be birds and dogs. Both of these are talked about in Scripture, and it’s interesting that dogs are talked about in a negative light.

Sexuality is another aspect that is discussed. What is it about sex that has captured our wonder so much? As I said on a recent podcast I did, we live in a world where we have all manner of new technologies and such to keep us entertained. What still holds our fascination? What God made back in the very beginning. Nothing can still compete with sex.

Sports are also included. Sports are a non-necessary part of reality and they are creations by us, but yet they also come with a number of rules and teach us a number of values. I found myself wondering in this chapter if the same could apply to video games, which I think it could, or even movies and things like that.

There’s also a section on other religions. It would be a mistake to think they get everything wrong. What can we learn from other religions? How are they similar? How are they different?

This isn’t every chapter, but it is some of them. There’s also an appendix dealing with the views of Barth and Luther on natural theology. McDermott makes a fine defense for his position.

I think this is a very helpful book to read. Reading this can help you look at Scripture and the rest of the world differently. It’s a way of analyzing reality to see the fingerprints of the creator in everything.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Deeper Waters Podcast 12/1/2018: Hugh Ross

What’s coming up? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

A Christian is never off-duty. One never knows what challenges will await throughout the day. This is true of the apologist as well. If you are a Christian, you could go anywhere and see an attack on your faith.

There are plenty of books out there with the information you need. Very few are written about the life that that entails. What’s it like to live a life where you’re always ready? What programs can you get going in your church to help with the task of evangelism?

To discuss this, I brought on someone who has recently written a book with his wife about this very topic. The book is one quite different from his ordinary writings. Very little of this is direct apologetics information. Most of it is about his life and how he does ministry. I honestly thought it would be a boring and basic read. I was quite wrong. He’ll be on my show to talk about it. My guest is Dr. Hugh Ross of Reasons To Believe.

So who is he?

According to his bio:

Astronomer and best-selling author Hugh Ross travels the globe speaking on the compatibility of advancing scientific discoveries with the timeless truths of Christianity. His organization, Reasons to Believe, is dedicated to demonstrating, via a variety of resources and events, that science and biblical faith are allies, not enemies.

We’ll be talking about a lot of those travels but also about how he came to be a Christian. This is the most autobiographical of Dr. Ross’s books which includes his growing up, his coming to Christ, and how he met his wife. Naturally, I also liked that he talked some about what it’s like to be on the autism spectrum.

Dr. Ross also talks about working with his church to do an evangelism program and reaching people out in the neighborhood and about the many bizarre encounters he has had. These are so prevalent that you could expect that someone could make a TV series about the many adventures of Dr. Hugh Ross. He also includes that some people have been skeptical of these kinds of events until they actually travel with him and see them taking place.

If you want to know who Dr. Ross is some more, this will be a good show to listen to. If you check our archives, we have interviewed him on Autism/Aspergers, but we’ve also interviewed his wife on what it’s like having a marriage where one person is on the spectrum and one isn’t. This will be another great show to add to your list if you want to know someone like Hugh Ross even better.

Please be watching your podcast feed for the latest episode. Again, I apologize for all the trouble that we’ve had lately with producing a new episode. I really hope that this Saturday will be different and I am very confident at this point that it will be. As always also, please consider going on iTunes and leaving a positive review for the Deeper Waters Podcast.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

 

Deeper Waters Podcast 11/10/2018: Kyle Greenwood

What’s coming up? Let’s plunge into the deeper waters and find out.

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth. In due Christian fashion, we have been debating it ever since. I suspect that the two most debated books in the Bible are Genesis and Revelation and when it comes to Genesis, it’s largely the first 11 chapters and especially the first two.

So if we have been debating this for so long, and our Jewish friends before us have been debating it, what have we been saying? It might be too much to ask one man to go all throughout history and see what people are saying about Genesis, but fortunately, our guest this week took the path of editing a volume on it. By doing this, he allowed a number of people to look at the text and how it was interpreted throughout history.

He’ll be here with us today to talk about that book. We will look throughout history. Has it been the case that everywhere people have been talking about this book it was believed that the Earth is young and that only changed when evolution came along? How have people seen Adam and Eve? All these questions and more will be discussed with my guest, Kyle Greenwood.

So who is he?

