The Big Bang and Friends of the World

Introduction- Big Bang Cosmology And The Christian

"Don’t you know that friendship with the world means enmity against God? Therefore, anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God."- James 4:4 NIV

James 4:4 warns Christians to not become a "friend of the world" because the world is God's enemy. What does that mean, though? The other day someone told me that I was in violation of that verse because I believed the "atheistic theory" of the big bang and used it as evidence that God exists. Did James mean to communicate that Christians cannot recognize when an unbeliever or group of unbelievers have a correct view of some aspect of reality? Or did he intend to communicate something else? Before I get to the specific accusation, let's examine what actually concerns James in his letter. 

Being The World's Friends and Enemies of God

When we read all of James' letter, we see the answer. Consider James 1:14-15:

"...each person is tempted when they are dragged away by their own evil desire and enticed. 15 Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death."- (NIV)

James is talking about having the same evil desires as the world- not necessarily believing the same way about some feature of reality. James is emphasizing that we must be committed to truth not feelings or desires. If an unbeliever believes something that is true about reality that we also believe is true about reality, James does not condemn our agreement. In fact, agreement about reality may be used as a springboard for evangelism (1 Peter 3:15) and bringing the unbeliever to Christ. Enemies of God do not intentionally point others to Christ. Enemies of God do not condemn evil desires. Condemning evil desires and pointing others to Christ are necessary steps in presenting the Gospel. Enemies of God have no such interest. 

It is not that having agreement with unbelievers regarding true beliefs about reality that makes us "friends of the world" in the sense that James is speaking. It is having agreement with them regarding sinful desires that makes us "friends of the world" and thus enemies of God. We certainly could allow our sinful desires to manipulate the truth into justifying sin (which will always be logically fallacious, by the way), but is that what has happened with Christians who have accepted big bang cosmology? 

Young-Earth Creationism and The Gospel of Jesus Christ

Introduction

As I have had conversations with both atheists and fellow believers regarding the origin of the universe, our planet, life, and ultimately, humans, one issue seems to baffle those on both sides about what I defend. I am not a naturalist; I am not an evolutionist; I am not even a theistic evolutionist, but I am also not a young-earth creationist. I am an old-earth creationist. This means that I accept that the universe is ancient (roughly 13.7 billion years old), yet I deny that the diversity of life is the product of the natural selection of countless mutations over time, descended from a universal common ancestor (altogether, "evolution"). I believe that God created some things from nothing (including the universe [and its laws], life, animals, and humans), and I believe He intricately and purposefully worked within the natural laws and processes, that He created from nothing, to make other things, particularly our planet.

Many atheists and fellow Christians (usually of the young-earth creationist position) insist that such a combination of beliefs is not logically consistent. This claim of inconsistency encourages the atheist to reject the truth of Christianity and the Christian to reject the truth revealed by God's creation. Consequently, when I say that I affirm big bang cosmology, many young-earth creationist Christians hear me say "I deny the truth of Christianity," and when I say that I am a Christian, many atheists hear me say, "I affirm young-earth creationism."

These atheists and young-earth creationists make the same mistake: they conflate young-earth creationism with Christianity. This conflation amounts to the belief that young-earth creationism is Christianity and Christianity is young-earth creationism. Today, I want to take some time to address this common conflation and demonstrate that this is not a logical reason for the atheist to reject Christ nor for the Christian to reject the truth revealed by God's creation.

Why Is This Conflation Important to Recognize and Reject?

It is important to recognize this conceptual and logical conflation and reject it. If we are to continue to commit this fallacy, then severe implications arise for both the atheist and for the Christian.

Implications for Atheists- If Christianity is true, then any belief that stands between an unbeliever and accepting that Christianity is true has severe implications on the unbeliever for all eternity. If they do not accept Christ's sacrifice for their sin, then they are doomed to eternal conscious separation from their only source of life and love: God. If you take the highest level and volume of suffering that this life has, it is nothing compared to this hell that will be consciously experienced by the unbeliever. This is why it is vital for the unbeliever to investigate not only the truth of reality but to ensure that the logic used to come to different conclusions (especially the one that states that Christianity is false) is valid.

Implications for Christians- Christianity is not just a worldview of private, personal worship, it is a worldview of evangelism. As Christians we not only do not want others to experience the hell described above, but we strongly desire that others experience the love and a personal relationship with the only God, who also knows what it is like to live the human struggle and love His image bearers enough to die a torturous death so we do not have to. It is our duty to the Creator of the universe to check our defense of the Christian worldview, to ensure that the unsaved have every intellectual stumbling block removed that we have the opportunity and power to remove (the Holy Spirit must remove the others). This means that we must ensure that the claims we make are true and that the logic we use is valid; otherwise, our effectiveness in evangelizing to scientifically-minded unbelievers will be greatly reduced. Mark Whorton, in his book "Peril in Paradise" (and paraphrasing Augustine of Hippo)*, explains this quite succinctly:

Now, because the unbeliever is responsible to make the choice to follow Christ or not to follow Christ, and many unbelievers use the mounds of evidence against a young universe to justify their rejection of Christ, my goal today is to show that the argument used to justify the idea that Christianity is false via the falsehood of young-earth creationism is unsound, thus the atheist cannot logically (but they can emotionally) use young-earth creationism to reject Christ.

