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.

Deconstructionism, the Constitution, and Biblical Interpretation

Introduction

As a defender of the Christian worldview my primary goal is to see unsaved people be saved, but in many conversations, I see numerous intellectual stumbling blocks for them, many put in place by other Christians. This is the reason that I not only defend the Christian worldview in general but also in details, often to fellow Christians who disagree with me (see a fuller explanation in this post: Internal Debates and Apologetics). In many of my discussions with fellow Christians on different theological positions, the proper interpretation (meaning) of what the Bible says is the focus. I also have political discussions with Christians in which we discuss the meaning of the words of the U.S. Constitution. Most of us agree that the proper interpretation of the Constitution is found in its authors, just as we believe that the proper interpretation of the Bible is found in its Author. We agree that in neither case is the meaning of the two ever found in the readers (deconstructionism). However, I have detected an inconsistency in the rejection of such an idea when it comes to one and not the other. Today, I want to explore this inconsistency and how removing it from our thinking can help, at least one, theological debate come closer to resolution.

Book Review: Come Let Us Reason

Introduction

It is necessary that Christians be able to think properly. As we discuss our worldview with unbelievers and present arguments for God's existence and the resurrection of Jesus Christ it is necessary that we present sound arguments. It is also necessary that we be able to properly identify mistakes in arguments for other views so that the unsaved will see that their view is actually false and they need to change it. I read "Come Let Us Reason: An Introduction to Logical Thinking" many years ago, and it helped me greatly with being able to order my thoughts and identify incorrect thinking. This has helped me tremendously as I "tear down arguments against the knowledge of Christ" (2 Corinthians 10:5) and "provide a reason for the hope that I have" (1 Peter 3:15). I recently read the book again to refresh my memory and to write this review. As usual, the review will provide a chapter-by-chapter summary of the book's contents and conclude with my thoughts about the book.

The Difference Between What A View Asserts And Implies

Introduction

In any discussion in which we are defending a particular view, we must present both a positive case and the negative case. The positive case shows the evidence for the view we are defending, while the negative case shows the problems with the alternative being presented. Both are necessary in the overall case. The negative case is necessary because the adherent of the other view needs a logical reason to abandon their view for an alternative. The positive case is necessary because if an adherent is provided a logical reason to abandon their view, the other view being presented may not be the only option. The way that a view is shown to be incorrect is that its claims are put to the test against reality and reason. If the claims are found to not reflect reality or they are not logical, then the view is false. However, the claims of a view can be of (at least) two different types that require a different approach. Today I want to discuss the differences in the assertions and the implications of a view or model. Understanding the differences will help us be more aware of how to properly address them in other views, and the understanding will also assist us in our formation and critique of our own views. This applies to worldviews, scientific models, philosophical theories, and really anything view that makes claims about reality, regardless of which area of reality it is.

📚 Top 5 Books on the Bible, Creation, and Science 🔬

Scientific Challenges to Christianity

Challenges to the Christian worldview come from many different directions, but one of the most common that I see is from the direction of the sciences. Many skeptics see the claims of creation in the beginning pages of the Bible and dismiss all its contents. It is important that we, as Christian case-makers, defend the proper view of these first chapters to remove the stumbling block from the scientifically-minded skeptic. Unfortunately, there is a heated controversy among Christians on the proper interpretation of these initial chapters and the proper interpretation of scientific discoveries. This list of books that I recommend is targeted at those Christians who are interested in the sciences and/or often speak to skeptics who raise scientific challenges against the Christian worldview. They will help think through the controversy and help remove scientific stumbling blocks when challenged by skeptics. Combined, they provide the Christian with a consistent view of creation that takes into account the sciences and remains faithful to the original intentions of the biblical authors. If you have never read these books, I do recommend reading them in the order presented. For your convenience, I have linked the book titles to my chapter-by-chapter reviews and provided a short reason why I chose the books for this list, but if you really want the details and wish to be blessed by the content of the books, you will need to pick up a copy (remember to check your local library!). Now, on to the list!

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...

Does Scripture Ground Morality, Hope, and Meaning?

