Okay, here it is, the fourth and final post in our series on evolution. In the past three posts we’ve taken a look at a basic introduction to evolution and its credibility as a scientific theory. After considering the evidence against evolution, it’s pretty safe to say that its reliability is at the very least highly questionable. That raises a very interesting question: If there are so many problems with evolution, why is it still taught and accepted as a fact? Moreover, why aren’t opposing theories like Intelligent Design and Biblical Creation taught alongside it? After all, in real science, the facts are allowed to be interpreted through opposing theories. In the end, the theory that best explains the facts — and not the other way around — is accepted.

             The reason that evolution is still accepted as fact, the reason evolution is still taught as the truth is not because of its stellar credentials. It is because evolution is a foundational aspect of an entire belief system (worldview). Evolution provides a premise for how life originated without requiring the existence of a Creator. As a result, since there is no room for a Creator in an evolutionary-based worldview, people have no accountability to Him. We would therefore be free to do as we pleased with no lasting, eternal consequences, since we would essentially be extremely intelligent animals that somehow attained consciousness. That makes things kind of convenient if one doesn’t want to believe in God, doesn’t it? No responsibility, no eternity, no worries, right?

             Contrary to what some may believe, ideas do have consequences. Good ideas have good consequences, bad ideas have bad ones. So what kind of consequences does evolution produce? If people are nothing more than cosmic accidents that are highly evolved, then they really don’t have any basic value. After all, what value does an accident have? Accordingly, if people have no value, then the value of life is extremely low. Practices like abortion, euthanasia, genocide and others can simply be justified as steps that need to be taken to thin out “human weeds”. People have no obligation to the well-being of others, since there is no higher standard to appeal to. People are their own standard. Therefore, everyone would be logically justified in doing whatever pleased themselves, regardless of the cost to others. Our only focus in life should be to consume and enjoy, plowing over anything that gets in the way of our desires. Morality does not exist, since there is no higher standard for people to refer to than themselves. Some may argue that morality has evolved with people, since it was considered a valuable genetic trait that furthered the human population. However, this doesn’t fit very logically with the evolutionary belief system. If I’m here as an accident, then I don’t have any obligation to anyone else. Therefore, I am here for no one else but me. If something will make me happy, then it is in my nature to get it, no matter the cost to anyone else — even if it costs them their life. Someone might tell me that I shouldn’t do something for myself because it would endanger or disadvantage someone else, thus throwing a kink in evolutionary progress. However, since I am naturally selfish, I wouldn’t really care about furthering the evolution of my kind. I would exist for myself, and my ultimate goal would be to make myself happy.

             The truth is, people do feel an obligation to a higher standard, whether they want to accept it or not. If we truly stooped down to hold such a low value of ourselves, life would become utter chaos. Tragically, many buy this belief system hook, line and sinker. The result: empty, unfulfilled lives that constantly try to cover their loneliness with material wealth and sensual indulgence. Regardless of how much they try, regardless of how much they gain, it is never enough. If evolution were true, there would be no void, there would be no loneliness. Our selfish pursuits would provide satisfaction. The satisfaction would eventually wear off, but we would just mechanically go back for more. Humans are more complex than that, though. When the satisfaction wears off, there is a deeper longing that just can’t be effectively ignored. We can try, but its gnawing never fully goes away. Humans aren’t materialistic creatures. They have desires that can’t be fully answered by material things. In that case, what does one get when they go beyond the material? They must consider the supernatural.

             Humans are spiritual beings. They can’t be fulfilled with simply food, shelter and rest like any other animal. They need something deeper. They need something that fills the “void of loneliness” that exists in every person. Materialistic evolution cannot explain this need. People can deny its existence, and many can therefore ignore it effectively. However, they are unable to live in absolute consistency with an evolutionary worldview. They hold moral convictions, whether they believe in morality or not. They consider the welfare of others. They treat other people with value, although an evolutionary worldview cannot make sense of this. Evolution degrades humans to a place beside the animals, but it fails to satisfactorily explain what makes humans superior to animals. Could it be that people were created in the image of God? Wouldn’t that explain why life is given value, why morality is important, why we would seek to be considerate of others? If something was created, wouldn’t its Maker have inserted some level of value in His work? God did. He considered his creation to be of such high value, though it was tainted with sin, to be worth the life of His only Son, Jesus. That’s how valuable life is. Evolution considers humans to be material accidents, whereas Christianity identifies humans — all humans — as beings with unspeakable value.