What the Gospel Is and Is Not

To begin with, the Gospel is not big bang cosmology, and the Gospel is not young-earth creationism. According to the source of revelation of the Gospel (the Bible), the Gospel is the Resurrection of Jesus Christ (1 Cor. 15). If the atheist claims that young-earth creationism is the Gospel, they are guilty of the conflation and are erecting a strawman of the Christian worldview in order to easily knock it down and reject Christ. If the young-earth creationist claims that young-earth creationism is the Gospel, they deny the sufficiency of the Resurrection (1 Cor. 15) and legitimize the atheist's strawman. In biblical terms, legitimizing the atheist's strawman is the same as giving credence to an argument or presumption that "acknowledges itself against the knowledge of Christ" (2 Cor. 10:5). No Christian wants to be guilty of any such thing!

The historical events of God's creation are independent of the historical event of Jesus' Resurrection. Because they are independent events that took place at different moments in history, they can be established independently of one another. Since they can be independently established, the conclusion of one does not necessarily affect the conclusion about the other. In other words, if the universe is 13.7 billion years old, and Christ has been raised from the dead, Christianity is true, but if the universe is only 6,000-10,000 years old and Christ has not been raised from the dead, Christianity is false.

It is as simple as that. Anyone who tells you differently is not only being unbiblical (creating a strawman of the Gospel), they are telling you something false about reality, history, and salvation. Because these events are separate from one another, the conflation is invalid and unnecessary, and the evidence against the universe's youth cannot be used as a logical reason to reject Christ (whether the universe truly is young or not).

The Unsound Arguments

To go a little deeper and a little more technical, let us look at the arguments made by the respective sides and see how the conflation causes a problem with the conclusions. This conflation by both atheist and young-earth creationist leads to the false dichotomy evidenced in these two arguments:

The Atheist's argument:
1. If young-earth creationism is false, then Christianity is false.
2. Young-earth creationism is false.
3. Therefore, Christianity is false.

The Young-Earth Creationist's Argument:
1. If Christianity is true, then young-earth creationism is true.
2. Christianity is true.
3. Therefore, young-earth creationism is true.

While both arguments are valid (modus ponens), their first premises are necessarily dependent upon the strawman described above, so those premises are necessarily false. Because of the falsehood of the two first premises, they render their respective arguments unsound, and the conclusions "Christianity is false," and "Young-Earth creationism is true," respectively) do not follow. In fact, I would argue that not only does neither conclusion follow, neither conclusion is true (they cannot be established by any other sound argument), which means that I affirm the atheist's second premise (young-earth creationism is false) and the young-earth creationist's second premise (Christianity is true). These two second premises (both of which I affirm) are not in conflict because the two first premises of the arguments are false. The combination of my beliefs of the truth of Christianity and the falsehood of young-earth creationism is perfectly consistent.

Conclusion

For the Christian, the severe implication of conflating young-earth creationism with Christianity stifles their evangelistic effectiveness. Presenting the Christian worldview as "accept young-earth creationism or reject Christ" legitimizes a strawman of Christianity through the false dichotomy and "acknowledges itself against the knowledge of Christ" to the atheist. And for the atheist, the severe implication of conflating young-earth creationism with Christianity, as indicated by the Apostle Paul in 2 Cor. 10, presents an unreasonable and unnecessary barrier to forgiveness and eternal life. It is imperative that both the atheist and the young-earth creationist recognize and reject the idea that young-earth creationism and Christianity are the same thing, so that they can, respectively, be open to the truth of the Resurrection in history and effectively communicate the truth of the Gospel in history.

Follow Faithful Thinkers On Social Media

 

For More On This Topic, See These Posts:

• What Do Young-Earth and Old-Earth Creationists Agree Upon Regarding Origins?
• 20 Myths About Old Earth Creationism
• Does Old-Earth Creationism Compromise Scripture?
• 3 Good Reasons to Question What You Believe
• Internal Debates and Apologetics
• Is Your View Falsifiable?
• Zombies of Christianity

*A friend reminded me (after this post's original publish date), that Whorton was quoting from Augustine's "The Literal Meaning of Genesis," and I want to include it in full for the reader to appreciate its full effect: 

"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of the 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 holds 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 aintaining 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 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."- Augustin, “The literal meaning of Genesis”, Book 1, 19.39 (circa AD 415)

15 Quotes From Dr. Michael G. Strauss on the Big Bang's Revelation of God's Invisible Attributes

The Creator Revealed

In 2018 University of Oklahoma particle physicist Dr. Michael G. Strauss released his latest book. In this short non-technical volume, he introduces the reader to the astrophysical discoveries that reveal the characteristics of the Creator of the universe, hence the title "The Creator Revealed." He strongly emphasizes the claim of Romans 1:20 that the Creator's attributes are "clearly seen" in the creation, even by those who wish to deny the Creator's existence. I gave the book a full chapter-by-chapter review available here, but today I want to highlight fifteen of my favorite quotes from the book.

The Christian and the Life of the Mind

"I think that when we as Christians do not fully investigate the truth of something because we are concerned that it might confront our beliefs, we forget one of the very basic characteristics of the God we serve, namely that he is a God of truth."

