"Because that which is known of God is manifest among them, for God did manifest it to them, for the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world, by the things made being understood, are plainly seen, both His eternal power and Godhead -- to their being inexcusable" -Romans 1:19-20
Atheists often appeal to science in a fruitless attempt to support their position of non-belief in a supernatural Creator. For the typical atheist, science becomes either a shield or a sword used to ward off any talk of Christianity or a Creator. The average atheist’s understanding of science — its history, what it is, its philosophy and assumptions — is not any greater than that of the average Christian.
Atheists frequently try to pass off science as a being higher form of common sense. If you do not agree with an atheist on matters of religion, you will be treated as one who denies basic common sense. If you claim to believe in God, according to an atheist, you might as well be claiming to believe in Santa or the Easter Bunny. Atheists whose knowledge of science is limited have no real argument against the existence of God, so they resort to calling their own belief “science” and accusing you of being against science and knowledge.
Atheists know that science is a popular and well-received concept in the Western world. The quickest and easiest way to paint Christians in a bad light is to claim that one of the foundational tenets of Christianity — the existence of God — is anti-scientific. In reality, the atheists who do understand science know and readily admit that science is not in any way antithetical to or even incompatible with the existence of a supernatural Creator.
But Atheists call themselves atheists for a reason. They are self-defined primarily by their believe that God does not exist. Think about how ridiculous this is for a minute.
You don’t believe in Santa Claus. But you don’t call yourself an “a-Clausist”
You don’t believe in the Tooth Fairy. But you don’t call yourself an “a-Toothfairiest”
You don’t believe in space aliens (hopefully). But you don’t call yourself an “aextraterrestrialist”
Why then do atheists define themselves primarily by what they don’t believe in?
It is because they hate the God they don’t believe in.
Belief is a choice. Atheists can and do choose not to believe in God. That, however, doesn’t change the fact that they know He is real, and will hold them accountable.
When someone refuses to acknowledge reality, we sometimes call them stupid. When someone builds a false reality to replace actual reality, we call them psychotic. This is not to say that all atheists are psychotic, but to demonstrate that it is possible to purposely reject reality and replace it with one’s own version.
Atheists own words bear out the fact that they not only reject God, they actually hate Him. Some atheists say that they cannot prove that God doesn’t exist, and then in the same breath boldly assert that God is purely imaginary. If they were truly being objective, scientific, rational, and intellectually honest, they would not make statements asserting or implying that God does not exist.
But I rarely find an atheist that can resist making broad-sweeping claims about Christianity and people who believe in a Creator God. This proves to me that atheists are what the Bible calls them, “fools” (Psalm 14:1).
The rejection of God — and ultimately the rejection of many aspects of reality — has far-reaching consequences, namely into the realm of science. Most scientists are atheists. Atheists often cite this in hopes of getting others to conclude that atheism is scientific. Of course, there was a time when most scientists thought smoking was healthy. Drawing a conclusion about God based on who doesn’t believe in Him is irrational and illogical.
Most atheists I have encountered do not demonstrate a deep desire to understand and learn about science unless they believe it will soothe and support their beliefs. It is not at all uncommon for atheists to cite outdated scientific material and purposely ignore more recent peer-reviewed scientific articles that do not support their beliefs.
Let me give an example. Some atheists have mocked and ridiculed the Bible’s chronology that places dinosaurs and humans together in history. Several years ago, fossils were found containing actual soft-tissue from a dinosaur, which could not have survived for millions of yars. Atheists quickly poo-pooed the discovery as being nothing more than bacterial contamination, or biofilm. All the atheists I am aware of either jumped on the bandwagon and happily swallowed the “biofilm” excuse, or they remained dead silent.
Fast-forward to 2011. More fossils containing soft-tissue were analyzed and conclusively proven to contain a very unique type of soft-tissue called collagen. Collagen, unlike “biofilm” or bacterial contamination, has a very elaborate structure and looks nothing like anything bacterial contamination could have produced. Collagen cannot survive for more than about 10,000 years, and even if it’s frozen (which it does not appear to have been), it cannot survive for more than 100,000 years. The evidence continues to support the Biblical chronology.
We shouldn’t be surprised, however, that atheists are trying to think of ways to convince themselves that the collagen could have survived and maintained its elaborate structure for 68 million years.
The rejection of a supernatural Creator has far-reaching consequences. Modern science — which gave us life-saving medicine, nutrition, sanitation, and luxury — was largely birthed by Christians like Galileo, Isaac Newton, and Michael Faraday, who were trying to learn more about God by studying the universe He created.
Atheists can do good science. But many of the atheistic scientists are leaning toward some very bizarre theories including time-travel and other dimensions to support their rejection of God. Their personal beliefs are clouding their judgment and consequently the state of science is suffering. As is often the case, the truth is the exact opposite of what most people think.
The real enemy of science is not Christianity, it is the rejection of our Creator and Lord, Jesus Christ.
You cannot be “good without God.” If there is no God, there is no such thing as good. There is only opinion. One person’s opinion may be that murder is wrong, another person’s opinion may be that murder is right. Without God, there is no absolute morality, and no grounds to condemn anyone — including Christians.
There is more than ample evidence all around us and within us — physics, psychology, biology, cosmology, astronomy, mathematics, medicine (just to name a few) — that the universe was created supernaturally.
Atheists often try to lay the burden of proof upon those who believe in God to prove that He exists. I am more than happy to present the evidence for a supernatural Creator. I have noticed, however, that most atheists simply reject the evidence out of sheer desire to disbelieve. Their rejection does not change the fact that the evidence has been presented, continues to be presented daily, and is more than ample.
The burden of proof is now on atheists to prove that God does not exist. Therefore I am issuing a challenge to all atheists:
Present your best argument for the non-existence of a supernatural Creator.
Here are the rules:
1. You may not use any religious text or religious references (e.g. citing the Bible)
2. You may not make any hypothetical assumptions about another person’s beliefs
3. You may not use purely theoretical (i.e. unproven or purely speculative) alternative explanations (e.g. the Big Bang Singularity)
4. You may not make assumptions about the nature, actions, or decisions of a supernatural Creator (e.g. asserting that if a Creator existed, x would not happen)
“By denying scientific principles, one may maintain any paradox.” -Galileo
It is rare to hear the merits of evolution discussed outside the context of a heated religious or political debate. Usually, religion and politics are the only contexts in which the theory of evolution ever seems to have any relevance to the average person. Consequently, discussion of evolution often quickly degenerates into something resembling a shouting match over whose sports team is better. The subject itself is tossed aside and replaced with an “us vs. them” dichotomy — “red vs. blue,” “paper vs. plastic, “black vs. white,” etc. Unfortunately, the actual merits of the theory of evolution itself are almost never discussed among the average person.