             Consider the evidence. We must decide for ourselves which worldview to believe in. However, remember that ideas always, always have consequences. Know the consequences that a worldview will produce. Never commit to a path before first knowing where it will end.

“There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way to death.”

Proverbs 16:25

          Just how much do you appreciate having eyesight? Why does the Oriental sweetlips decide not to chow down on a blue-streak wrasse? How in the world could life possibly start from non-life? I could list quite a few similar questions, but we’ll just take a look at these three for the time being. Although it will be far from a conclusive overview, I think the answers to  these examples will give us a better understanding of the credibility of believing in divine creation. Likewise, I think that they will also point out just how problematic a belief in evolution truly is. This post is obviously not written from a neutral position. I will confidently state that I believe a sovereign God created the universe. However, I hope that after these questions are addressed, it will be easier to see why I have an ample amount of assurance that a sovereign God created the universe. 

            Let’s start off with the human eye. Just how amazing is this little wonder? The human eye is capable of performing automatic aiming, focusing, and aperture adjustment maneuvers in a split-second. It is capable of focusing on an object with the diameter of a fine hair and makes about 100,000 motions every day. A number of finely-tuned muscles and nerves all work together to develop the clear and focused images that make up our sense of sight. So how likely is it that all these amazing capabilities accidentally fell in place so perfectly as to form a fully-functioning human eye? Dr. R. L. Wysong, a Creationist who formerly believed in evolution, calculated that the probability of an eye forming by chance is 1 in 10²²⁶ (The Creation-Evolution Controversy, Inquiry Press, 1981, p. 308). That’s a “1″ followed by 226 zeroes. To put this in perspective, there are between 10⁷⁸ and 10⁸² atoms in the entire known universe. The odds of an eye forming by chance are tremendously higher than that! And those are just the odds for the eye alone! Think about all the other organs, tissues, and other parts of the human body that would have to evolve alongside the eye! Even the numerous “basic” organs that are essential for life couldn’t evolve separately, because they would not be able to function individually. Needless to say, those odds would be absolutely monstrous. 

            Moving on to exhibit number two, we come across the blue-streak wrasse and the Oriental sweetlips, two fish that have an unusual relationship — with names to match. This odd relationship is more formally labeled a “symbiotic” relationship. In plain English, this means that the wrasse and the sweetlips help each other out. The Oriental sweetlips is a predator fish, so as the day goes along it begins to accumulate plaque and gunk on its teeth. Eventually, the sweetlips heads over to a “cleaning station” manned by blue-streak wrasses. The sweetlips opens its mouth and allows the Wrasses to swim inside and eat out all the plaque and buildup that are stuck to its teeth. As a result, the Wrasses get a free meal, while the sweetlips’  teeth remain healthy. Now here’s the question. Why doesn’t the Oriental sweetlips take a golden opportunity and turn the unsuspecting wrasse into an appetizer? After all, if nature is all about natural selection and survival of the fittest, this bad boy has the wrasses right where he needs them. One could argue that the sweetlips eventually realized how it was actually beneficial to allow the wrasses to clean his teeth, but that goes contrary to the evolution-based belief that all organisms are in a competition and struggle for survival. The sweetlips is bigger, so it ought to take advantage of every opportunity to eat the wrasses. These kinds of relationships are not exclusive to the Oriental sweetlips and the blue-streak wrasse. They occur throughout all Creation. It could be suggested that these animals eventually stumbled upon the realization that these interactions were beneficial. However, I think that it is much more plausible to believe that such relationships were ingrained in these creatures by a sovereign Creator. 

            Last but not least, I’d like to consider an especially challenging dilemma that evolution must face. How did life originate from non-living materials? This is where the language can get really technical and the facts and figures start flowing quite freely, so I’ll just give a simple explanation and leave the complex stuff to the experts. You can follow these two links: (Link 1 Link 2) if you want to dive into those complex explanations. Anyway, the answer is really straightforward: life just doesn’t appear out of nowhere. In fact, the idea that life could originate from non-life — more properly called “spontaneous generation” or “abiogenesis” — was disproved by the famous French scientist Louis Pasteur around 150 years ago. Ironically, this occurred right around the same time Charles Darwin was proposing the possibility of evolution! You can’t throw a bunch of different chemicals together and expect a cell, much less a slug, to pop out. However, this has to be true in order for evolution to have even a chance at getting off the ground. After all, if life didn’t originate by intelligent design, then chance, time, and natural processes all had to work together to combine non-living chemicals in precisely the right order so that life could initially exist.  

