The Cycle of Unbelief by Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=2495

The Cycle of Unbelief

by	Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

Societies throughout human history have tended to cycle through the same patterns: acknowledging God, denying God, embracing moral depravity, receiving punishment and destruction from God, repenting, and then recycling again. The Israelites of the Old Testament repeated this cycle several times as recorded in the book of Judges. The pattern starts with human eyes looking upward, worshipping God. As time goes by, we tend to lower our eyes from God, gaze at ourselves, and proclaim that we are more wise and intelligent than God. Many decide that He’s unnecessary and pretend that He does not exist. Humans are then idolized—Caesars, popes, Hollywood stars, American idols. This phase of the cycle commenced in America in the last half century and is illustrated in the world around us in a myriad of ways.

Society claims to be wiser than God in saying that spanking your children is bad because it teaches them to be violent and hurts their self-esteem. Yet God, through Solomon, said that “he who spares his rod hates his son, but he who loves him disciplines him promptly” (Proverbs 13:24). Society has arrogantly elevated itself above God. Many in society say that capital punishment is cruel and unusual, yet God required the Israelites to inflict capital punishment for over 15 different crimes, and stoning someone to death was a typical form of capital punishment (Miller, 2002). By deluded human thinking, God is guilty of “cruel and unusual punishment.” Society says that God and government should be separate, but God says, “Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord” (Psalms 33:12). Society says that homosexuality and other forms of sodomy are acceptable lifestyles that should be endorsed, even encouraged. But God listed homosexuality as a crime worthy of death in the Old Testament (Leviticus 20:13), and said that homosexuals and sodomites will not “inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Corinthians 6:9-10). Society has elevated human beings to the status of gods capable of deciding what is morally right and wrong. Humans do not have to bow down to each other literally, to be guilty of self-worship. Elevating ourselves to the status of gods by disregarding the true God is sufficient. We are arrogant when we dismiss God’s directives, as if we need to understand the reasons behind everything that God tells us to do or not do in His Word. He says, “For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways and My thoughts than your thoughts” (Isaiah 55:9). We are expected to trust Him (Hebrews 11:6).

As the cycle toward spiritual depravity progresses, humans move their focus still further downward--away from God--to elevate the animal to a status higher than humans (who already are considered higher than God). The reverence bestowed on animals by the animal rights movement of the last few years, illustrates to the world that America has reached this phase of the cycle, too. Think about it—in the last few decades, activists have splashed paint on women who wear furs, devoted themselves to saving the whales, encouraged using human embryos for testing to promote human welfare while seeking to outlaw the use of animals for research purposes, advocated going vegetarian, etc. It is a crime to break a bald eagle egg before the eagle has hatched, but killing a human baby before it has left its mother’s womb is acceptable to society (“Bald Eagle,” 2002). “There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death” (Proverbs 14:12; 16:25). God’s approach works. However, the end result of elevating animals is seen in many of the impoverished, primitive Hindu societies of the world, where people lay starving in the streets while healthy cows roam about freely because of their elevated status. Clearly, humans are incapable of making spiritual decisions effectively on their own. “O Lord, I know the way of man is not in himself. It is not in man who walks to direct his own steps” (Jeremiah 10:23).

Often, within this repeated pattern of spiritual decay, human eyes move down even further from God, and the Earth itself becomes elevated to the status of god. America is there, too. Enter the environmentalists. “Mother Earth” must be protected at all costs. “Save the planet.” “Go green.” “No carbon footprints.” Some advocate killing off certain humans that they deem as less useful to society in order to save the planet and its resources (cf. Harrub, 2006). The cultures of the past, those that Christian peoples have always regarded as pagan, are now being extolled for their worship of animals and the Earth. The theory of evolution says that the Earth is responsible for our existence and development—i.e., the Earth is our god. We must save it to survive, and we have the omnipotent power to control its destiny. Society says that we should not arrogantly “lord over” nature, since they are our ancestors and have as much value as we have. We humans have just happened to accidentally evolve further than them. (Consider Hollywood’s message to us about its view of nature and the sin of trying to control and have dominion over it in the movieInstinct). In stark contrast, God says that humans are to have dominion “over all the earth” (Genesis 1:26).