We can be all the more thankful, then, for science. “Science” is a term that get thrown around a lot, for better or worse. It’s a word that has been used in debates as tactic to squelch one’s opponent, and it’s a word that has been used to bring clarity and methodology into a chaotic situation. But what is it exactly? Reference.com gives one definition of science as follows:
“systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.”
I believe this is a simple, yet very useful definition of science. Now before you lets your eyes slide down the page, skimming past the next few paragraphs, please bear with me as we break down this definition and appreciate the importance of it:
The first thing you mat notice is that the definition limits science to “the physical or material world.” This understanding of science is often called “methodological materialism” or “methodological naturalism.” This restriction means that science per se does not concern itself with knowledge about anything outside of the physical or material world. Often, people will incorrectly say that science “disproves” the existence of anything outside of the physical or material world. This is a common, but incorrect misconception. Science is simply silent when it comes to matters outside the physical or material world. (But, as we will see, silence can sometimes be louder than words.)
The next part of the definition we’ll focus on is no less important: “observation and experimentation.” Note that it is not one or the other. Both observation and experimentation are required for science. This point will become especially crucial as we look at the theory of evolution. So what constitutes observation and experimentation?
Observation and experimentation are two sides of the same coin. Observation is simply the act of observing, which is something you do every day. One can observe landmarks, tree rings, birds, hurricanes, ping-pong, or an almost infinite number of things. There are also different ways to observe. One can observe something directly, via the senses of taste, touch, smell, hearing, and sight, or using a measuring device such as a thermometer or EKG machine. If it’s not possible to observe something directly, such as the chemical composition of a distant star, one can sometimes instead observe other things that are related and make inferences based on those direct observations.
Experimentation is the other side of the science coin. Up until now we’ve looked at science as a body of knowledge, not as something you do. But in order to compile a body of knowledge about the material world, we sometimes have to get creative and make things happen so that we have something to observe. Or we may observe a phenomenon in nature, venture a guess as to the cause of that phenomenon, and want to test to see if our guess is correct. Experiments allow one to test a guess (or a hypothesis) and determine whether it is valid or even falsifiable. (Falsifiable means that a statement can be tested and found to be either true or false. “It is raining outside” is falsifiable. But “invisible fish are swimming inside Mars” is not falsifiable because it can’t be tested)
So now that we’ve gone over the definition of science, let’s look at the practical aspect of it. There seems to be an unfortunate conception of science as a rigid, cold, one-size-fits-all approach. Scientists are often portrayed as always being in agreement about almost everything. We’re often led to believe that scientists are purely driven by facts and data, and that there are no major controversies within the scientific community. If any of this sounds familiar, then it may come as a shock to learn that almost all major scientific revolutions have been the direct result of controversy within the scientific community. Said differently, a break from the status quo.
If this seems strange, consider one of Albert Einstein’s famous quotes:
“Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.”
Knowledge is easy. Science either knows something or it doesn’t. So what happens when science is trying to discover some new knowledge that it doesn’t yet know? Scientists have to look beyond their own facts and knowledge, and begin to think imaginatively. And this works fine, if there is only one scientist. But when many scientists try to work together imagining new possibilities and theories and experiments, there is bound to be much disagreement and controversy. One scientists may imagine an infinite, eternal universe. Another scientist might imagine an infinitely dense particle that expanded to create the universe. Another might imagine multiple universes connected to each other through wormholes.
When it comes to pushing the boundaries of science, scientists must engage in what some would consider “magical” or “supernatural” thinking about things which simply cannot be tested. This is a hard fact to swallow, especially if you have heretofore thought of science as always being unshakable, dispassionate, and reliable. And usually it is. But when it comes to moving beyond our current boundaries of knowledge, not so much.
Now that we have a pretty good understanding of science, both what it’s supposed to be and what it actually is, let’s go to evolution.
First, we have to correctly define evolution. I estimate that about 80% of all debates on evolution would not ever occur if both sides were using the correct definition. Most of the time, evolution is not defined in debates or even discussions. Instead, a very simplistic and incomplete definition of evolution is assumed. You’ll understand why when you read the real definition of evolution:
The theory of evolution states that all life on earth descended from a common ancestor by means of genetic mutation and natural selection.
Compared to our earlier definition of “science” the definition of evolution seems rather complex and even vague. Let’s break the definition down to fully understand evolution.
The first part of the definition says, “all life on earth descended from a common ancestor”
One of the most common misconceptions about evolution is that it is a theory of how life began. But looking at the definition, evolution assumes a single life, but says nothing about how it was created. It is a mistake to think that evolution explains the origin of life itself. The theory of evolution does not even attempt to explain life, nor do any of the processes necessary for evolution even have the ability to create life. The theory of evolution begins with an undefined life form that has the ability to reproduce. Evolution does not tell us, nor does it even attempt to tell us, what that first life was. Evolution only claims that all life now on earth descended from it. This is a simple concept, but it is the one that seems to be most forgotten. The idea of common ancestry is absolutely required for the theory of evolution. Any definition of evolution that does not include it is a false definition. Remember that.
The next part of the definition says: “by means of genetic mutation”
This part of the definition is deceivingly simple. Simply put, whenever an organism reproduces, it is passing along some of its genetic information to its offspring. This genetic information contains the instructions to build the new offspring. But during the process of reproduction, things can go wrong. A beam of radiation can modify a portion of a gene. Excessive heat could destroy a protein. Anything that goes wrong during the process of this genetic information transfer and decoding for the new offspring is called a genetic mutation.
I say that this is deceivingly simple because it is the core process required for evolution to ever occur. For evolution to work, genetic mutations must occur over and over again. It is not sufficient to have one genetic mutation that gets passed on to offspring. Genetic mutations must be continually occurring, or else evolution cannot happen. This point is crucial.
A genetic mutation is usually a bad thing in the sense that it harms the offspring. A genetic mutation can render the offspring more prone to disease, or unable to reproduce, or unable to fly, or swim, or jump. We are more aware of severe genetic mutations that cause birth defects in humans — a cleft palette, a clubbed foot, cerebral palsy. It is possible, however, for some genetic mutations to potentially be beneficial. Some genetic mutations can make a plant more resistant to a particular pest. Other mutations can make bacteria resistant to certain antibiotics. Such genetic mutations are rare, but they do exist.