According to his bio:

Kyle Greenwood earned the Master of Divinity from Hebrew Union College and the PhD from Hebrew Union College—Jewish Institute of Religion. He taught nine years at Colorado Christian University and is now an associated faculty in Old Testament at Denver Seminary and Fuller Theological Seminary. Greenwood is the author of Scripture and Cosmology: Reading the Bible between the Ancient World and Modern Science, is the editor of Since the Beginning: Interpreting Genesis 1–2 Through the Ages and just submitted a manuscript to Zondervan titledDictionary of English Grammar for Students of Biblical Languages. Kyle has been married to his wife Karen for over twenty-five years and they have three teenage children. When he’s not teaching or writing, he enjoys exploring the outdoor playgrounds of Colorado and serving in his local church.

We’ll be discussing the interpretation of these passages throughout the ages. We’ll talk about how the Jews interpreted it, how the Fathers interpreted it, how the medievals interpreted it, how the Reformers interpreted it, and then how it is interpreted in our times. We will discuss the different ways the text can be approached. Some people will like and think are treating the text properly. Some will be thought by a few out there to be a horrible way to approach the text. Some approaches could actually just make us laugh.

For those wondering where the show has been the past few weeks, we have had cancelations beyond my control and things like that. We hope to be back on an even schedule before too long. Please do realize I am trying to do all that I can to make this show the best that I can for you. I hope you’ll go on iTunes and leave a positive review of the Deeper Waters Podcast.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Book Plunge: Always Be Ready

What do I think of Hugh and Kathy Ross’s book published by Reasons To Believe? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

I read a lot of apologetics books. I read all levels. Some books are entry level. Some are intermediate. Some are advanced. I have high standards. When Hugh And Kathy Ross sent me an apologetics book they had written, I saw the title and thought it looked like something basic. I looked at the bibliography. It was only three pages.

Great.

So I pick it up. There is one chapter dedicated to science apologetics. I really don’t know much about what to say with that. I have a stance that I stay out of science debates like that. I don’t know enough to recognize nonsense from accuracy. I think science is fascinating, but I can’t argue one side anyway.

But that’s the only kind of chapter like that. The rest of the book starts getting fascinating as Hugh Ross talks so much about how he came to believe in Christianity. It’s a fascinating autobiographical look at things. I count Dr. Ross a dear friend of mine and I knew some of it, but a lot I didn’t know and it was amazing stuff.

Did I agree with all of it? No. Ross makes a lot about Israel being founded in 1948 and that as a fulfillment of Biblical prophecy. As an orthodox Preterist, I don’t agree, but the great thing about Ross is I know he wouldn’t have any problem with that.  If you want to work with Reasons To Believe, you’re actually required to have something that you disagree with Ross on.

Yet the story just gets fascinating to see Ross describe growing up and his life on the autism spectrum, something I relate to as one on the spectrum as well. Ross talks about problems in school and the care that he got from one special teacher. Teachers. Please never underestimate the influence that you could have on one student.

Ross also talks about the influence of Kathy on his life after he met her. At this point, as one who knows Ross’s story with her, I would have liked to have heard more. He talks about her showing up at a Bible Study he was at and then sometime later on, we hear that he’s her bride. Whoa! How did we get to that point so quickly? I would have liked to have read more how the romance developed. This could be especially helpful for people on the spectrum who are waiting to get married.

Ross goes throughout the book then talking about ministry opportunities that have come up in his life in working with the church and the launching of Reasons To Believe. Ross has it apparently that he gets into encounters all the time where he gets to share the gospel. I found this to be exciting reading.

That means that in the end, this could very well be my favorite book that I’ve ever read by Ross. It left me wanting those own opportunities to come and watching the world around me for when they could show up. It’s my sincere prayer that they will.

If you’re wanting to get a book that will equip you to go out there and have the best answers to deal with those who contradict the faith, this isn’t the book for you. If you want a book that can help discuss how to approach people better and give the Gospel, especially in a church setting, and examples of ways you can use apologetics in evangelism, this is the book for you. Veteran apologists will not likely learn much in the area of apologetics knowledge, but hopefully, they will gain a desire to interact more.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Why I Don’t Debate Evolution

Is it wise to take up every battle? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Sometimes I get asked why I don’t debate evolution. Do I just accept the reigning paradigm and that’s it? It’s a good question and one that deserves an answer.

Let’s start with something. I don’t accept purely naturalistic evolution. That is the idea that there is no God and all that we see came about by chance. I find that position untenable. Fortunately, that is not a scientific position. That is philosophical since science cannot prove or disprove naturalism.