Should we be good stewards of God’s creation? Certainly. However, the Earth should never be elevated to the level of respect that it is being given today. Humans should never think so highly of themselves that they presume to control the destiny of the Earth. Contrary to the teachings of global warming advocates, it is not the almighty human who will destroy the Earth in the end. It is Almighty God (2 Peter 3:10-12). It is not murder in God’s sight to kill a plant, no matter how or under what circumstances it is done. God did not command capital punishment to be implemented on those who cut down a tree. Plants are not on the same value level as humans, regardless of whether a committee of morally confused humans decides such (cf. Willemsen, 2008)

On a positive note, if the typical pattern is repeating itself again, then the cycle may be nearing completion and may return to a sane, sensible appraisal of spiritual reality—returning us to the one true God, the Creator. America’s worship of itself, the animal kingdom, and the Earth has been going on for several decades, while worship of God is expelled as primitive. Unfortunately, divine punishment and destruction always occur before the cycle restarts. Although written 2,000 years ago, Paul’s words still hold true:

Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things. Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen (Romans 1:22-25, emp. added).

REFERENCES

“Bald Eagle,” (2002), [On-line], URL: http://midwest.fws.gov/eagle/protect/laws.html.

Harrub, Brad (2006), "Eliminate 90% of the Human Race?,"http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=1821.

Miller, Dave (2002), “Capital Punishment and the Bible,” [On-line], URL:http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1974.

Willemsen, Ariane, ed. (2008), “The Dignity of Living Beings with Regard to Plants—Moral Consideration of Plants for their Own Sake,” Federal Ethics Committee on Non-Human Biotechnology (Berne: Swiss Confederation), April.

True Science Is the Christian's Friend by Michael G. Houts, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=3572

True Science Is the Christian's Friend

by	Michael G. Houts, Ph.D.

[EDITOR’S NOTE: The following article was written by A.P. auxiliary staff scientist Dr. Houts, who holds a Ph.D. in Nuclear Engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). Dr. Houts has received numerous awards, including a NASA Certificate of Appreciation for Exceptional Leadership. His professional activities include serving as Chairman of the Symposium on Space Nuclear Power and Propulsion. Dr. Houts spent 11 years at Los Alamos National Laboratory, serving in various positions including Team Leader for Criticality, Reactor, and Radiation Physics and Deputy Group Leader for a 70-person Nuclear Design and Risk Analysis Group. He presently serves as the Nuclear Research Manager for NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center. The opinions expressed are his own and not necessarily those of NASA.]

“Idle babble and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge” (1 Timothy 6:20) have led people astray since the beginning of time. An excellent 21st-century example is the theory of evolution, which in essence claims that the Universe and everything in it somehow made itself. Ironically, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, adherents to the theory are fond of claiming that evolution is somehow “scientific,” and that modern society should accept it as fact. Their egregious misuse of the term “science” has made many Christians suspicious of the word. In the context of evolution, the word “science” often has nothing to do with the objective search for knowledge and everything to do with attempting to promote a contemporary false religion.

The Bible clearly teaches that God created the heavens and the Earth a few thousand years ago, in six literal days. An effective way to cast doubt on the Bible is to claim “science” has shown  that a straightforward reading of the Bible cannot be trusted, and that the Bible must be continually re-interpreted by specialists to ensure that it matches contemporary human wisdom. If society can be convinced to view the Bible in that manner, then the Bible loses all significance. Biblical teaching will be accepted when it agrees with personal opinion and rejected when it does not. Paul’s words to Timothy certainly ring true: “For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables” (2 Timothy 4:3-4, emp. added).

False “knowledge” is continually used to attack the Bible. However, even a cursory examination shows that true science repeatedly confirms the Bible. Rather than being suspicious of “science,” Christians can view true science as another tool God provides to help lead people to Christ. True science is the friend of the Christian and the enemy of the atheist.

Spontaneous Generation

Where would the spontaneous generation debate be if it were not for true science? Spontaneous generation (otherwise known as “abiogenesis” or “biopoesis”) is a fundamental tenet of evolution and other atheistic religions. Rather than acknowledging that God created all life, adherents to spontaneous generation claim that life was somehow able to make itself from inanimate matter.

Centuries before the birth of Christ, Greek “knowledge” insisted that spontaneous generation routinely occurred, and that for many species it was the norm rather than the exception (Balme, 1962). Analogous to what unfortunately still occurs today, many professed Bible believers tried to incorporate this “knowledge” into the biblical Creation account. They vigorously defended the distorted position even when secular opposition arose. For example, when Sir Thomas Browne appeared to question spontaneous generation in his work “Pseudodoxia Epidemica,” the response from Alexander Ross (vicar of St. Mary’s Church in the Isle of Wight and author of The First and Second Book of Questions and Answers upon the Book of Genesis) was quick and to the point: “To question this [the spontaneous generation of various insects and animals—MH], is to question Reason, Sense, and Experience” (Ross, 1652).