Genetic mutations result in slight variations in the offspring. Most of these variations are harmful, many are neutral, and some are beneficial. According to the theory of evolution, these changes accumulated over time. This is a somewhat difficult concept to grasp because of the sheer number of offspring we’re trying to think about at one time.
So let me give you an example: A particular fish has a fin. One of its offspring has a genetic mutation that causes its fin to be slightly more pointed and thicker. Then that offspring’s offspring has a fish that also has a genetic mutation that causes its fin to be even more pointed and thicker still. its offspring has a genetic mutation that causes its fin to be slightly more pointed. Then that offspring’s offspring’s offspring has a fish that also has a genetic mutation that causes its fin to be even more pointed and yet thicker still. And so on, over and over, until the fin no longer looks like a fin, but a leg.
This example probably raises more questions than it answers, including: Why were the mutations all the same? Why weren’t there other mutations that harmed the offspring? Why didn’t another genetic mutation occur to reverse the first mutation?
Hopefully you’re staring to realize that at least this portion of the theory is unfalsifiable. There is just no way to test whether genetic mutations accumulated and led to the variety of life on Earth today. Remember from our earlier definition of science that science requires observation and experimentation. The genetic mutations claimed by the theory of evolution have not been observed, and we cannot devise an experiment to test whether it is possible for accumulated genetic changes to give rise to the variety of life on Earth today.
Science does permit us to make indirect observations. Proponents of evolution state that genetic similarities common to all life on earth are indirect evidence of common ancestry. But this is circular reasoning, and science does not permit this. Common ancestry by way of genetic mutations is the point that evolution seeks to prove. Genetic similarities are already assumed by the theory of common ancestry, and therefore may not be used as evidence for the theory. Common ancestry correctly predicts genetic similarities, but being correct about the outcome of a process is not the same as being correct about the process itself. It is unscientific and sloppy to assume that a theory is correct just because it correctly predicts an outcome. Therefore, the portion of the theory of evolution regarding common descent via genetic mutation is patently and irrefutably unscientific.
Now let’s go to the final piece of the definition: “natural selection”
Natural Selection is one of the most commonly known elements of the theory of evolution. Unfortunately, it is also one of the most misunderstood and overcomplicated elements. Natural selection is simply the name given to the fact that organisms which have traits that help them reproduce will be more likely to pass their genes onto their offspring. An organism that has a genetic mutation that prevents it from reproducing will obviously not pass its genes onto anyone. An organism that has a genetic mutation that allows it to escape predators will be more likely to survive and reproduce, passing along its genes to its offspring.
The theory of evolution, as a whole, is unfalsifiable. The theory cannot be tested, and the process evolution has not ever been observed. Therefore, the theory of evolution is not scientific.
Once you wrap your mind around what evolution actually is, the fact that it lacks scientific rigor becomes very apparent. The challenge is not in debating evolution, but in educating society about what evolution really is. Those who truly understand the theory do not remain neutral or uncertain on it. They either choose to believe it without appropriate scientific evidence, or they reject it.
I hope this post has encouraged you to approach science with a sense of healthy skepticism, wonder, and learning.
You may have seen the poster from The Reason Project that lists 439 supposed contradictions in the Bible. The poster gives a short sentence fragment or question about the alleged contradiction, then lists the Scripture references that are supposedly contradictory.
Whenever someone presents me with this poster, I ask them to select the five contradictions they think are the most powerful so that I can address them individually.
You probably wouldn’t be surprised to learn that no one has selected even one. I suspect it’s because they have not even looked at any of the “contradictions” for themselves.
Rather than let this poster pollute the Internet unanswered, I had my computer randomly select five of the alleged contradictions: 384, 350, 303, 222, and 193.
Alleged Contradiction #384: How Did Jesus Cure The Blind Man? (Mark 8:22-25; John 9:1-6)
Rebuttal: There was no “the blind man.” There were two! It is obvious and transparent from a cursory reading of the two passages that they are two different accounts of two different events. Even the Scriptures indicate the events happened in two separate places (Bethsaida vs. somewhere near the Mount of Olives)
Alleged Contradiction #350: Did Sarah Have Faith That She Would Conceive? (Hebrews 11:11; Genesis 18:10-15)
Rebuttal: If you read the passages together, you may wonder where the contradiction is. Clearly, Sarah was incredulous about the Lord’s promise that she would conceive in her old age. But yet, she still had faith despite her initial surprise. There is no more a contradiction here than there would be if you said, “At first I was surprised, then I wasn’t.”
Alleged Contradiction #303: How Many Overseers Did Solomon Have? (1 Kings 5:16; 2 Chronicles 2:18)
Rebuttal: This imaginary contradiction is the result of not reading both passages carefully. Both passages give an account of King Solomon’s work in building the Lord’s temple. But 1 Kings 5:16 says:
Beside the chief of Solomon’s officers which were over the work, three thousand and three hundred, which ruled over the people that wrought in the work.
while 2 Chronicles 2:18 says:
He assigned 70,000 of them to be carriers and 80,000 to be stonecutters in the hills, with 3,600 foremen over them to keep the people working.
The first passage makes it explicitly clear that the 3,300 number excludes some people. Obviously, there’s no contradiction here.
Alleged Contradiction #222: How Many Were In Jacob’s Family When They Came Into Egypt? (Genesis 46:27; Acts 7:14)
Rebuttal: This one is downright disingenuous because it excludes the very verse which make it obvious that there is no contradiction. That verse is Genesis 46:26:
All the souls that came with Jacob into Egypt, which came out of his loins, besides Jacob’s sons’ wives, all the souls were threescore and six (66)
Genesis 46:27 continues:
And the sons of Joseph, which were born him in Egypt, were two souls: all the souls of the house of Jacob, which came into Egypt, were threescore and ten (70)
Acts 7:14 later recounts Jacob’s journey to Egypt:
Then sent Joseph, and called his father Jacob to him, and all his kindred, threescore and fifteen souls. (75)
These three verses describe three overlapping groups:
Jacob’s direct descendents: 66
Jacob’s descendents and their spouses: 70
Jacob’s entire family: 75
Like a miracle, the contradiction has disappeared! Oh, wait, atheists don’t believe in miracles. Like transitional fossils, the contradiction has disappeared!