"How can we, as Christians, stand firm when our faith is challenged intellectually? We can do this by learning to love the Lord our God with all our minds; by asking tough questions about God and the Bible and finding good, reasonable answers to those questions; by learning how to properly interpret the Bible in its context and according to its culture...and by understanding that all truth discovered by humans will ultimately reveal the creator of all truth."

"I have found that the more one studies nature, the more one can see that it reveals God's personality, to such an extent that many of the writings of even nonreligious scientists clearly declare God's power and majesty."

"When we find truth in nature or we find truth in scripture, we see God's character revealed."

Does The Big Bang Reveal God's Invisible Attributes?

"If the big bang was God's method of creation yet we as Christians deny its veracity, then we are building an unnecessary wall between us and other people who accept the big bang but don't yet know God."

"Most people already have heard of the big bang and agree with scientists that it accurately describes the origin of the universe. What most people don't know is that the big bang also reveals the characteristics of the creator, the God of the Bible."

"The evidence that the big bang was God's method of creation is compelling for many reasons. For instance, it reveals the very nature of God, just as Romans 1:20 says creation should. It doesn't just reveal God's character to those who already believe in him or to those who only look superficially at nature; it reveals the very nature of his character to those who study the universe in depth. It drives people to realize that the creator is a transcendent designer who cares for humanity. It leaves them truly without excuse because they have rejected the creator, not for the record of creation."

"Modern science and the big bang can be tremendous evangelistic tools when we realize that they reveal the character of God."

"When we understand how the big bang reveals the person and character of God, we see him more clearly, and this shows his glory, majesty, and wonder."

Why Do Scientists Accept The Big Bang?

"Based on the evidence from both observations and theoretical calculations, the scientific community eventually, and maybe reluctantly, has accepted the idea that the universe appears to have begun about fourteen billion years ago--because there is no other explanation that fits the evidence."

"The evidence for the beginning of the universe in the big bang has become so powerful and so convincing that scientists have accepted it as true even though the philosophical and theological implications may be repugnant to some."

"There are some Christians who say that most scientists today have misunderstood the facts of nature. They say that the facts clearly point to a universe created just a few thousand years ago. But such a belief is inconsistent with what Romans 1:20 implies. Paul says that the evidence left by the creator should be clearly visible so that all, even the scientists studying the universe, are without excuse if they fail to see it...[T]his is exactly the case with the big bang."

"It doesn't matter when the universe was created, whether it was six thousand years ago or fourteen billion years ago, to the naturalist who doesn't believe in God, both ideas are equally repugnant."

"It should not surprise you that the big bang reveals characteristics of the creator that (1) are clearly evident, (2) are apparent even to those who do not accept any kind of deity, and (3) correspond to attributes ascribed to God in the rest of the Bible. After all, that is exactly what Paul [in Romans 1:20] said the evidence should do."

"An accurate understanding of the big bang and its implications can change lives. Truth has a way of doing that."

Follow Faithful Thinkers On Social Media

  

The Kindle edition of "The Creator Revealed" is frequently on sale for under $4.00, so check it out here!

For more from Dr. Michael G. Strauss, check out his blog and YouTube Channel!

Book Review: God's Crime Scene for Kids

Introduction

Several years ago, cold-case homicide detective J. Warner Wallace wrote the book "God's Crime Scene" where he details his investigation, as an atheist, into the evidence for God's existence. In the book, he explains that investigating the universe for an outside cause is quite similar to the investigation of a death scene. If the evidence at the scene can be explained by "staying in the room," then an outside cause (murder) can be reasonably removed. Likewise, if all the evidence within the universe can be explained by "staying in the room" of the universe, then an outside cause (God) is not a reasonable conclusion. In both cases, though, when evidence requires an outside cause, then the conclusion cannot be avoided. You can read my chapter-by-chapter review of "God's Crime Scene" here.

"God's Crime Scene" is the second book in a trilogy that includes "Cold-Case Christianity" and "Forensic Faith." Because of the popularity of this series, Wallace and his wife adapted the content of the books to a younger audience: kids! Today's review is the second in the kids' series: "God's Crime Scene for Kids."

Book Review: The Creator Revealed 🌌

Introduction

Today I am excited to bring you a review of a book that I have been anticipating for a little over a year and a half. In January 2017 particle physicist and University of Oklahoma professor Dr. Michael G. Strauss (check out his blog and YouTube channel) and I were talking, and he informed me that he had been working on a book about science and faith for a while. He gave me an overview of the content and even let me in on a sneak peek of the book. After reading through what was already "on paper," I was incredibly excited to see it published. Dr. Strauss' goal with "The Creator Revealed: A Physicist Examines the Big Bang and the Bible" was to provide the scientific, theological, and biblical evidence for the big bang in a non-technical and more conversational tone. The book is relatively short (126 pages, not counting the appendices) compared to other works on this topic, and the seventeen chapters are bite-sized. This review will be my usual chapter-by-chapter summary followed by my thoughts (as if the first line above didn't give you an indication). Before we get to the review, check out this interview with Dr. Strauss about science and faith and his experience with scientists and students:



Now, on to the book review...