After centuries of false secular teaching in this area, true science finally advanced to the point where arguments in favor of spontaneous generation could be put to rest. From 1859 to 1861, Louis Pasteur performed a series of experiments to show that life does not spontaneously arise from non-life, but only comes from pre-existing life. His experiments were conclusive, yet until 1876, he was opposed by several prominent scientists, including Félix Archimède Pouchet, Director of the Museum of Natural History in Rouen, France (Gillen, 2008). In an attempt to retain or add credibility to the idea of spontaneous generation, disciples of evolution also began claiming they had discovered incredibly simple life forms. For example, German scientist Ernst Haeckel (“Darwin’s Bulldog on the Continent”) declared that he had discovered “Monera”—

organisms which are, in fact, not composed of any organs at all, but consist entirely of shapeless, simple, homogenous matter. The entire body of one of these Monera, during life, is nothing more than a shapeless, mobile, little lump of mucus or slime, consisting of an albuminous combination of carbon. Simpler or more imperfect organisms we cannot possibly conceive (Haeckel, 1876, 1:184).

In his book, Haeckel spoke of Monera as if their existence was an established fact. He claimed to have made “complete observations on the natural history” of Monera, even including drawings of Monera, and noting that other famous scientists (e.g., Huxley) had also discovered Monera (1:184).

Evidence that showed “Monera” to be lifeless, inorganic compounds was available as early as 1875. In that year it was determined that alleged “Monera” were nothing more than amorphous gypsum, precipitated out of sea-water by alcohol (Grigg, 1996). However, even with clear refutation from true, operational science, “Monera” continued to be presented as fact for over 50 years by atheists seeking to support evolution-based religions.

From the late 1800s through the present day, scientific evidence against the idea of spontaneous generation has accumulated at a tremendous rate. While many hoped the Miller-Urey experiment of 1952 would spark belief in evolution, most objective observers noted that the mixture of chemicals created (including ~2% racemic amino acids) was not significantly closer to life than the original chemical reactants themselves. Intense efforts in biological research have since shown that the simplest life form is still vastly more complex than anything humans have ever been able to create. Even given the world’s brightest Ph.D.s, incredibly sophisticated laboratories, and virtually unlimited funding, no one has ever come close to making life from non-life. Claiming that life could spontaneously arise from non-life is now known to be much less credible than claiming a space shuttle could randomly assemble and launch itself.

Advances in true science have shown belief in spontaneous generation to be absurd, and informed evolutionists are very uncomfortable defending that foundational aspect of their religion. When forced, evolutionists are reduced to making statements such as “we know life spontaneously arose from non-life, we’re just not sure exactly how.” Such statements are analogous to saying “we know that gravity pushes, we’re just not sure exactly how.” Everything we know from true, operational science tells us that gravity pulls. While a person may choose to believe that gravity pushes, true science is against him. Likewise, everything we know from true, operational science tells us that life comes only from pre-existing life, and that spontaneous generation (life arising from non-life) does not occur. While a person may choose to believe in spontaneous generation for religious reasons, true science is against him. Belief that life on Earth is the result of spontaneous generation is an affront, not only to the Bible, but to everything God has enabled us to learn from true, operational science.

Vestigial Organs and Structures

True science has proven to be the Christian’s friend in the area of vestigial organs and structures as well. A typical definition of a “vestigial structure” is a “structure that is remnant of an organism’s evolutionary past and has no function; from the Latin vestigium, meaning footprint” (Johnson, 1998, p. 868). Throughout the 20th century, the idea of vestigial organs and structures was used to promote belief in evolution. The idea was that humans carry around numerous “useless body parts” (Selim, 2004) that developed in our evolutionary ancestors, but are no longer useful or needed. Proponents initially claimed there were 186 such organs and structures, and that these “mere vestiges” were “inexplicable by the doctrine of special creation” (Wiedersheim, 1895 p. 3). In talking about vestigial structures, Charles Darwin stated: “[F]ar from presenting a strange difficulty, as they assuredly do on the old doctrine of creation, [vestigial organs—MH] might even have been anticipated in accordance with the views [of evolution—MH] here explained” (1859, p. 350).

Much to the chagrin of evolutionists, as science advanced, vestigial structures were removed from Weidersheim’s list one-by-one. Today, functions have been found for all of the proposed 186 “vestigial” structures. Rather than providing support for evolution, the vestigial structures argument was merely an example of scientific ignorance (and atheistic arrogance) being used to promote a false religion.