Alleged Contradiction #193: Should We Follow Our Own Hearts? (Ecclesiastes 11:9; Numbers 15:39)
Rebuttal: These passages do not contradict each other. In fact, they say the same thing, just in a slightly different way. In Ecclesiastes, Solomon sarcastically says
Rejoice, O young man, in thy youth; and let thy heart cheer thee in the days of thy youth, and walk in the ways of thine heart, and in the sight of thine eyes…
Then he follows it up with a stern warning:
but know thou, that for all these things God will bring thee into judgment
Numbers 15:39b gives the same advice, sans sarcasm:
seek not after your own heart and your own eyes, after which ye use to go a whoring
It makes one wonder whether the people who came up with these imaginary contradictions ever use sarcasm themselves.
Are there any others you’d like to see covered? Reblog this post with the number(s) and I’ll do my best!
In January 2009, Nature Magazine produced an evolutionist evangelism tract called “15 Evolutionary Gems” to help their faithful “spread the word” of evolution as an “established fact”1. Since this was compiled by their own papers published over 10 years, it no doubt should serve as their best evidence for the theory. Hence it warrants a closer look from those of us who believe evolution does not qualify as a theory and is at best a low-grade hypothesis.
I have a few general observations about the tract before addressing each one individually. First, the mere mention of fifteen lines of evidence gives the illusion of support by overwhelming numbers, a sort of pseudo “elephant hurling”. Yet 12 of the 15 “gems” refer to small scale change, or variability within a kind of animal that everyone agrees occurs. Evolutionists coined the phrase “micro-evolution” to give the illusion that such small-scale change somehow supports the theory of evolution. This is a well-known and oft-used equivocation by evolutionists. The problem lies in the fact that evolutionists have no evidence small-scale change can produce large-scale change such as new organs, scales turning into feathers, etc. See my article “The Evolution Definition Shell Game”.2
Now on to the list of evolutionary “gems”:
1. Land-living Ancestors of Whales
God has a sense of humor. Since marine life is naturally found at the base of the fossil record, it was surely one of the main factors that pushed naturalists to assume terrestrial life evolved from aquatic life. However, if mammals evolved from marine life, what in the world is a mammal as complex as the whale doing in the water? This forced naturalists into the precarious position of having to explain why some mammals decided to venture back into the water!
Here the authors promote Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, and more recently Indohyus, as whale ancestors, mostly due to minor similarities in their ear and teeth with whales.
REFUTED: Using scant similarities as their best evidence of such an enormous transition from a mouse-deer to a whale, while ignoring vast differences such as the whales sonar and amazing buoyancy characteristics, is no more compelling than claiming the moon and cheese share a common source. Humans and whales show arguably greater similarity in brain anatomy3, so I suggest the evolutionists change their story to humans going back into the water to become whales (see the Incredible Mr. Limpet). Furthermore, Pakicetus, which was originally only“known from a skull”4 yet promoted as aquatic and adorned with lavish artistic imagery, was later classified as completely terrestrial after more fossil fragments were found. Ambulocetus enjoyed similar fragment-to-fairytale artistic liberties, including renderings of fins and webs between toes, despite the fossils clearly showing limbs and web-less feet5.
2. From Water to Land
This “gem” largely promotes the evolutionist darling Tiktaalik as “an aquatic predator with distinct similarities to tetrapods”.
REFUTED:One year after this evolutionist evangelism tract, footprints were discovered in “older” rock strata, causing one evolutionist scientist to admit “We thought we’d pinned down the origin of limbed tetrapods…We have to rethink the whole thing.”6 Oops. Another alleged “missing link” goes missing again! Tiktaalik is simply another extinct fish.
3. Feathered Dinosaurs
In an attempt to promote their idea that dinosaurs evolved into birds, evolutionists have been pushing a few fossil birds as intermediates on their way to full bird-hood. Here the authors push the evo-darling Archaeopteryx and newcomer Epidexipteryx.
REFUTED: Epidexipteryx shows characteristics of a secondarily flightless bird, and ultimately only speculation turns it into a feathery dino7. Evolutionists also place it before Archaeopteryx out of sheer convenience with no evidence8. Why? Because evolutionists know Archaeopteryx had fully developed feathers for flight, which would undermine their claim that Epidexipteryx had “primitive feathers”, and subsequently the flimsy evolutionary timeline they are trying to sell. Finally, if the evidence is so convincing, why is it easy to find bird experts, themselves evolutionists, who dispute these claims? Leading expert Alan Feduccia wrote: “Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it’s not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of ‘paleobabble’ is going to change that.”9 An evolutionist once quipped regarding another feathery claim: “You have to put this into perspective. To the people who wrote the paper, the chicken would be a feathered dinosaur.”10
4. The Evolutionary History of Teeth
This portion of the tract simply lauds the “mechanisms behind the relative size and number of molar teeth in mice”.
REFUTED: This is a classic example of small-scale adaptation, and has nothing to do with evolution. Mice having different sized teeth based on ecological pressures is a strong indication of design. The information is already present in the genome and isn’t generated by random mistakes in the DNA, as evolution demands.11 Bottom line - the mice are still mice!
5. The Origin of the vertebrate skeleton
REFUTED: This argument never provides any reason why it supports evolutionary theory, it instead shows incredible design through programming (information) in how the head and neck structure begin during embryonic development.
6. Natural Selection in Speciation
Here we are provided an example of stickleback fish with different body sizes!
REFUTED: Are St. Bernards evolved from Chihuahuas? This is yet another case of small-scale adaptation. The stickleback fish are still stickleback fish!
7. Natural Selection in Lizards
REFUTED: Yet another example of small-scale adaptation. The adapation happens too rapidly to be anything more than “micro-evolution”.
8. Co-evolution
The tract provides an example of an “arms race” between water fleas and the parasites that infest them. As the water fleas become better at evading parasitism, the parasites become better at infecting them.
REFUTED: The water fleas are still water fleas, and the parasites are still parasites! The authors also unwittingly admit “the parasite adapted to its host over a period of only a few years.” It is not mathematically possible for this rapid change to be due to random mutation, so it is not evolution!11They quote the Red Queen in Alice in Wonderland’s Through the Looking Glass, “it takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place. If you want to get somewhere else, you must run at least twice as fast as that!” Well, the Red Queen also said: “sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.”. The Red Queen must have been an evolutionist.
9. Differential dispersal in wild birds
REFUTED: This is another example of adaptation. In fact, they provide creationist evidence for rapid speciation after the flood: “The effect is reinforced by non-random dispersal; individual birds select and breed in different habitats in a way that increases their fitness.” The authors conclude that “when gene flow is not homogeneous, evolutionary differentiation can be rapid and can occur over surprisingly small spatial scales”. They forget that these non-random changes have nothing to do with evolution11.