            I know this post has dragged on a bit more than I usually allow, so thanks for sticking through it! These are just some of the many examples I can provide that call into question the trustworthiness of evolution. Contrary to what is generally believed, evolution is not a fact. On the contrary, it is a very troubled belief system that suffers immensely from a lack of evidence in support of its position. Just because it appears that the majority (or at least the sources with the most influential voices) support evolution does not make it true. If the facts don’t line up, don’t accept them. Otherwise, if the truth is distorted, horrible and disastrous consequences can result. We will take a look at the consequences that evolution has generated, as well as their cure, in the next and final post.

Check out these links for more interesting info!

Article about the human eye

The Creatures and Biological Structures Evolutionists Don’t Talk About!

          In the last post we looked at a quick introduction to the theory of evolution and its two “sub-categories”: micro-evolution and macro-evolution. Remember that micro-evolution states that organisms change within their species, while macro-evolution claims that organisms develop from one species to a completely different species. In this entry we’ll take a closer look at macro-evolution. While it may seem pretty obvious that organisms change within their species (some cats have long hair, some have short hair, some lizards are larger than others, etc.), it is quite a different belief that those same cats or lizards could become something like a horse or a bird.  

            Usually, when someone mentions evolution, they are referring to the idea of macro-evolution. Throughout this post and the remaining posts in this series, whenever I refer to “evolution”, “macro-evolution” is the belief I have in mind. I personally find it kind of confusing to distinguish between the “micro” and “macro”, so we’ll keep it simple and just call it evolution. If I do refer to “micro-evolution”, I’ll be sure to point out the distinction. With that said, let’s take a closer look at the initial response to Charles Darwin’s controversial theory. 

            When Darwin first proposed his theory of evolution in the mid to late-1800′s, it sent shockwaves throughout society. Those who denied the existence of God finally had a groundwork and an explanation for the origin of life. Because Darwin’s idea relied only on a matter-based beginning for life with no hint toward the supernatural, atheists, deists, and others who deny God’s existence or involvement with the world had a belief system they could hold up and proclaim as fact. Evidently, there was no longer any need to explain how a supernatural, all-powerful being created the universe. The universe itself had simply come into existence, and somehow we came along with it. 

            Although Darwin’s beliefs were initially very convincing in light of the secular scientific knowledge he had access to, it needs to be pointed out that our current scientific knowledge has advanced quite a bit beyond what was understood in his day. New discoveries in the fields of biology, microbiology, chemistry, and other branches of science have since brought up very valid points of debate. How could life have arisen from non-living matter? How could all of the chemical ingredients necessary for  life have been present — by chance —at the right time and in the proper order? In all fairness to Darwin, many of the facts we have unearthed were not known during his lifetime. However, the idea of evolution is still alive and well today, despite mounting evidence that increasingly threatens its credibility. We will consider one such example in this post, followed by a few more in the next. 

            One of the most deceptively “simple” organisms in all of nature is the cell. During Darwin’s time, cells were essentially considered to be small blobs filled with a jelly-like substance. Only after microbiology took a closer look at these little wonders did their phenomenal complexity come to the surface. Far from being an inactive mass of goo, the cell is an extremely intricate organism that is very crucial for life to exist. Functioning in a variety of tasks, the details surrounding how these tiny life forms function is a study in itself. To get a brief introduction to just how amazing the cell’s role is, check out this video.

This post is the first in a four-part series on evolution. Each new post will be published within a week of the previous entry.

          Out of all the scientific theories introduced in the past couple of centuries, few have equaled the level of controversy and passion that the theory of evolution has prompted. In a series of upcoming posts we will dig into this highly debated topic more thoroughly, considering some terminology regarding evolution, its credibility, and some of the consequences of a worldview grounded in evolution. Because of the broad scope of this topic and the numerous areas it covers — science, sociology, law, etc. —  this series will hardly provide a complete overview. We’ll take a look at some of the most important aspects in the posts, while I will include several links you can follow in order to gain an in-depth study of a certain portion that may interest you. That said, let’s get started.