Book Preview: Creator And The Cosmos by Christian Astrophysicist Hugh Ross

One of the first books that I read that presented evidence for God's existence from cosmology was the third edition of astrophysicist Dr. Hugh Ross' book "The Creator and the Cosmos." While I had been introduced to the finetuning argument years ago, this book laid it out in detail and in a way that was easy to comprehend. Of course, in the study of cosmology, the teleological argument is not the only one that can be formulated; there is also the argument from the beginning of the universe (the cosmological argument), which Dr. Ross explained has been overwhelmingly, evidentially supported by the latest scientific discoveries, yet was already expected by the authors of the Bible thousands of years ago (thus scientifically establishing the Creator as the Author of the Bible and establishing the Bible's authority and inerrancy).

About a year ago, I decided to bring the book back out to give it my full chapter-by-chapter review treatment for those interested in getting the book. However, shortly after I pulled it off my shelf, I heard that Dr. Ross was working on a fourth edition that would add a considerable amount of scientific evidence to both arguments, so I decided to put my review on hold until the new edition arrived. That new edition is coming THIS THURSDAY! And my chapter-by-chapter review will be posting in the following weeks. In the meantime, here is the trailer for the new edition, and do not forget to place your (pre-)order to get your copy as soon as possible!


I have reviewed several of Dr. Ross' other books that explore everything from the beginning of the universe to the appearance of humans, all from a perspective of Biblical historicity and inerrancy and the reliability of science to discover the truth about God's creative acts:

• Why The Universe Is the Way It Is
• Origins of Life: Biblical and Evolutionary Models Face Off
• Who Was Adam
• Improbable Planet: How Earth Became Humanity's Home
• Navigating Genesis
• A Matter Of Days: Resolving A Creation Controversy

Top 5 Books On Science and Faith

One of the major challenges to the Christian worldview is the idea that science and Christianity are necessarily in conflict with one another. This general challenge is manifested in many different ways. A few months ago, I posted my Top 5 Books that address the Genesis controversy. This list will address the more general challenge. As before, I will give the list then provide a short explanation for my choices. This list will consist of two primarily philosophical books and two primarily scientific books that are bridged by one that logically connects the philosophy to the science. So, on to the list of my (currently) Top 5 Books I recommend regarding science and faith:

• Where the Conflict Really Lies- Alvin Plantinga
• Agents Under Fire- Angus Menuge
• Origin Science- Norman Geisler and Kerby Anderson
• Improbable Planet- Hugh Ross
• Creating Life In The Lab- Fazale Rana

Why Did I Pick These Books? 

Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism

In order for discovery and explanation (science) to even take place, a proper philosophy of knowledge (epistemology) must be established. As mentioned in the introduction, many skeptics claim that science (read "evolution") and Christianity are in direct opposition to one another, and they offer that naturalism is the only view supported by science (again, read "evolution"). In this book, philosopher Alvin Plantinga looks at the theory of evolution from a merely conceptual standpoint (not an evidential one- Plantinga does not agree or disagree with evolutionary mechanisms in this book). He makes the case that the theory of evolution, by itself, merely describes a possible mechanism to explain the diversity of life, but it does not make any claims about whether that mechanism was guided or not- philosophical naturalism has to be sneaked into evolutionary theory for guidance to be excluded. He concludes that evolution is compatible with theism, so there is no conflict. But he takes it even further. C.S. Lewis argued in "Mere Christianity" that a naturalistic origin of our brains justifies doubting its ability to reason and come to true conclusions apart from survival advantage. Plantinga builds upon Lewis' argument to place it on very strong scientific grounds. He ultimately concludes that a conflict does exist between evolution and naturalism. Not only are naturalists incorrect in claiming a conflict between Christianity and science, they are incorrect in claiming concord between science and naturalism. Naturalism is simply not a viable worldview for the person who values their ability to reason towards true conclusions despite survival disadvantages of those conclusions.

Agents Under Fire: Materialism and the Rationality Of Science

For reasoning independent of survival advantage to take place, a mind that is not subject to the survival of a physical organism must exist (an agent). Naturalism not only does away with the reliability of a brain's ability to reason independent of survival advantage, it also has no room for an agent independent of the physical organism. Naturalists have attempted to explain away agency (along with free will, intentionality, design, and other concepts we take for granted) using strong and weak agent reduction. Philosopher Angus Menuge takes the reader through the scientific and philosophical claims of these proposed solutions and shows how each of them fails the test of reality. He also takes the scientific and philosophical evidence to build the case for agency (minds) actually existing. If minds do exist, then naturalism is false, and we have discovered yet another conflict between naturalism and science. Along with that, science has actually demonstrated a key feature of the Christian worldview: more than just this physical world exists.