10. Selective Survival of Wild Guppies
They mention that less common guppies of a certain color had higher survival rates.
REFUTED: No evidence is presented that the “favored” guppy had an increase in genetic information, or that the color mutation was random as the neo-Darwinian theory requires11.
11. Evolutionary History Matters
The argument goes that the moray eel “evolved” the ability to suck down prey: “Rather than prey coming to the pharyngeal jaws, the pharyngeal jaws move forwards into the mouth cavity, trapping the prey and dragging it backwards…. This study demonstrates the contingent nature of evolution; as a process it does not have the luxury of ‘designing from scratch’…”
REFUTED: No reason is offered as to why this supports evolution! This is instead another powerful example of design that cannot be explained by random mutation.
12. Darwin’s Galapagos finches
Here they champion the genes that are switched on during development that provide variation.
REFUTED: Yet another case of adapation. This is evidence of non-random mutation, which again is not part of the paradigm of evolution11. It shows diversity programmed into the finches by the Creator, and it also provides evidence of the ability for species to diverge and rapidly populate the earth after the flood.
13. Micro-evolution meets Macroevolution
The author provides an example of a gene producing two different functions, development in general, and pigmentation.
REFUTED: It’s remarkable the author would suggest this dual-capability of a gene is a product of mistakes in the DNA guided by a blind selection process. A gene that produces multiple outputs is a powerful argument against a naturalistic origin! Its shows incredible design.
14. Toxin Resistance in Snakes & Clams
The main argument is that garter snakes evolved resistance to Newt toxin, and a single mutation in the clam provided its new-found resistance.
REFUTED: This is yet another case of adaptation. No evidence is provided showing an increase in information. The clam mutation occurs far too often to be “random”, and hence is yet again evidence of adaptive capability programmed into the genome.
15. Variation versus Stability
The primary argument is that certain proteins under stress during development can rapidly produce a variety of change in fruit flies. They also mention that “genes hold variation in reserve that is released only when they are functionally compromised.”
REFUTED: The fruit fly has long been the geneticist’s darling because of its rapid reproductive cycle. Yet after scores of mutations, all we get are damaged fruit flies that can’t fly. None of the changes to the fruit fly were beneficial in any way. Many text books provide examples using fruit flies, boldly proclaiming that mutations are the driving force of evolution, yet invariably provide only examples of harmful mutations12. One of most harmful mutations that can occur to an organism would be to any of the developmental genes, especially hox genes. Regarding the genes ability to hold variation in reserve, we readily agree! This is useful genetic information, which shows design. No evidence, not one iota, is presented as to how this useful information itself originated.
Conclusion
If one were to compare this to a baseball game, the evolutionists came to bat with the best they had to offer, and were pitched a complete shutout. Not even a dribbler past the batter’s box made its way into the field of play. Eighty percent of their arguments were examples of adaptation that creationists have long embraced, even before Darwin13, that showed no evidence whatsoever of neo-Darwinian evolution. Of the remaining 20%, the fossil fragment stories do more than just show how speculative and subjective the claims are, more revealing is how mighty and bold they are claimed in the media, implicitly (and sometimes even explicitly) affirming they never had the missing link before! Remember when Ida was hailed as the “8th wonder of the world” and “unprecedented” in its stature as missing link, prompting David Attenborough to gleefully proclaim “The link… is no longer missing”, only to see their latest holy grail refuted by scores of scientists shortly thereafter?14 Since Darwin, the fossil record has become rich and well-catalogued, if not virtually complete, so by now we should expect to have good evidence of evolution instead of a handful of questionable claims desperately given headline news status.
Finally, conspicuous in its absence were the evolutionary icon “gems” such as homology, Lucy, Chimp/Human DNA similarity, vestigial organs, Junk DNA, etc. I guess they lost their luster over time, eroded by evidence and real science. To slightly modify the quote by the Red Queen in Alice in Wonderland, “Sometimes I’ve believed as many as fifteen impossible things before breakfast”.
Most of the sensitive or highly personal transactions you do on the Internet are encrypted to make them secure from eavesdropping. Your computer and the website you’re connecting to agree upon a secret “key” (also called a “cryptographic key”) to encrypt and decrypt the traffic going back and forth. This key is simply a string of data that looks like random gibberish.
Anyone who knows the key can decrypt and read your traffic, which might include bank account numbers, passwords, and social security numbers. If a bad guy guesses the key exactly, they can break the encryption and read your data. But he has to guess it exactly.
Most cryptographic keys in use today are quite long. The longer the key, the longer it takes to guess. Most secure websites today use keys so long that they would take about 147 trillion years to guess.
The Probability of Evolution: The Real Argument explains how the probability of Darwinian evolution having occurred is so low that it is mind-numbingly inconceivable. Even many evolutionists agree with this conclusion. And yet, they still believe in evolution.
What’s interesting, however, is that the probability of someone guessing a web site’s cryptographic key is much, much, much, MUCH greater than the probability that evolution occurred.
To give you an idea of the relative difference between the probabilities of evolution having occurred and a bad guy guessing the secret cryptographic key that you and a web site are using to exchange confidential information, let’s look at the numbers.
The probability of evolution having occurred in just the human genome alone is less than 1 in 2^135,000,000,000.
The probability of a bad guy guessing a normal-length 128-bit cryptographic key is only 1 in 2^128. And that would take 147 trillion years to guess even with a computer that tries 72 quadrillion different keys a second. This is 10,000 times longer than what Evolutionists claim the age of the universe to be!
One must then wonder: How can anyone who believes in evolution trust cryptography?
How can they possibly be assured that their personal or financial information will remain safe when the probability of it being stolen is so incredibly high compared to the probability of evolution?
What makes this even more mind-boggling is the fact that devices exist that can try billions of cryptographic keys per second. But, according to the theory of evolution, random mutations (i.e. “guesses”) can only occur when reproduction of an organism takes place. This means that evolution would have had to eventually make all the right “guesses” while working far slower and for a much shorter period of time.
Those who believe in evolution and still trust the concept of cryptography ostensibly believe that the rules of probability that apply to everything else except evolution.
Most atheists and many people who believe in God believe that all life on Earth today evolved from one organism hundreds of millions of years ago. This belief is usually referred to as “evolution.”
But what exactly is evolution, is it true, and why is it important?