            As it is typically discussed, evolution is the belief that all living things arose from non-living matter and gradually developed into more complex life forms. There are a variety of explanations concerning how matter came into existence in the first place, but for the time being we’ll take that for granted. Eventually, all the ingredients and conditions necessary for life to exist came together at precisely the right time. As the resulting life form developed and passed on its traits to successive generations, these generations adapted more effectively to their environment. With each new set of adaptations, the organisms became more complex and better suited for survival. Any organisms who were not as fit as their siblings died off, allowing the stronger ones to survive, thus propelling the evolutionary chain onward through billions of years.

            Before we look any closer into this topic, I need to provide a quick clarification for the term “evolution”. In most cases, the term refers to the process stated in the above paragraph — life arising from non-life and gradually developing into more complex organisms. This belief is called “macro-evolution”. However, there is also “micro-evolution”. Micro-evolution refers to changes within a particular species, while macro-evolution refers to changes among species. A good example of micro-evolution can be found in dog breeding. When different kinds of dogs are bred, their offspring possess genetic traits from both parents. This results in an animal that, although somewhat different from its parents, is still a dog. Macro-evolution, on the other hand, holds that something like a fish could gradually develop into an amphibian, like a frog, which could then develop into a lizard, and so on. While micro-evolution (change within species) is very observable in the world around us, we cannot readily study macro-evolution. As a result, macro-evolution — or any other theory about the origin of life — cannot be proved from observation. Since no one who was around at the beginning of time is still alive today, we can only interpret the past by the evidence we see around us in fossils, the geological record, the complexity of life, etc. In the next post, we will consider this topic of macro-evolution more closely.

The other day while I was in a store, I happened to hear some of an interesting yet sobering conversation between a cashier and a customer.  Because I was walking by the checkout counters and not in line, I was only able to catch a piece of the dialogue.  As the cashier was totaling up the customer’s order, the customer ventured to ask him where he went to church.  The young man named a local place of worship that happened to be a Pseudo-Christian cult (for more on Pseudo-Christian cults, click here.)  A somewhat puzzled expression momentarily passed over the customer’s face, but it didn’t stop him from asking a follow-up question: “Uh, are you saved?”

Before I write anything else, I want to commend the customer for taking the initiative to try and share his faith.  It takes guts to do that, and it’s especially challenging to do it with a stranger.  Although I was unable to understand all the aspects and circumstances surrounding the customer’s witness, he did not appear to be very knowledgeable of the beliefs the cashier’s religion holds to.  Although he very likely knew what he believed about being “saved”, I don’t know if he had an understanding of what members of the particular cult believe.  He didn’t need to know every tenet of the cult’s doctrine; he just needed to know a few of their basic beliefs, including their view of salvation, which is very different from that of Christianity. 

Although it can be very helpful to know and understand the positions of other religions and belief systems, please understand that I am not suggesting one go out and conduct a highly intensive search on every philosophy that crosses their path.  Before any research on another belief system is made, Christians need to be sure that they know what they believe and that their beliefs line up with Scripture.  After this crucial foundation has been laid, research can be conducted on other beliefs.  This extra- curricular research is entirely optional and definitely not mandatory.  However, it can be extremely valuable when entering a witnessing opportunity or in understanding a particular cultural viewpoint. 

Here’s an illustration.  Suppose an army needs to know what obstacles they may face in a particular tract of land before they launch an assault.  Because they may not get another shot at taking this extremely valuable territory, they need to know what they are going up against before they go all in.  Obviously, the wisest move would be to scout out the land.  Once the scouts return with the necessary information — what the layout appears to be, where the opposition is weakest, etc. — the advance can proceed with a much greater amount of confidence and likelihood of success. 

The Christian approach to witnessing and understanding other worldviews is somewhat similar to that army’s scouting procedure.  We don’t need to go into a witnessing opportunity with a militant attitude, but we do need to obtain any information necessary to conducting a successful mission.  Understandably, a Christian can’t know every belief about every worldview he encounters, but a basic knowledge of the fundamental beliefs of several major belief systems will give him a distinct advantage not only in witnessing, but also in understanding events and opinions throughout our culture.  If Christians are to be ready to “give a reason for the hope that we have” (1Peter 3:15) as well as being on guard to “take every thought captive” (2 Corinthians 10:5) that the culture throws our way, we need to take time and understand the different worldviews that challenge the Christian worldview.  If we can learn to do this minimal amount of foundational work consistently, we will be able to enter witnessing opportunities and interaction with the culture with greater confidence, focus, and effectiveness.