Origin Science: A Proposal for the Creation-Evolution Debate

The two previous books focused primarily on philosophical arguments that have scientific implications. But what about scientific evidence that has philosophical implications? Before we can get to the more science-focused evidence for Christianity, we need to establish the reliability of nature as a source of knowledge that we can observe and analyze. In their book "Origin Science" philosophers Norman Geisler and Kerby Anderson do just that. They look at the history of science and the history of science within the Church (drawing the conclusion that science and Christianity are compatible). They then look at how knowledge of how nature currently operates has been obtained: through observation. This connects our ability to accurately observe and validly analyze to draw sound conclusions about how nature operates today (observational science). But what about how nature operated in the past? Using the principle of uniformity (distinct from uniformitarianism) Geisler and Anderson demonstrate that the past can be known with deductive certainty. This makes the connection between the present and the past. If the past operated the same five days ago (verified by repeated experiments), we can keep adding five days to the past until we reach back into the distant past to discover how things operated back then (historical science). The knowledge of the present operation of nature and the truth of the principle of uniformity necessarily imply that we can know the operation of nature in the (distant) past. Thus, our ability to know and nature as a source of knowledge have been connected so that we can discover what nature reveals about its purposeful or purposeless history.

Improbable Planet: How Earth Became Humanity's Home

For several decades, astrophysicist Dr. Hugh Ross has been scouring scientific journals for scientific evidence for the Christian worldview. The evidence is so frequently in the scientific literature that he has a blog entitled "Today's New Reason to Believe." He has written several books on what he has discovered, but his latest book examines history of our planet, and the hallmark of design for a purpose is difficult to miss. As scientists discover more about how stars, solar systems, and planets are formed, they see just how unique ours is. Numerous features of each are necessary for our planet to be able to support advanced life for the time that it has. For those familiar with Gantt Charts (used to track the progress of large and complex projects), through the entire time span of the project of the creation of our planet for high tech civilization, numerous series of highly orchestrated simultaneous phases begin and conclude at precisely coordinated times. The completion of the project is so dependent upon the plan being followed precisely that every phase, if not started or not completed at their precise time, ensures that the project will be a failure. While many projects must be flexible due to circumstances outside the project manager's control, the Project Manager in charge of our planet did not have that limitation; He was in complete control and could easily complete such a strict project. We know by analogy to human projects that when we see such a complex system come together with a specific end result that it is the product of a designer (project manager). While an argument against a naturalistic explanation would be obvious, Dr. Ross instead argues that the design of our planet positively identifies that it was created for a purpose, and a purpose must have a Purposer. Dr. Ross argues that the most plausible explanation for our planet's sustaining a high tech civilization is the product of the divine Project Manager (God), who's purpose was the redemption of as many of His Image bearers as possible.

Creating Life In The Lab: How New Discoveries in Synthetic Biology Make a Case for the Creator

While the previous book focused on evidence from astrophysics and geochemistry for our planet being created with a purpose (thus a Purposer was necessary), Creating Life In The Lab examines the latest work in the field of biochemistry, specifically what scientists are doing in order to create life. Dr. Rana takes the reader through the history and current state of different approaches scientists have been pursuing to create life. He explains that precisely and constantly controlled environmental conditions are necessary even for the progress that has been made today. Just like with other chemical experiments, these are highly controlled reactions, ones that would not take place outside the intervention of the scientists. And much like other chemical experiments, the reactions must be stopped at precise times to prevent destruction of the product of the reaction. Dr. Rana points out that these experiments and all success they have can only be attributed to the fact that designers (the scientists) are behind the experiments with an explicit purpose in mind. The fact that the scientists have a specific goal in mind allows them to begin chemical reactions, allow them to take their natural course (according to the laws of physics) then intervene to stop the reactions to prevent destruction of the products and set them aside to be later combined with other products of similar processes. Dr. Rana makes the point that even if there is a naturalistic pathway from non-life to life, that pathway is not one that can be traversed without designers to control the conditions, start and stop reactions, and combine products that have each been created independently. He also argues that when we see products of any other process that requires precisely controlled conditions and controlled chemical reactions (say, the device you are using to read this article), we intuitively, logically, and experientially know that it is the product of a designer. Even though life has not yet been successfully created in the lab, the current status provides powerful evidence for life being the product of a Designer. And if (when) life is created in the lab, it will present powerful, positive evidence for the creation of life absolutely requiring a designer.

Bringing It All Together

I would like to add also that these last two books offer such powerful cases for design that if naturalism were true, they would actually bolster Alvin Plantinga's argument in "Where The Conflict Really Lies" with scientific evidence. If the "design" we see in the history of our planet and the creation of life is merely an appearance of design (as many naturalists contend), then arguments for true design break down. And as Dr. Angus Menuge argued in "Agents Under Fire" that breakdown is in the very concept of design- it does not exist if naturalism is true. Everything that we experience and believe to be designed (even human inventions and projects) are not truly designed; the belief that they are designed is merely a useful fiction. And since believing these useful fictions is necessary for us to even get out of bed and eat breakfast (not to mention driving [or walking] to work to perform a series of tasks designed to accomplish several purposes) there is no reason whatsoever to think that our brains were selected for by natural selection to believe what is true- they haven't been and they won't be...interestingly, if we cannot trust our brains to believe what is true (possess knowledge), then what is the point of science in the first place? If God does not exist, neither does knowledge, and every knowledge discipline that we enjoy is the product of yet another series of useful fictions forced on us by our (naive?) desire to survive.