Let’s start off with a definition. Evolution is the theory that all life on earth originated with a common ancestor, and evolved through random genetic mutations and natural selection. The key thing to remember about evolution is the idea of common ancestry.
The National Center for Science Education’s — one of the leading pro-evolutionist organizations in the U.S. — calls common ancestry “the core tenet of evolutionary theory—that all living things are genealogically related.” Always remember that common ancestry is the core belief of evolution.
When discussing or debating evolution, a proponent of evolution will often try to slyly change the definition. They will say something like, “Evolution is change.” This is bogus prima facie because if evolution meant “change” no one would use the word “evolution.” One is one syllable and the other is four syllables. Obviously, there is much more to the theory of evolution than just change.
What about the other two concepts of evolution — random genetic mutation and natural selection? Both of these processes are known to occur and have been observed.
We know that genes can become corrupted, and the information in those genes can be lost due to random mutations. These mutations could occur due to exposure to radioactivity, a chemical, or for an unknown reason.
Natural selection is a buzzword that pro-evolutionists often try to equate with the theory of evolution itself. Natural selection is the idea that an organism which reproduces will pass its genes onto its offspring, while an organism that is not able to reproduce will not. No, I’m not kidding. Natural selection is a tautology — a different way of saying something that has already been said or implied.
If you listen to biologists carefully, you’ll hear them say that something “selects for” a particular trait. What they mean is that a particular behavior or process helps to facilitate reproduction for organism’s that have that particular trait.
Here’s an example: A certain type of fish swims faster and is more adept at escaping prey than other fish. Since this fish is less likely to be eaten than other fish, he is more likely to reproduce than they are. This fish reproduces, and passes on his genes. Thus, we say that natural selection “selects for” this type of fish.
So how does natural selection and random mutation fit into the core tenet of the theory of evolution — common ancestry? It’s all about making a blind leap of faith.
Evolutionists believe that, starting with a single living organism, random genetic mutations conferred various traits to that organism. That organism reproduced, and those offspring reproduced, and so on. As the “family tree” grew, genetic mutations occurred in some of the organisms, resulting in billions of small changes (Darwin called them “gradations”) in those organisms. Evolutionists believe that those changes accumulated over time, and eventually led to the enormous variety of life we see today.
It’s important to remember that the theory of evolution starts with life and genetic information. It doesn’t attempt to explain the origin of the first living thing. It assumes it.
I said earlier that you should always remember that the idea of common ancestry is the core tenet of evolution. Why do I say this?
Because many, many people who believe in evolution do not know that common ancestry is at the heart of the theory.
The idea of common ancestry is counter-intuitive. In other words, it does not “feel” right. Consequently, even some people who claim to believe in evolution subconsciously reject common ancestry without realizing they are undermining their own belief!
But just because something is counter-intuitive doesn’t automatically make it untrue. So is evolution true? I will get there, but first there is another question to consider: Does it really matter if evolution is true or not?
I mentioned at the beginning that both atheists and theists believe in evolution. Even many Christians say that you can believe in the Bible and evolution. Christians who put forth this idea often say that Genesis can be taken figuratively, where a “day” can mean millions of years and the account of Creation can be taken as a metaphor for evolution.
Without reinventing the wheel and getting into an exegesis, let me assure you that the account of Creation is literal. A “day” means a literal, 24-hour day. The Genesis account of Creation is not a metaphor for evolution. (If you want an exegesis, read Douglas Hamp’s article)
More importantly, if Genesis cannot be taken literally, why should we take anything else in the Bible literally? This is the exact argument atheists use to discredit the Holy Scriptures. Atheists and sundry heathens are so desperate to promote evolution as “fact” because it single-handedly undermines the entire Bible and, by extension, the Gospel of Christ.
Now, it’s time to answer the final question: Is evolution a fact?
Earlier I said that the theory of evolution does not explain the origin of the first living organism. The theory assumes the first living organism already exists, along with DNA and the ability to reproduce. This concept is key to developing an argument to crush the theory.
There are two other key concepts you should understand: Genetics and probability. Don’t be intimidated by these because they are really actually very easy to understand.
Let’s start with genetics. Every living thing contains a set of instructions for how to carry out various tasks, like how to build a protein molecule. These instructions are stored on genes, and each “letter” of each instruction is called a base pair.
There are only two possible base pairs called AT and GC. This means that the instructions are written using a two-letter “alphabet.” (This is actually the same way computers store information.) An instruction for building a protein might be a few hundred base pairs long. There could also be base pairs (“letters”) that do not contain any instructions at all. And there could also yet be base pairs that, if you read them “left-to-right”, contain instructions for building one type of protein, but if you read them “right-to-left,” contain instructions for building a completely different type of protein! (Try doing that with instructions on paper!)
The next key concept is probability.
Probability is easiest to understand by giving an example. Since we just touched on genetics, we’ll use an example from that. Suppose you have two possible base pairs, AT and GC. If you randomly select one of them, the probability that you will select AT is 1 in 2, or 50%. Don’t worry if you don’t feel totally comfortable with probability yet. Once I get into the argument against evolution, it will make a lot more sense.
David H. Bailey, an evolutionist at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, and a Mormon, wrote a paper called “Evolution and Probability.” In it he cites an argument from David Foster’s book The Philosophical Scientists that claims that the probability of the alpha component of human hemoglobin evolving from random mutations is so low that it’s practically impossible (hemoglobin is the part of your blood that carries life-sustaining oxygen).
Bailey points out that Foster’s probability-based argument against evolution contains a very serious flaw. The flaw is the assumption is that the entire alpha component would have to be produced by a random process. Bailey says that the alpha component of human hemoglobin is identical to that of chimps, and almost identical to that of gorillas, and therefore would have had a very high probability of mutating into the alpha component seen in humans.
He writes:
In more distant vertebrate relatives, the alpha hemoglobin chain differs by 25 amino acids between humans and rabbits and by about 100 between humans and various fish species… Revising the probability calculations used by Hoyle and Wickramasinghe from this point of view — that only about 25 particular locations must be correct to enable the oxygen transport function…
The preceding quote is a great example of the logical fallacy of “begging the question” or assuming the premise as the conclusion! The probability figures Bailey calculated for the evolution of human alpha globin assume evolution! Bailey then uses these new figures to conclude that the probability of the alpha component arising from a random process is much greater than Foster claimed.
Well, Bailey and Foster are both wrong.