If you would like to learn more about the beliefs of several prominent religions and belief systems, check out these links:

Chart depicting six major worldviews and their beliefs on a variety of topics

Essays on several religions and belief systems

Essays covering topics that different worldviews address

 Why should Christian be concerned about these cults in the first place?  Consider it this way: Christians need not be concerned about Mormonism and the Jehovah’s Witnesses because they are so different from Biblical Christianity.  Rather, Christians should be wary of these cults because they appear on the surface to be extremely similar to Christianity.  If you entered into a conversation with a Jehovah’s Witness or a Mormon about matters of religion, you may not quickly detect an obvious difference in your positions.  That is exactly what makes these cults so dangerous.  Christians who are not firmly grounded in the Bible — the true Bible, that is — may be easily swayed by a teaching on a few points of doctrine they are not familiar with.  As a result, they may be persuaded to accept the cult’s entire belief system, not realizing the conspicuous contradictions they hold toward Biblical Christianity.

 Because of the great extent of material a blog post would have to cover in order to take an in-depth look at particular Pseudo-Christian cults, I’ll have to wrap this one up by adding a few links to some resources.  As stated before, the great danger of these cults lies not in how different they are from Christianity, but how similar to it they appear on the surface.  Christians therefore need to understand these differences so they are not swayed by non-Biblical teachings.  Knowing what other religions and belief systems accept as truth is an invaluable step toward becoming an informed Christian.  More on that topic coming up in the next post.

List of articles concerning cults

Article about discerning cults

Fact sheet on Pseudo-Christian cults

Let’s say you go see a movie.  You get to the theater, buy your ticket, and grab a seat, maybe after a quick stop by the concession stand for an $8 bag of popcorn.  The previews drag on for about ten minutes, and then the movie finally starts.  You sit on the edge of your seat throughout the whole showing, totally engrossed in the story that flashes in front of you on the silver screen.  After about an hour and a half the film comes to an end, the credits start rolling, and you make a beeline for the nearest restroom.  Then you head home.  However, what you may not have realized is that for the entire hour and a half that you sat in a sedentary daze, a philosophy about life was being drilled into your mind.  What’s more, it may have been absorbed without even being challenged.  That is, unless you were thinking critically.

When a person thinks critically about something, he doesn’t just take it at face value.  The goal isn’t to swallow it in one bite, but to break it down and analyze it, making careful judgments about everything that is said and done.  For Christians, critical thinking is, well, quite critical to their faith.  No matter who says something, no matter where it was seen, every message that is heard must be dissected and carefully examined in order to distinguish truth from lies.  According to Scripture, Christians are called to “take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ” (2 Corinthians 10:5), as well as being “transformed by the renewing of your mind” (Romans 12:2).  How can this be accomplished if we turn our minds off to what we read, watch, and listen to?  To be honest, we’re never really immune to the messages.  Whether we realize it or not, we absorb them without a challenge when we fail to think critically and take them captive for Christ.  When this happens, our worldview is gradually overtaken not by the truth of God’s word, but by the lies we fail to detect and destroy.

Let’s take a second to address the issue of worldview and how it relates to critical thinking.  (If you don’t know what a worldview is, check out a previous post on this topic by clicking here.)  In essence, your worldview is the lens through which you view all of reality.  If your worldview “lens” is blurry, you will likewise view reality in a blurry and misinformed way.  The Christian’s job is to always be examining and “touching up” his worldview, feeding himself with the truth of Scripture. As he does so, he will be able to see reality in an increasingly clearer light.  This clearer vision will enable him to become more effective at locating messages that are contrary to or in correspondence with reality.  As he learns to apply this vision in all areas of his life and carefully examines them, he becomes a better critical thinker.

 That’s a quick look at the importance of critical thinking.  Critical thinking, like many other worthy pursuits, is not an easy thing to do.  However, when it is faithfully and methodically employed in our thoughts and reasoning, our minds — and judgments — will become increasingly stronger and prudent.  This post is just a brief overview of the value of critical thinking.  If you would like to learn more about critical thinking in general and how to develop and apply it to your life, you can check out this link from Summit Ministries here.