Follow Faithful Thinkers On Social Media

    

Check Out More Top 5 Books Lists

More Than Water Is Required for Life

A New Habitable Zone Discovered

The other day I saw an interesting article posted on PHYS.org entitled "More To Life Than The Habitable Zone." The "Habitable Zone" is the area around a star where a planet may exist with water in all three states. This is crucial for life's existence. In the article the team of scientists studying a particular star for habitable planets recognizes that the zone where water can exist is not the only area that limits where a life-destined planet may be found. The scientists explain that another factor that further limits that "habitable zone" is the amount of ultraviolet radiation emitted from the host star. Similar to the water habitable zone, the UV habitable zone is the area where the UV radiation is within the maximum and minimum bounds that permits life to exist. Both zones are necessary, so the only area where life can exist is the area where the two zones overlap each other. This area is so tiny that the team of scientists conclude that while a large portion of stars (red dwarfs) scientists have been investigating for habitable worlds are not completely off the table, it would be more prudent for scientists to focus efforts on the relatively few stars that more closely match our sun. Such a star would allow, presumably, for a larger overlapping area of the water habitable zone and the UV habitable zone.

Narrowing the Options

Astrophysicist Dr. Hugh Ross of Reasons to Believe describes these two habitable zones in his latest book "Improbable Planet: How Earth Became Humanity's Home." He also describes three other habitable zones that have been discovered. Not only is earth located in the water habitable zone and the UV habitable zone, but zones for photosynthesis, ozone, and tides also exist. This means that not only must the water and UV zones overlap, these other three must overlap as well. The only areas where overlap of all five exists are where a planet must exist around its host star to be a candidate for life.

A quick internet search reveals that red dwarfs make up roughly 70% of the stars in the universe. If the team of astrobiologists are saying that the recognition of just one more habitable zone limits the candidate sites in the universe (practically rules out an entire class of stars) by 70%, then how much more will the recognition of these extra three zones limit the possible locations for life? Even though research is revealing a more precise target for where life can exist (thus focusing expensive research time and resources), the number of physical locations available for life to originate are being dramatically reduced. While the universe is huge and scientists already recognize that the majority of it is not viable for life's existence (nowhere near a star), this team of scientists has ruled out 70% of the space already left.

But that's not all. To further focus our research efforts (but reduce the areas for life), two more (non-location) habitable zones exist: the planet's rotation rate and obliquity. Each of these affect the other five zones in different ways, so while one zone may be widened or move closer to the star, another may be narrowed or move further from the star. When the planet's rotation rate and obliquity are taken into account as well, the actual area where a planet may exist and support life becomes even smaller or disappears completely for even more stars.

An Ancient Universe and Evidence for Design

As research continues, the history of our planet is becoming more of a problem for anyone who thinks that life is ubiquitous in the universe. Not only that, the more research continues, the more the history of our planet resembles a complicated project executed for a purpose- a project that includes numerous phases with numerous concurrent and necessary events that, if not started and finished at the proper time, would doom the project to failure. The longer the history of our planet, the longer the project and the more of these complicated phases there are. While many people think that an ancient universe provides naturalists a legitimate reason to deny the need for a Designer, the evidence provided by this ancient universe is revealing the exact opposite: that a Designer is necessary to explain why our planet and its history appear to be designed. The ancient universe is quickly becoming an unstoppable evidential force, declaring the glory of its Creator (Psalm 19:1) and leaving educated unbelievers with even less excuse for rejection (Romans 1).


Dr. Hugh Ross has also posted on this discovery: Inability of Planets Orbiting Red Dwarfs

To Go Deeper, I Recommend These Books:

• Improbable Planet: How Earth Became Humanity's Home
• Why The Universe Is The Way It Is
• Origins of Life: Biblical and Evolutionary Models Face Off

Book Review: Inference to the One True God

Introduction

Fellow Christian apologetics blogger Evan Minton (Cerebral Faith) contacted me not too long ago about a book that he was writing on his investigation into the truth of Christianity. I have enjoyed his past work on his blog and his discussions on social media, so I was excited to hear that he was officially publishing a book and could not wait to see the final product. Evan sent me a copy of "Inference to the One True God: Why I Believe In Jesus Instead of Other Gods" for review. The book is 200 pages divided into eight chapters, each one designed to get the reader one step closer to the identity of the One True God. This review will be a chapter by chapter summary and conclude with my recommendation.

12 Things Your Professors Won't Tell You About God and Science

Tap the links to learn more!

#1- Christianity and science are NOT at odds with each other

The mantras in today's university classrooms seem to be that science has proven Christianity false and that Christianity is anti-science. This could not be further from the truth of the situation. Science IS at odds with a worldview, and it may surprise you which worldview it is. Tap the link above to discover which one and how!

#2- God's existence CAN be tested

It is quite common for people to believe that since God is outside this universe that his existence cannot be tested. All the religious views make claims about the universe we live in, and some make the claim that God exists (and that their "holy" books were inspired by that God). Numerous claims are made in the Bible about our universe and can be put to the test. Tap the link to discover the claims and how they can be tested. 

#3- Christianity does not teach the universe is 6,000 years old

This is a big one! Too many professors are convinced that Christianity claims the universe is 6,000 years old, and (using the idea in the addressing the previous claim) since the universe has been discovered to be orders of magnitude older, Christianity has been shown to be false. However, the idea that Christianity teaches that the universe is 6,000 years old is false. If this is what you've always believed or been told, tap the link above to discover the truth about the Bible's claims about the age of the universe. 