The production of the alpha component is not a random process. It is based on instructions contained in DNA! Evolutionists do not assume and do not argue that the alpha component was produced through a random chemical process.
What evolutionists do argue is that the DNA instructions required to make the alpha component are themselves the product of random mutation and natural selection.
Therefore, arguing that the alpha component can’t arise from a random process is the wrong argument!
Consider this question: Which is less likely, the random assembly of a Rolex watch, or the random assembly of instructions to build a Rolex watch?
The random assembly of instructions is less likely, simply because many more things have to “fall into place” for that to happen.
The same principle applies to the production of the alpha component. The generation of the instructions to build the alpha component by random assembly is far less likely than the alpha component just coming together by a random chemical process.
So the next question is: what is the probability of the instructions for the alpha component coming together by a random process?
To answer this, we need to understand a little bit about human hemoglobin synthesis. There are two important components of human hemoglobin: the alpha component and the beta component.
The alpha component is coded for by the HBA1 and HBA2 genes, and the beta component is coded for by the HBB gene. Here’s the thing: HBA1 and HBA2 are almost identical on the instructions that are vitally important (the portions that code for proteins). Therefore, we will throw out HBA1 and just focus on HBA2.
HBA2 contains about 605 base pairs that code for proteins. As a reminder, a base pair is one of two “letters”, either AT or GC. These are more base pairs on HBA2, but we only care about the ones that are really necessary. Why? Because we want to give the theory of evolution the best chance possible. We do not want to assume that every base pair is equally important. We just want to “count” the ones that we already know are necessary.
Now that we know the number of base pairs for HBA2, we can calculate the probability that those base pairs would arise by a random process. There are only two possible base pairs, and 605 places for each base pair. Thus, the probability of the DNA instructions for the important part of alpha globin arising naturally are 1 in 2^605 or 1 in 10^182 (that’s 10 raised to the 182nd power, or 10 with 182 zeros after it).
To give you an idea of how large a number that is, compare it to the number of atoms in the known universe: 10^80.
But we are not done yet.
For hemoglobin to be useful, we also need the beta globin component. Instructions for building beta globin are stored in the HBB gene which has 502 base pairs that code for proteins. The probability of the important base pairs in the HBB gene arising randomly are 1 in 2^502 or 1 in 10^151.
But what is the probability of both HBA2 and HBB’s important base pairs being produced by a random process? 1 in 2^1107 or 1 in 10^333.
But is 1 in 10^333 the same thing as impossible? Mathematically, no.
But alpha and beta globin are just a part of hemoglobin (not even the whole molecule). We still have to code for the tissues that make up blood vessels. And then there’s the other important components of blood.
Now, I need to address an objection that I know will come up. Some will say that I am selectively picking the hemoglobin example because it helps my argument. But which example I pick is completely irrelevant. The evolutionists themselves could pick the example, and it wouldn’t make a bit of difference. Why do I say this?
First, any example has to match the staring assumptions of evolution. It must have reproducing life and DNA (or RNA) with its base pairs. It must have random mutation. My hemoglobin example matches the starting assumptions of the theory of evolution, but anyone could pick a different example as long as it meets the above criteria.
Second, you’ll recall that the theory of evolution requires billions (at the very least) of small changes. The theory also requires a common ancestor with which these changes all started. No matter what example we use, we have to calculate its probability all the way back to the common ancestor in order to get an accurate picture of how likely it is that the theory is true.
So let’s be generous. Remember, we want to give evolution the best chance possible! We want to believe!
The average gene contains 1,350 base pairs. Let’s be very generous and say that only 1/10 of these base pairs are actually vital. That leaves us with 135 base pairs per gene on average. That gives us a probability of 1 in 2^135 or 1 in about 10^40 of any particular combination of base pairs occurring.
Let’s extend our generosity even further and say that evolution doesn’t need billions or even millions of small changes. Let’s say that only 1,000 changes have occurred overall. These ridiculously generous assumptions give the current theory of evolution a probability of 1 in 2^135,000 of having occurred.
If we wanted to be realistic, we would end up with something like 1 in 2^135,000,000,000. That’s 1 in 2 raised to the 135 billionth power! But, despite such inconceivably low probability, will an evolutionist concede that evolution did not happen?
Evolutionists tend to reject a probability-based argument on the grounds that improbable events happen all the time.
In his paper referenced above, Bailey included pictures of two beautifully unique snowflakes and said that the probability that one of them would form was an extremely improbable event, with a probability of 1 in 10^2500. He writes, “What are the chances that one of these structures can form ‘at random’?” And goes on to say that, despite such odds, a snowflake still formed. He concludes that, since snowflakes form all the time, despite such low probability, that a low probability of evolution does not discredit the theory.
The problem is that this is a Straw Man argument and a misrepresentation of what we are measuring the probability of.
What is the probability that a snowflake will form? Well, in a nice snowstorm, the probability is 1 in 1, or 100%. It is certain!
But what is the probability that one particular, unique snowflake will form? Very, very low.
Bailey’s Straw Man argument assumes that the probability of any snowflake forming is comparable to the probability of a correct alpha globin molecule forming! Obviously, it is not!
For hemoglobin to even function, a functional alpha globin molecule has to form. It can’t just be any old alpha globin molecule. But for a snowflake to be a snowflake, well, it just has to form.
If we were to fix his snowflake example to make it analogous to evolution, we might change the question to be: Given a sketch of a hypothetical snowflake, what is the probability of a real snowflake forming that will look exactly the same?
Evolutionists tend to be very, very bad at logic. It is not because they are incapable or even ignorant of it. Rather, it is because the assumption of evolution is so ingrained into the evolutionist’s thought processes that he usually doesn’t even realize he is assuming it.
This is why it is vitally important for us Bible-believing Creationists to remain alert to the assumption of evolution in the unbeliever’s thinking. It may seem obvious to say that an evolutionist believes in evolution, but the truth is that the evolutionist often bases his belief in evolution on the assumption of evolution! We must be ready and willing to point out such circular reasoning and correct it.
So, does the inconceivably low probability of evolution mean that it did not occur? Probability alone cannot tell us that. As long as there are unbelievers bent on rejecting God, there will be those who claim that evolution defied the odds.
A lot of Christians seem to be under the delusion that they are destined to lose any debate or argument they find themselves embroiled in.
They seem to think that unbelievers tend to be more educated, smarter, or just more skilled at debate than they are. Consequently, Christians quietly fear and oftentimes avoid getting into discussions with unbelievers because they think they’ll come out looking or feeling stupid.