Perhaps the most well-known “vestigial” structure was the vermiform appendix. Until late in the 20th century, there were no clearly identified functions for the appendix. In addition, it was established long ago that rupturing the appendix can result in a life-threatening infection. The combination of ignorance regarding function and the severity of acute appendicitis led many to regard the appendix as worse than useless. Evolutionists seized on that opinion to declare the appendix a vestigial organ, evidence (in their eyes) that their theory was true. Recent advances in biology, however, have identified numerous functions for the vermiform appendix, especially in early childhood. For example, researchers quoted in New Scientist note the following:

Although it used to be believed that the appendix had no function and was an evolutionary relic, this is no longer thought to be true. Its greatest importance is the immunological function it provides in the developing embryo, but it continues to function even in the adult.... The function of the appendix appears to be to expose circulating immune cells to antigens from the bacteria and other organisms living in your gut. That helps your immune system to tell friend from foe and stops it from launching damaging attacks on bacteria that happily co-exist with you. By the time you are an adult, it seems your immune system has already learned to cope with the foreign substances in the gastrointestinal tract, so your appendix is no longer important. But defects in the appendix and other immune sampling areas may be involved in autoimmune diseases and intestine inflammation (“The Last Word,” 2003, 177[2381]:65).

The same article notes that during fetal development, endocrine (hormone-producing) cells appear in the appendix. These cells produce peptide hormones that control various biological mechanisms (p. 65).

Other structures previously considered “vestigial” include the plica semilunaris, human hair, tonsils, the coccyx, the thymus gland, the pineal gland, and others. Important functions have been identified for each of these structures as well. Although now abandoned by many evolutionists, the argument that vestigial structures provide evidence for evolution is still mentioned in many textbooks and the popular media (e.g., Selim, 2004). An analogous argument flared up in the late 1990s, when evolutionists claimed that significant portions of human DNAare “junk” left over from our evolutionary past (Kuska, 1998). As our knowledge of DNAincreased, that argument quickly faded. Although we still have much to unravel about how DNAworks, we now know that sections of DNA called “junk” just a few years ago have many important functions (see Brooks, 2010, 30[10]:73-76).

Ironically, even if they had been real, vestigial structures would have been consistent with the Creation account. There have been over 6,000 years of natural selection and genetic degradation since Adam sinned. It is expected that many of our organs may not function as well as they did at the original perfect Creation. It is also possible that some functions may have been lost completely. [NOTE: An excellent summary of the “Vestigial Structures” argument is given in Bergman and Howe, 1990]. As in all other areas, true science related to “vestigial structures” supports the biblical account and refutes evolutionary theory.

Diversity of Life on Earth

In the 1800s, humans had no knowledge of how physical characteristics were passed from one generation to the next, or of how changes in characteristics could occur from one generation to the next. One popular theory was promoted by Jean Lamarck, who proposed a theory of biological evolution over long ages by means of the inheritance of acquired characteristics (Lamarck, 1809). Lamarck gives several examples in his book, including the “fact” that giraffes became tall by continually stretching to reach leaves and then passing any increase in height to the next generation (p. 122). Charles Darwin supported a variety of potential options, including natural selection, pangenesis (similar to Lamarck’s beliefs), and sexual selection.

The 20th century marked the discovery of DNA and the associated cellular machinery that makesDNA an incredibly sophisticated and efficient information storage system. We now know that theDNA of Adam and Eve was easily capable of containing all of the information needed to code for every diverse, physical characteristic that we see in humans today. Since Adam sinned, DNA has been affected by mutations and natural selection, but still contains a vast amount of diverse information. The diversity of life on Earth is well-explained by the effects of natural selection and mutations acting on the wealth of information present in the original created “kinds” (Genesis 1:25).

In the study of life’s diversity, true science has once again proven to be the friend of the Christian and the enemy of the evolutionist. The difficulty for evolutionists is not only that they must believe in spontaneous generation (which science has shown impossible), they must also find a mechanism through which unfathomable amounts of genetic information could be added to the organism that somehow created itself. Thousands of mutations (the mechanism evolutionists propose for adding genetic information) have been studied, yet scientists have not found even a single one that added information to the genome (e.g., Lowe and Scherer, 1997). While evolutionists often like to focus discussions on mutations, natural selection, and variation within a kind (points on which evolutionists and biblical creationists agree), those processes cannot explain the creation of new genetic information and do nothing to help resolve this additional fundamental flaw in the theory of evolution.