   The other day while I was at the gym, I had a thought cross my mind.  In fact, the thought was about my mind. As I lifted __ pounds of iron without hardly breaking a sweat, I got to thinking  about how our minds are kind of like our muscles.  When we work them out, exercise them, and challenge them, they develop and grow stronger and we are better off for it.  On the flip side, if we let them take it easy all the time and only tackle what’s within — or below — our comfort zone, they remain weak and progress becomes stagnant.  If we feed them a balanced, nutritional diet with only an occasional allowance for something less healthy, they are given the dietary support they need in order to complement our exercise program.  If all they get is junk, they return the favor and make us think and feel like junk.  So what’s a body (or mind) to do?

   Obviously, the most comfortable way is the easy way.  Just stay in your comfort zone and hit the automatic button for an everyday, predictable routine.  No challenges, no pain – and no growth.  This approach might appear to be comfortable, but in the end it actually bites back.  You feel sluggish, rotten, and possibly depressed.  Eventually, you might get to the point where you decide to bite the bullet and start making changes.  I can remember the days leading up to my purchasing a gym membership.  I had been dissatisfied with how out of shape I was, and sporadic workouts weren’t getting the job done.  I knew that if I wanted to get results, something had to change.  So I joined a local gym and got a workout routine going.  The results didn’t come as fast as I would have liked, but they eventually did come.  Now I wouldn’t even consider trading them for the previous condition I had simply accepted for so long.

   Our minds clearly can’t get physical exercise, but there are other ways that they can be exerted.  Turn off the TV, take a vacation from the computer, and unplug the iPod.  Granted, there are certain programs, internet articles, music, etc. that do succeed in engaging the mind on a challenging level, but they aren’t very common.  Try to get into a reading routine, especially with books that are above your reading level.  A particularly refreshing and challenging pursuit can be found in studying and memorizing Biblical passages.  Read some of the works by the early church fathers and other authoritative Christian authors (St. Augustine, Thomas à Kempis, William Wilberforce, C.S. Lewis, etc.)  Good literature can often be the equivalent of a full body workout for the mind.  But don’t just stop with literature.  Though they may not be in the majority, there are some examples in the electronic realm of music, websites, and videos that are also capable of exercising the mind.  Don’t just settle for post-digested content that you only have to absorb.  Search out stuff that requires you to work before you can understand the message.  If music, look for complex (and definitely morally sound) lyrics that cause you to think about the message the artist is trying to convey.  If websites, don’t waste a lot of time surfing through trivial information that won’t matter in a couple of hours.  Look for some blogs or resources where you can be intellectually encouraged in your Christian walk.  If videos/movies, challenge yourself to determine the message that a director is embedding in his film or, if you want to be really unorthodox, watch (or listen to) some quality lectures or sermons on a particular topic that interests you.

   Exercising and challenging your mind is not an easy thing to do, especially with discipline.  I’ll be the first to say that I fall short in consistently applying myself toward mental workouts.  Physical and mental fitness, as good as they are, can’t be purchased cheap.  The price is steep and the work is intense, but the rewards surpass the exertion.  I may not be anywhere near the level of mental fitness that I want to be, but the compensation I’ve received for what little work I have put forward has been encouraging.  I’m more able to identify underlying agendas in media and literature, more appreciative of difficult books and teaching, and more aware of how my Christian faith applies to the world around me.  Exercising my mind has not been especially easy and there have been times when I haven’t considered it as important as it truly is, but just like with my experience with the gym, I wouldn’t even consider tolerating what I had before.  Working out our minds is an awesome privilege that God has given us, and we need to be sure to take advantage of all the opportunities we have to develop it for His glory.

OK, let’s check out the next two inconsistencies in atheism that Dr. Bahnsen addressed.  First, we covered the problem of inductive inference, detailing how Atheists cannot rely on past occurrences/information to draw conclusions about the future, since they believe all processes are governed by random chance.  Next we touched on their inability to employ logic and concepts in reasoning.  Considering that atheism holds that all reality consists only of matter, the consistent atheist is unable to accept the existence of non-material concepts and ideas like humanity, justice, and the laws of logic.  In this post, we’re going to conclude with two more stumbling blocks in atheism: the problem of the mind and the problem of moral absolutes.