Maybe you’ve found yourself in a conversation with, say, an atheist who made an objection and you had no good response. Or have you ever found yourself saying, “I’m not an expert on ________” as a way of avoiding an argument with a non-Christian?
If any of this sounds familiar, rest assured that by the time you’re done reading, you will feel like a huge weight has been lifted off your back.
The first thing you must understand is that, no matter what you may think of yourself, no matter what kind of grades you got in school, and no matter what job you work, you have the ability to think critically and logically about things. Not only do you have that ability, you are going to become quite good at it.
There is a myth out there that critical thinking is difficult or painful. That’s just not true. Thinking is easy and can even be pleasurable. Thinking is a lot like tying your shoes. When you were little and first learning how to lace your kicks, tying your shoes seemed like the hardest thing in the world. But once you got the hang of it, it became so easy you could do it in your sleep. That is what the practice of critical thinking will become like for you. God gave you the same brain He gave atheists and evolutionists, and He wants you to use it for His glory.
The second thing is that unbelievers — including atheists, evolutionists, homos, and run-of-the-mill heathens — are, on average, not any more intelligent or educated than anyone else.
Unbelievers who frequently argue with Christians tend to puff themselves up and try to sound educated. Access to the Internet and the phenomenon of the clipboard (from which computers get the copy-and-paste functionality) have made this deception even more widespread. My experience has taught me, however, that unbelievers who engage in knockdown-dragouts with Christians seem to be very unintelligent and ignorant of many of the topics they claim to be well-versed in. This becomes strikingly clear when I find myself simultaneously debating two or three at a time and finding it almost pathetically easy.
The third point to remember, and the one I will elaborate on here, is that unbelievers by-and-large have very poor critical thinking skills. They are ignorant of the fundamental rules of logic, and consequently jump to inane conclusions very often. By simply targeting such weaknesses in the unbeliever’s arguments, specifically those regarding atheism and evolution, you can win the debate. Of course, it’s not about winning a debate for your own glory. It’s about forcing the unbeliever to confront the truth and giving him an opportunity to humble himself and turn to the Lord.
And with that, let’s get started with the logical tools you will use most often in your witnessing to heathens.
There are five common logical mistakes unbelievers make when trying to defend their position of unbelief. They are called:
Straw Man
Begging the question
Bulverism
Appeal to authority
Ad hominem circumstantial
Straw Man
Has anyone ever put words in your mouth? Accused you of saying something you didn’t say? That’s basically what a Straw man is. The unbeliever falsely accuses you of believing something outrageous, goes on (often at great length) about how stupid “your” belief is, and then declares victory over you and “your” outrageous belief. The unbeliever is building up and then tearing down this “straw man.”
I almost always deal with Straw Man arguments by calling them out as such, and succinctly responding with an, “I didn’t say that” or “That’s not what I believe.”
Begging the question
I have always found this term to be strange and misleading. Basically, though, begging the question means “using the assumption as the conclusion.” It’s easiest to give an example:
Unbeliever: Carbon dating shows the juicyfruit fossil is over 45,000 years old
Christian: What is carbon dating based on?
Unbeliever: It’s based on the age of the fossil layer where the fossil was found
Christian: How do you know the age of the fossil layer?
Unbeliever: Carbon dating
Here’s another one:
Unbeliever: We know evolution is true because the order of creatures in the fossil record matches the order of evolution
Christian: How do you know the order of evolution?
Unbeliever: By looking at the fossil record
“Begging the question” is nothing more than circular reasoning. “It is so because it is so.” This one is very prevalent, but it is often not as obvious as the two examples above.
Oftentimes, such circular reasoning is nested two or three layers deep. If you suspect a heathen is begging the question, try this: write down each of his claims and his conclusion on a piece of paper, and draw an arrow from one to the next until you reach the conclusion. Does it form a circle? If it does, you’ve identified this logical fallacy.
Bulverism
“Bulverism” is a term coined by the late Christian author C.S. Lewis. It simply means to assume a person’s statement is wrong (rather than proving it wrong), and then to explain (usually in a very insulting manner) why the person believes it. Confused? Don’t get discouraged. Bulverism is a tricky concept to describe, so here is an example:
Christian: I believe the Bible is true
Unbeliever: The Bible is wrong. You only want to believe the Bible because you were taught it by your parents, and because you are superstitious and afraid.
And another:
Christian: I reject Darwinian evolution because it lacks supporting evidence.
Unbeliever: Evolution is fact. You deny evolution because it would mean your Bible and your creation story isn’t true.
Are bells going off in your head yet? Bulverism is quite possibly the most common logical fallacy Christians encounter with atheists and evolutionists. A side-effect of Bulverism is that the unbeliever will quite likely make assumptions about you and your past. I always deal with Bulverism by first correcting any false statements the unbeliever has made about me personally, and second by pointing out that the unbeliever has offered up no argument whatsoever. This often results in silence.
Appeal to Authority
When an unbeliever doesn’t have a good argument (which is common), he will often appeal to another person, group, or institution as “evidence” for his argument. Some examples:
Unbeliever: 97% of scientists are atheists
Unbeliever: Science says evolution is fact
Unbeliever: Steven Hawking says the universe made itself
A statement that appeals to authority may be correct, or it may just be complete nonsense. I usually don’t address the particular merits of the statement itself, but just respond with a simple, “So what?” However, if the statement is too ridiculous to ignore, I’ll point that out too and offer an explanation why it’s ridiculous.
Ad hominem circumstantial
This is the opposite of an Appeal to Authority. An Ad hominem circumstantial attack tries to discredit the source of an argument rather than the argument itself.
If you ever are talking with an unbeliever and mention a Creationist website, you likely have run into this logical fallacy.
Unbeliever: Steven Hawking is an atheist and he’s super duper smart
Christian: So what? Check out rudeministries.us and see if you can spot the logical fallacy you just committed
Unbeliever: rudeministries.us? HAHAHA that’s a Creationist site!
I typically avoid posting links to Christian sites when engaging in a debate with a heathen because they almost never actually bother to read and understand the contents. But if you do give an unbeliever such a link, it is nearly certain he will launch an Ad hominem circumstantial attack against the site, no matter how credible it may be.
So there you have it. Do not be afraid to engage with, debate with, and converse with any unbeliever. Simply being aware of and knowing how to deal with these logical fallacies will help you tremendously in every single encounter with an unbeliever. Above all, remember that the truth always wins. If you remain on the side of truth, you will win the argument every single time.