To fend off critical analysis of this issue, evolutionists typically use a “bait and switch” technique in which they redefine evolution to mean any kind of change. They then go on to say that because we see changes in life, evolution is proven true. They have even created a term (“microevolution”) to describe the changes in life that we see today, with the desired inference that lots of “microevolution” (variation within a kind) could somehow lead to “macroevolution” (creation of completely new kinds).

The deceptiveness of this tactic is that microevolution is at best neutral, and most often actually results in a loss of genetic information. There have been no observed cases of microevolution increasing genetic information. From a “molecules to man” standpoint, microevolution thus either leads nowhere, or actually moves in the opposite direction from that required for “macroevolution.” Microevolution does not lead to creation of completely new kinds; in reality, it leads to extinction.

The microevolution deception is prevalent in most biology textbooks. For instance, Johnson (1998) gives several “examples” of evolution, including Peppered Moths (no new genetic information), Darwin’s finches (no new genetic information), and bacteria “evolving” resistance to antibiotics (no new genetic information or a loss of genetic information). None of the examples given in Johnson (or any other biology textbook) have anything to do with molecules-to-man evolution, and many of the examples actually show the opposite of evolution (i.e., a loss of genetic information).

For evolutionists, the search for even a single example of information being added to the genome has become much like their search for a significant, defensible “missing link.” The insinuation is that if an example of genetic information being added can be found, evolution will be proven true. However, that “logic” is like claiming a plane that can gain one foot of altitude for every 1,000 feet it loses is somehow proven flight worthy. Information theory also confirms the overwhelming loss of genetic information expected from random mutations, even with the mitigating effects of natural selection (Gitt, 1997).

Current Topics

Evolutionist Richard Lewontin is famous for his attempts to equate atheism with science. For example, in 1997 he stated: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories...” (Lewontin, 1997, p. 31, italics in orig.). There is nothing patently absurd about true science. The idea that scientists must tolerate “unsubstantiated just-so-stories” is due solely to the unscientific mandate to protect the prevailing false religion of atheism’s theory of evolution. Society’s acceptance of that idea has likely done more to dissuade top students from pursuing degrees in certain scientific fields than any other single factor.

Fortunately, even secular scientists and members of the secular media are beginning to recognize the problem and are becoming less tolerant of the many “unsubstantiated just-so stories” put forth to promote evolution. For example, beginning May 16, 2009, a barrage of press releases proclaimed that world-renowned scientists were about to reveal a revolutionary scientific find that would “change everything.” The well orchestrated campaign was intended to create a level of anticipation that would keep people glued to the news as details emerged. In the end, the find (“Ida”) turned out to be nothing more than a well-preserved fossil (95% complete, including fossilized fur and more) about the size of a raccoon, including a long tail. The fossil did not resemble a human skeleton, but looked very similar to a 21st-century lemur. The two main differences (lack of a “grooming claw” and a “toothcomb”) were minor and easily explained by variation within a kind (see Lyons and Butt, 2009).

While any well-preserved fossil is of interest, the real breakthrough related to “Ida” was the reaction of a subset of the secular media to the extreme hype surrounding the find. For example, on May 19, 2009, Time/CNN ran an article titled “Ida: Humankind’s Earliest Ancestor! (Not Really).” The article noted that “[f]rom the beginning, Ida’s unveiling has been a master class in ballyhoo.” The article further stated:

The press releases were followed by an international press conference at the American Museum of Natural History in New York City, the publication of a book, The Link: Uncovering Our Earliest Ancestor (Little, Brown), an ABC News exclusive and on May 25 a prime-time television special on the History Channel. Of the avalanche of media-related promotion, Jorn Hurum, a Norwegian paleontologist involved in Ida’s discovery, told theNew York Times, “Any pop band is doing the same thing” (Lemonick, 2009).

In the case of “Ida,” a handful of media outlets appeared to draw the line on how far they would go to help evolutionists sensationalize evolutionary claims. The media was even willing to point out that “renowned scientists” associated with “Ida” saw nothing wrong with promoting themselves in ways similar to modern pop bands. While not yet the norm, the reaction of some in the secular media to “Ida” was a positive sign.

Another indication that some in the media (and many scientists) have become less tolerant of “unsubstantiated just-so stories” occurred just last month. On December 2, 2010, an astrobiology news conference was held at NASA Headquarters that received intense national and international media coverage before, during, and after the event. The conference focused on a strain of the Halomonadaceae bacteria called GFAJ-1 that lives in the high arsenic environment of Mono Lake, California. Extravagant claims were made during the conference, such as: “This is the equivalent of finding that Horta,” in reference to the silicon-based life form featured in an episode of the original “Star Trek” series (Sheridan, 2010).