3. The Problem of the Mind

To an atheist, the mind is essentially an arbitrary concept that is, as far as he is concerned,nonexistent.  Because atheism reduces all of reality down to material things, the closest thing to the mind would be the brain.  As a result, thought, speech, and all other actions that the brain initiates are simply the result of electrical synapses going off at random.  No one can help what they say or do because their brain just spews out the information.  In that case, whatever the brain produces doesn’t really have any purpose, and therefore shouldn’t even be deemed worthy of consideration.  If there is no mind, no ability to even think about actions, words, or ideas, then all you are left with is a brain that produces a bunch of random information.  If atheism were correct on this point there really wouldn’t be any reason to debate if atheism were true or not, since you would be unable to prove it true.  If all I had was a brain that processed information haphazardly, there would be no way for me to bring order and meaning to the words in this sentence, much less defend my worldview.  You can’t reason by using your brain alone.  A mind, something that can access ideas, concepts, etc. must be present.

4. Moral Absolutes

Let’s say I’m arguing about something with an atheist.  I’m getting tired of trying to prove my point, so I want to end the debate quickly and efficiently.  So, I decide to knock him out.  Now, what’s going to happen when I share my plan with him?  Well, he’s obviously not going to be too keen about it, and he would be sure to tell me that I would be wrong to slug him.  Notice that word “wrong”.  According to atheism, there is no way of telling if something is right or wrong.  Morality is simply a matter of opinion, and no one can refer to an objective standard of morality.  Therefore, he can’t tell me that I’m “wrong” to end the argument by punching him.  If there is no way to tell whether something is wrong or not, then there is no issue!  The only way that the atheist can tell me that I am wrong to punch him is if he accepts that there is a transcendent source for morality that is outside the physical universe.  You can be sure that that is the last thing he wants to admit, but the truth is that he lives as if he believes it, whether his words are in agreement with his beliefs or not.

So there you have it.  Four inconsistencies in the materialistic atheist worldview that are practically fatal to its philosophy.  Hopefully you are able to see just how weak this worldview truly is.  Despite the horrendous holes that riddle it, many prominent and extremely intelligent people ardently cling to atheism and proclaim it with the utmost fervor.  But why? Why would so many people accept such a system of belief?  Romans 1:18-20 provides the answer:

“The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.  For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities – his eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, being understood from what had been made, so that men are without excuse.”

The reason that so many people, not just atheists, don’t want to accept that there is a God is because they are suppressing the truth by their wickedness.  People naturally don’t want to hear that they are sinful, and they don’t want to hear that they are going to be held responsible for their sins by a holy, righteous God.  Keep this in mind.  When a person’s worldview is cast down in a heap of mangled ruin, they aren’t often going to be very open to the opposition’s viewpoint.  Simply destroying someone’s worldview is rarely going to encourage them to become a Christian.  Once the inconsistencies are brought into the light, only the Holy Spirit can work in the unbeliever’s heart to draw he or she to the Father.  The Christian’s job is to simply be the vessel God uses to reach the unbeliever.

1. The Problem of Inductive Inference
 
The title “inductive inference” is essentially just a fancy way of describing the process of drawing conclusions from past information.  For example, I use inductive inference when I pour a glass of milk.  Based on my past experiences of milk-pouring, I can assume that the milk will remain in the glass once it leaves the bottle.  However, as strange as it seems, the consistent atheist would be unable to share in this belief.  Atheism holds that there is no order in the universe, and therefore all events are simply results of random chance.  As a result, the atheist would be unable to accept that something that happened yesterday will happen the same way today.  Consequently, the atheist cannot be consistent with what he claims to believe and say that the milk will remain in the glass when you pour it again.  For all he knows, it might shoot across the room when you tip the bottle.  If random chance governs everything, you can’t accept past information about a specific event as relevant to the present.

2. Inability to Employ Logic and Concepts in Reasoning
 
According to atheism, matter is all that exists.  No spiritual realm or anything of that sort, just things that are made entirely out of matter.  However, this belief can cause a lot of problems when considering ideas and concepts like humanity, justice, and even the laws of logic.  So what’s so difficult about those sort of things?  Consider the fact that you can’t really touch,smell, see, hear, or taste any concept or idea.  Obviously, then, they’re not material.  Because concepts and ideas are immaterial, the consistent atheist cannot let them into his worldview.   He believes that matter is all that constitutes reality, and is therefore forced to reject anything he can’t interact with using his five senses.   Accordingly, even something as fundamental as logic has to be chunked.  The consistent atheist, therefore, is essentially unable to use reason, the very thing his worldview prides itself on embracing.

- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – -

Check back October 9th for part two…