#4- The record of Genesis does not contradict any scientific discoveries

Many more scientifically testable claims of Christianity are found in the book of Genesis. Again, many of those in academia believe these too fail the test of reality. However, the tests fail because they have not read Genesis correctly. Tap the link above to see the proper understanding of Genesis and to see how the claims comport with modern scientific discoveries in uncanny ways. 

#5- The beginning of the universe requires a beginner

While some people have a disdain for big bang cosmology because it demonstrates an ancient age of the universe, others (since it was first proposed) prefer to avoid it because it necessitates the need for a beginner. A big bang needs a "big banger." Everything that begins to exist has a cause; the universe began to exist; therefore, the universe has a cause. This is a powerful argument that the universe was started by something (or Someone) that transcends (is outside- see #2) this universe. Tap the link above to see the details of how such a conclusion can be reached in science. 

#6- The universe and planet appear to be designed for a purpose

Naturalists are wedded to the idea that our universe exists without any kind of purpose. However, when devices are reverse-engineered, the person examines the device's features and construction to determine how it was formed (usually in order to imitate the design). Such an engineer never concludes his reverse-engineering efforts with the idea that the device was not designed or has no purpose. When the earth, the sun, solar system, galaxy, cluster, super-cluster, and the universe as a whole are all reverse-engineered through science, we see that they all appear just like a humanly designed device- designed for a purpose. Tap the link above to get the details of this powerful argument. 

#7- Atheism does not have the resources to support the origin of life

Ever since the Miller-Urey experiment, scientists have been trying to find a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life. Yet as research continues and the scientific knowledge base grows, such a theory becomes less likely, not more. Tap the link above to see the where the research stands and see how naturalism does not have any hope for solving the problems. 

#8- Common biological features does not exclusively support common descent (evolution)

It is common to believe that if two things have similar characteristics, the only explanation for that is a common ancestor. However, engineers and project managers know that is not true, for they employ the same designed features and processes for use in multiple devices and projects. Engineers and project managers do not see common features and conclude "common descent;" rather they conclude "common design," and they are correct. For more on this, tap the link above. 

#9- Creating life in the lab demonstrates the need for intelligence in creating life

If scientists create life in the lab does that remove the need for a designer? Not at all. In fact, they just proved that a designer was necessary. For all the scientists involved ARE designers. The lab is not uncontrolled nature; it is a carefully controlled environment where chemical reactions can be started when necessary and stopped when the desired effects are achieved. When scientists create life in the lab, it will provide a powerful argument that life requires a Designer to be created. To learn more about this exciting scientific field, tap the link above. 

#10- Naturalism necessarily implies that we do not actually choose anything

If all that exists is this universe, then free will does not exist. This is a common claim in the university. Interestingly enough this necessarily implies that you are not really choosing to read this post or to go to college- rather you are determined by your environment what you are doing and going to do- you have no choice and no control, and neither do the professors. To see how this conclusion cannot logically be escaped, tap the link above (or not; it is your choice; or is it?).

#11- Naturalism undermines the ability to know anything

Naturalistic evolution is governed by the drive for survival. If our brains are the product of naturalistic evolution, then they (and the beliefs they generate) are driven by survival. Over time useful fictions (pragmatic but false beliefs) are the beliefs that survive natural selection. If are what is false is necessarily selected by nature to be what we believe, then we cannot trust our beliefs about our world. We can only think that our beliefs have survival value but not truth-value...and we are not free to choose to believe otherwise (see #10). This ultimately undermines the purpose of college and the university. If this has you concerned and just curious, tap the link above for more depth. 

#12- Legislating morality is possible, legal and wise

Finally, the idea that morality cannot or should not be legislated because it is the same as establishing a state religion, is rampant in our universities. However, this is another claim that is false, and your professor is not likely to tell you such a thing. But is it really true that legislating morality is actually possible, legal, and wise? If God exists, then it follows that all those are true. Tap the link above for a thorough investigation of how this is the case from a Constitutional, legal, and logical standpoints.

More Resources!

Jonathan Morrow wrote an excellent book for students preparing for college. Welcome To College: A Christ Follower's Guide For The Journey provides an excellent overview of the various challenges the Christian will face in their years at the university.

For more discussions of God and science, please check out the Science and Faith page, Reasons to Believe, Reasonable Faith, and Cold Case Christianity.


*Please note that many excellent college professors affirm many if not all of the items in this list. This list is not meant to be an attack on professors specifically or even the university in general. Rather its purpose is to prepare the student to engage professors and fellow students, who disagree with these items, in an intellectual dialog and be able to support the claims evidentially.

Book Review: Improbable Planet: How Earth Became Humanity's Home🌍

Introduction

Improbable Planet: How Earth Became Humanity's Home is the highly anticipated "sequel" to Dr. Hugh Ross' book Why The Universe Is The Way It Is. In the first work, Dr. Ross examined several biblical purposes God has for this creation and how these purposes are evidenced in the history of the universe. In this new book, Dr. Ross zooms in from the perspective of the entire universe and multiple purposes to the earth and God's purpose of redemption. His goal in this volume is to demonstrate how the history of our planet is not merely some naturalistic "just so story" but rather a complex, multi-stage project with an explicit purpose as its end-goal. He intends to marshal the latest scientific discoveries from numerous scientific disciplines to make his case for the design of our planet. Did he successfully make his case? Let's find out...