Introduction

I saw this meme on social media the other day. It states "Scripture abandoned in the culture leads to relative morality, hopelessness, and meaninglessness." It caught my attention because of how its author attempts to ground morality, hope, and meaning. Even though skeptics of Christianity do not have the correct worldview, they still have the ability to identify contradictions, unsound arguments, and false claims made by adherents of other worldviews (in virtue of their being created in the Image of God). If a defender of the Christian worldview attempts to ground morality, hope, and meaning in an invalid source and defend that incorrect grounding, a knowledgeable skeptic will be able to identify the faulty claim and use that as a reason to remain skeptical of the claims of Jesus Christ. Unfortunately, this meme offers the incorrect grounding for morality, hope, and meaning. It is important that we understand how the grounding is incorrect, the implications of its being incorrect, and what the proper grounding is, so that we can be prepared to give a reason for the hope that we have when a skeptic challenges the claims of this meme.

Why Is The Image of God So Important?

Introduction

Those who follow this blog are aware that I not only defend "mere" Christianity, but I also defend specifics in the Christian worldview. As I have written before, I believe that if a Christian is defending an incorrect detail of their worldview to a skeptic, that skeptic can easily use that incorrect detail as an excuse to reject the entire worldview (even though this is not logically reasonable). Over the last few years of interacting with fellow Christians regarding the details of our worldview, one of the doctrines that are not discussed explicitly very often, but other debates directly affect, is the doctrine of the Image of God. I have noticed that some positions in the other debates imply different views of the Image of God, and these different views of the Image of God can be used to test the positions in the other debates. But before I get into those debates, we need to know why this Judeo-Christian doctrine is so important in the first place.

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. 

📚 Top 5 Books For Ethics and Politics 🗽

Common Questions and Challenges in Political Discussions

• Who are you to judge someone else? 
• Who's ethical system are we to abide by (if anyone's)?
• Isn't it wrong to legislate a specific morality? 
• Isn't morality relative to each individual, anyway? 

These are questions that we often find in today's politically charged culture. One side says that morality is objective and should be legislated, while the other side says morality is relative and government should stay out of it. There is also in-fighting on both sides and a whole range of views between the two extremes. Many skeptics get caught up in all the different views that Christians hold and use that as a reason to not believe the Christian worldview and the ethical implications of it. How do we think logically about this and how do we discuss it in a calm but persuasive manner. I have put together my Top 5 Recommended Books to prepare you for these discussions in every encounters, whether you plan to engage others or merely listen and analyze. For your convenience I have linked to my chapter-by-chapter reviews of the books and provided a short reason why I chose the books for this list, but if you really want the details and wish to engage the content of the books, you will need to pick up a copy. Now, on to the list!

Top 5 Books for Discussing Ethics and Politics

1. Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air- Greg Koukl and Francis Beckwith
2. Christian Ethics: Options and Issues- Norman Geisler
3. Legislating Morality: Is It Wise, Is It Legal, Is It Possible- Norman Geisler and Frank Turek
4. The Case For Life- Scott Klusendorf
5. Tactics: A Gameplan for Discussion Your Christian Convictions- Greg Koukl

Why Did I Choose These Books? 

Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air

In any discussion about ethics and politics, a foundation needs to be established. That foundation begins with whether or not morality is objective or relative. If relative, discussions are reduced to mere opinion. If objective, then there is a correct ethic and application in politics to be discovered, and discussion involves the defense of particular views. Greg Koukl and Frank Beckwith take everyday situations and show how relative morality cannot possibly be correct. It is philosophically deep yet written in an easy-to-digest style (its not boring). This book sets the foundation for discussing ethics and politics and helps the reader to defend objective morality in these discussions.

Christian Ethics: Options and Issues

Political discussions do not always take place between two people of completely divergent worldviews; many times they are between two of the same worldview. Many Christians believe different ethical systems that they have derived from the pages of the Bible. These systems result in different applications in everyday life and in politics, so it is important that Christians understand which ethical view makes the most consistent sense of the most biblical data. Norman Geisler examines different ethical views that Christians have proposed in history and compares them to the biblical data; he provides a philosophical critique of the various views; and defends the view he believes is the accurate view. This book made my list because it guides the reader through defending the proper view, which will help defend particular ethical and political views from a logical and biblical perspective. 