I can also read books written by evolutionists and see criticisms that I think are good criticisms of the theory. However, in light of all of this, I realize that I am a novice in the area and do not know how to debate the topic. I do not understand the terminology that is used and if I was pressed, I could say nothing more on the issues than what I read.

That last part is an exception. If you’re a Christian who reads science and wants to do this, then I have no real problem. I simply ask that you make your argument scientific. It should never be the Bible vs. science. If we do that with our unbelieving friends, then we know which way they will go.

One aspect that brought the problem of this home to me was reading the New Atheists. Just look at the arguments they make against God and Christianity. Now there are informed atheists who can make good arguments. The New Atheists were not those atheists. Those arguments sounded convincing to other atheists who did not study the issues. As someone who does study them, I saw them as embarrassing.

What if I was doing the same?

It was worse that by arguing science I did not understand, I was embarrassing myself. I was also embarrassing Christianity. I was giving the impression that being a Christian would mean that I knew everything and I would believe it even if my opinion was uninformed.

Hence, I came to do some more study. I also decided that my theistic arguments didn’t need to be built on grounds other than science. That’s fine. After all, science is not the final arbiter on if God exists or not or if miracles are true or not. I find the five ways of Aquinas do that for me.

I also have an interpretation of Genesis that doesn’t rely on science as well, which is that of John Walton. I think we in a scientific culture have too often assumed the Bible is speaking science because that is our culture, not realizing that it was not their culture. We need to try to understand the text the way that they would.

Again, I am not saying that you cannot debate evolution. If you are a scientist and can make the case, then by all means go for it. Maybe you’re right. I don’t know. I just know that I don’t want to go against a reigning paradigm in an area I am ignorant of, much like mythicists go after the reigning paradigm of history in an area they’re ignorant of. If you’re not trained in science, I invite you to join me on that. You don’t have to debate everything.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Book Plunge: What Is Man?

What do I think of Edgar Andrews’s book published by Elm Hill Publishing? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

I want to thank Edgar Andrews for sending me a copy of his book for a review. I am not a scientist, but I like to try to read books when they’re sent my way. I don’t always manage to, but I want to try. Still, it can be difficult for me to read scientific books because there’s so much terminology I’m not familiar with it and that has to be tied in with other terminology I’m not familiar with.

Andrews does take an approach many conservative Christians take which is to argue against evolution. Now as a non-scientist, I can look and think that that looks like a good point, but the reality is I just don’t know. I’m not a specialist in the field and I could show such to a friend who’s an evolutionary creationist and he could tell me various problems with it.

So can I really comment? Not at all. Andrews could be right. He could be talking nonsense. I really don’t know. I am skeptical since evolution does seem to be the reigning paradigm and not just with atheists but with a number of devout Christians as well.

So what can I comment on? I can comment on the Biblical data. When we get to the image of God, Andrews looks at the work of J.P. Moreland. Moreland is a great philosopher, but that is no reason to think he’s an Old Testament scholar. Andrews doesn’t think there’s much to the representational view, but based on the work of John Walton, I happen to think that it is the most persuasive view.

Andrews also says that when the New Testament says that God is love, it could also be taken to say Love is God. I have to disagree with this entirely. This is a great error I think of our age. Love does not have the nature of God. God has the nature of love. The two are not interchangeable. Love has often been a great idol of our day. To be fair, Andrews does say it can only be understood in reference to the character of God, but even then I disagree. God is necessary ontologically for us to love, but epistemologically we can know what love is without knowing who God is.

When we get to Jesus, I can’t say I necessarily support the use of prophecy. It is doable, but it takes some special skill to do it in our day and age. Andrews goes to a passage like Daniel 9:24-27. This is an excellent passage and I think fulfills Jesus down to the last detail and in precise manner, but sadly, it is also one of the most debated passages in the Old Testament. Unless you are skilled in this kind of argument, you are likely to be destroyed in the argument.

I also wish there would have been more interaction with scholars on the resurrection of Jesus. More of Habermas and Licona would have been good. Perhaps Andrews should co-write with another and he does chapters on science and a historian does the chapters on the New Testament?

So in the end, there could be a lot of good stuff on science, but I just don’t know. I appreciate the passion and zeal Andrews has for Jesus, but I don’t think the arguments in the Bible section are the best. I agree with Andrews’s conclusion on what man is, but I don’t know enough to evaluate the arguments.

In Christ,
Nick Peters