Is Religion the Practice of Avoiding Truth?

Introduction

A month or so ago, I came across an interesting challenge to Christianity. A skeptic told me that religion was an exercise in avoiding truth- a willful delusion. He observed that many Christians (and religious people, in general) tend to believe the claims of their "holy" books over what has been discovered about nature, history, or the very nature of reality. He noticed that many religious people have a precommitment to a particular understanding of the world and no amount of evidence provided will persuade them otherwise. He, as an intellectual, does not want to make this same mistake. In this post, I want to explore the possibility that he is making the same mistake based upon the philosophical foundations of the claim he makes for rejecting religion, and Christianity specifically. 

Hugh Ross: Purposeful Cambrian Explosion Argues for God's Existence

Introduction

I love watching illusionists. They perform feats that seem to defy the very laws of physics- cutting people in half (who live to tell about it), disappearing and reappearing, escapes, and many, many others. It is interesting that we see all these things "magically" happen, but we know that they could not happen unless the illusionist was involved. The illusionist has a purpose for making something "appear" or "disappear." They wish to impress and entertain their audience. They usually pick an object with a certain level of complexity that is easily recognizable- a ball, a playing card, or dove or rabbit for instance. They carefully prepare the environment for the illusion; often the audience is a witness to this setup. Now, if any of those objects just appeared on stage (or in the street for that matter), we would not think for a moment that it "just happened" with no explanation. We would immediately look for a cause, a purposeful agent who designed and orchestrated the stunt.

Appearing Acts in Nature

The Cambrian and Avalon explosions are quite analogous to the appearance of an object by an illusionist. These acts were complete with the setup of the environment and everything. In his book "Navigating Genesis" Dr. Hugh Ross explains what has been discovered in nature and how it argues for a purposeful agent behind the setup and execution of the appearances:

"Only through billions of years of photosynthetic activity could Earth's atmosphere and oceans build up sufficient oxygen to support animal life. The very moment oxygen reached appropriate levels, the Avalon and Cambrian explosions occurred. The lack of any appreciable gap between the time of oxygen's rise to minimum life-sustaining levels and the appearance of animals argues strongly for the involvement of a purposeful Creator."

Book Review: Where the Conflict Really Lies

Introduction

This review has been a long time coming. I first heard of Alvin Plantinga and his "evolutionary argument against naturalism" several years ago. I was impressed by the original paper, and when I heard that he wrote a whole book on it, I was quite excited. As a defender of the Christian worldview, I constantly come across skeptics who believe that there is a glaring conflict between science and faith. I have defended the complete compatibility of modern science with the claims of Christianity using the sciences and some philosophy. My reading "Where the Conflict Really Lies" by Alvin Plantinga is an attempt to expand my philosophical defense. Is it successful? This review will provide a chapter-by-chapter summary of the book that will conclude with my thoughts.

Part 1: Alleged Conflict

Chapter 1: Evolution and Christian Belief (1)

Plantinga begins by explaining that over the centuries many people have claimed there is conflict between science and Christianity. The only thing that has changed is the source of the claimed conflict- biology not astronomy. He explains it is important to define our terms in order to properly identify any conflict. He uses common affirmations of the historic Christian creeds regarding creation as a source for the minimum necessary claims of Christianity: God is the creator. As for science, he takes the current scientific theory and breaks it into its mere components: an ancient earth, rise in complexity of life over time, descent with modification, common ancestry, naturalistic mechanisms, and naturalistic origin of life. He explains that conflict has been alleged between the first scientific thesis (an ancient earth) and the interpretation of the Bible by some Christians, but since age is not part of the Christian creeds, he concludes that the conflict is merely superficial and not actual.

Richard Dawkins is one scientist who also alleges great conflict between science and the Bible. Plantinga addresses Dawkins' argument that modern evolutionary theory has revealed a universe without design. He shows that while Dawkins may be able to envision a general naturalistic mechanism to get complex systems, he has not proposed a detailed map from the simple to the complex, nor has he provided any scientific evidence of the details of a mechanism that would produce the specific points on the map. Plantinga also addresses Dawkins' appeals to probability and the claim that God, Himself, would require a designer. He concludes that Dawkins has not demonstrated that evolution (even if it is correct) can take place independent of an intelligent agent guiding the process.

What Do Young Earth and Old Earth Creationists Agree Upon Regarding Origins?

Introduction

As a defender of the Christian worldview, I constantly come across people who wish to reject Christianity because of some detail of a particular, debated view that is important to them. I have heard people reject Christianity because of views regarding creation, free will, ethics, eternal damnation, reason, and many others. Many different views exist within the Christian worldview regarding each of those, and if a Christian faces a challenge to one of the details, they will usually defend a particular view and explain that the other views are false (or strawmen). This is important especially if a skeptic has an incorrect understanding of Christianity and is rejecting Christ based on that misunderstanding. However, many different views on the same details of the Christian worldview are held by those who defend the truth of Christianity.