Legislating Morality: Is It Wise, Is It Legal, Is It Possible

In political discussions it is common to hear an objector say that morality should not be legislated because it is not wise, legal, or even possible. Norman Geisler and Frank Turek take the reader through the philosophical foundations for the founding documents of the United States of America. They also examine the logical fallacies involved with the claims that morality cannot and should not be legislated. They also spend a large portion of the book describing a model for determining what morality should be legislated and what morality should not be legislated. And how this model plays out in various hot political topics is presented. If you engage in or just listen to discussions on politics, this book needs to be read. It will help provide a powerful context for analysis and discussion of ethical and political positions.

The Case For Life

One of the big ethical and political issues of today is the topic of abortion. Discussions of abortion are often emotionally heated and rarely go anywhere because of the usual lack of a persuasive case by either side. Scott Klusendorf takes a commonly accepted source for truth that both sides acknowledge: science. He presents a powerful positive case that the unborn are unique, alive, and human. He scientifically and philosophically critiques the most common and more philosophically rigorous pro-choice arguments. He presents them in a way that is easy to understand and present in everyday discussions. This book is indispensable for the pro-life defender to present a scientifically focused case to those who value the findings of the scientific disciplines. 

Tactics: A Gameplan for Discussion Your Christian Convictions

Finally, just possessing all the knowledge from the above books will not necessarily make conversations on ethics and politics productive. The person who wishes to persuade others in conversation must present their case in a winsome, respectful, and calm manner. Greg Koukl's book "Tactics" takes the reader through several different principles and real-life conversations to show how to intentionally discuss controversial issues in a non-combative posture. While this book is the last one listed, it could easily be the first one on the list that I recommend you read. You will be able to apply its principles throughout the time that you are reading through the other books and the books in any other Top 5 list.

Related Posts: Conducting Controversial Conversations

• 8 Tips To Discuss Politics, Race, Religion, and Other Controversial Topics
• 4 Questions To Ask Before You Hit SEND
• Top 5 Books For Having Productive Conversations
• Gentleness and Respect in Discussions
• Greg Koukl: A Challenge To Your View Could Be A Blessing

Related Posts: Ethics and Politics

• The Scourge of Racism in America
• How Should Christians Vote In Political Elections?
• Would Jesus Participate In Politics?
• Why Is The Image of God So Important? 
• What Is The Intellectual Cost Of The Pro-Choice Position?
• Providing The Case Against and Solutions for Abortion

Follow Faithful Thinkers On Social Media

    

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.

Norman Geisler: Christians Must Build a Positive Case For Creation

Introduction

As a defender of the Christian worldview it is important for me to show how other worldviews fall short of reality. In my discussions regarding the specifics of the biblical model for the origins of the universe, life, and humanity, I do this quite a bit. However, as Norman Geisler emphasizes in his book "Origin Science: A Proposal for the Creation/Evolution Controversy," that is not sufficient:

"If Creationist views are to gain scientific credibility then they must follow the principles of origin science and build a positive case for a primary cause, rather than relying on the ineffective means of pointing out flaws in various evolutionary hypotheses."

Providing The Case Against And Solutions For Abortion

Introduction

As I have defended the truth of the Christian worldview over the last decade or so, I have been investigating the finer details of the Christian worldview also. It is not enough to defend a "mere" Christianity, for many skeptics see contradictions between reality and what many Christians believe. We must also investigate and defend these theologically nuanced portions of the Christian faith (for more details on the importance of investigating and defending the details, see my post "Internal Debates and Apologetics"). 

One the big internal debates that skeptics see as internally inconsistent is the area of ethics and morality. But not just having the proper view of morality, but seeing it lived out in the Christian's life (the issue of hypocrisy in the Church). An accurate ethical system and the consistent application of it are just as apologetically important as defending the essential truths of the Christian worldview. But this goes beyond just those who are intentional with philosophically and scientifically defending the faith. This affects every Christian's evangelical witness. This is why I have been recently addressing defending the correct ethical system (see my review of "Christian Ethics: Options and Issues" by Norm Geisler) and how it should be applied in our lives (particularly in the area of politics; see my review of "Legislating Morality" by Geisler and Turek and my post "How Should Christians Vote In Political Elections"). My attention has been more acutely focused on our moral duty to protect life.