Explore by Topic
Explore by Format
Search Results | 106 results found
As I travel around speaking, the vast majority of the questions I get have to do with the intersection of science and faith. Has science made miracles impossible? Is there any scientific proof for God? Is faith in God a blind leap in the dark? What about evolution? How old is the earth?
“The Bible is full of contradictions!” We hear it all the time from skeptics and atheists as if it’s common knowledge. But is it true?
Tonight’s the night! Join me right here, on Google+, or on YouTube at 6:30 p.m. (PT) to see the live video feed of “Shattering the Icons of Evolution.” I’ll be talking about how to recognize and respond to the different categories that arguments for macroevolution fall into: exaggerated extrapolations, egregious errors, and equivocal evidence.
When I meet someone who claims that evolution is a fact, I have two questions for him. First, I need to find out what he means by evolution. To do this, I employ a variation of the first Columbo question: What do you mean by evolution? The term evolution can be used to mean a number of different things. Therefore, it’s important to find out precisely what they mean.
Evolutionists love to point to vestigial structures in the biological realm as evidence for evolution. The argument goes like this: Some organisms contain structures that were once functional in their evolutionary past but have now become useless (or almost useless). In The Greatest Show on Earth, Richard Dawkins writes, “Vestigial eyes are evidence of evolution. Given that a cave salamander lives in perpetual darkness so has no use for eyes, why would a divine creator nevertheless furnish it with dummy eyes, clearly related to eyes, but non-functional?”
One of the ways to be a good ambassador for Christ is to be a good listener. Oftentimes, we are so busy trying to win the argument that we fail to listen to the person making the argument. I believe that we would be much more effective if we would just stop talking and start listening. It has been my experience that if you listen to an atheist long enough, they will give you the rope to hang their arguments with.
Many atheists don’t like the term “atheist.” They take atheism to be just the default position. I’ve even heard some atheists state that atheism is not really a belief at all. Rather, they assert it is simply a lack of belief.
Our young people face an unprecedented assault on their faith. It seems to come at them from every side. One area that is effectively used by the enemy is social media. On media like Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram, it is very easy for people to share rhetorically powerful posts that can leave young Christians scrambling to find an answer.
Last month I was asked to speak at a church on the question “Should Christians Embrace Evolution?” The way you answer this question depends entirely on what you mean by evolution. Broadly speaking, evolution can be divided into two categories: microevolution and macroevolution. Microevolution, or small-scale biological change, is obviously true and is virtually accepted by everyone. Macroevolution, on the other hand, is much more controversial.
Here’s a challenge I received: No-one can “validate” his/her own religion. Likewise, no-one can “invalidate” any other religion. I believe in some type of god/gods, but I choose not to associate that belief with any specific religious teachings, because I've never felt qualified to refute the equally unprovable beliefs of other cultures. You can’t claim anyone’s beliefs to be “right” or “wrong” when it’s all based on conjecture.