While much of the secular media played along with the “alien life has been found” theme (and the underlying theme that evolution must be easier than we thought), a significant subset gave a more balanced report. Major news outlets began releasing quotes from scientists who were openly skeptical about the conclusions presented at the news conference. For example, Rosie Redfield (director of a microbiology research lab at the University of British Columbia) was quoted as saying, “I don’t know whether the authors are just bad scientists or whether they’re unscrupulously pushing NASA’s ‘There’s life in outer space!’ agenda” (Sheridan). Many of Redfield’s technical criticisms of the research are summarized in her statement: “There’s a difference between controls done to genuinely test your hypothesis and those done when you just want to show that your hypothesis is true. The authors have done some of the latter, but not the former” (Sheridan).

Other scientists expressed similar concerns. For example, John Roth (University of California at Davis) noted: “I suspect that NASA may be so desperate for a positive story that they didn’t look for any serious advice from DNA or even microbiology people” (Sheridan). When the individuals at the news conference refused to respond to criticism, Jonathan Eisen (evolutionary biologist at the University of California at Davis) noted: “If they say they will not address the responses except in journals, that is absurd. They carried out science by press release and press conference. Whether they were right or not in their claims, they are now hypocritical if they say that the only response should be in the scientific literature” (Zimmer, 2010).

Despite the excitement, it is also important to note that the GFAJ-1 discovery did absolutely nothing to change the impossible odds against spontaneous generation. The find merely accelerated the circular reasoning of evolutionists. In their minds, since they “know” that life must have somehow made itself, any evidence of distinctly different life forms must be interpreted to mean that life made itself twice! Centuries of true science have shown that the only reasonable explanation for life is that it was created, and that life in the natural world only comes from pre-existing life.

True Science and the Age of the Universe

Additional examples of true scientists being willing to challenge “unsubstantiated just-so stories” are found in areas related to estimating the age of the Universe and the Earth. Although the age of the Universe does not affect the viability of evolution (evolution does not work, regardless of the age of the Universe) the topic is very important for shaping society’s view of the Bible.

As an aside, what if there really were billions of years for life to evolve? Evolutionists have answered that question themselves. For example, in his book Communication with Extraterrestrial Intelligence, Carl Sagan noted that the chance of even a single simple protein forming (still very far from “life”) is roughly 1 in 1 followed by 130 zeroes, i.e., 1 in 10130 (Sagan, et al., 1973, p. 46). Sagan then states: “[I]t is clear that one could randomly assemble all the elementary particles in the universe a billion times a second for the age of the universe and never get this protein” (p. 46). Ironically, on the same page, Sagan further states: “There is no doubt about the fact of evolution, but there are still sizeable questions on the mechanics of the evolutionary process.” Sizeable questions, indeed! Showing a theory to be mathematically impossible, while simultaneously claiming it to be fact, is not scientific.

The famous British astronomer Sir Frederick Hoyle performed a similar calculation, showing that the chances of just the proteins in a simple amoeba spontaneously forming to be 1 in 1 followed by 40,000 zeroes, i.e., 1 in 1040,000. However, rather than attempting to claim evolution was still somehow “fact,” Hoyle developed an alternative theory, claiming that aliens were responsible for putting life on Earth, and for millions of years since, those aliens have been directing our evolutionary progress (Hoyle, et al., 1984). While popular in some circles, Hoyle’s theory still fails to answer fundamental questions, such as “where, then, did the aliens come from?”

If the age of the Universe does not affect the viability of evolution, should Christians simply twist Scripture to accommodate whatever age an evolutionist desires? The Bible provides answers. First Peter 3:14-15 states: “But even if you should suffer for the sake of righteousness, you are blessed. And do not fear their intimidation, and do not be troubled, but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence” (NASB, emp. added). So in the first place, Christians must not be intimidated by evolutionists, and should be prepared to provide a defense against evolution and any other false teaching.

Second, Christians must not distort Scripture in an attempt to find a position of compromise with evolutionists. Peter warned against mishandling the Scriptures, saying, “in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures” (2 Peter 3:16). This is an extremely important point, in that many sincere individuals who generally believe the Bible also feel strongly that Christians must continually “interpret” the Bible to keep it consistent with contemporary “science.” Some go so far as to believe that evolutionists are so convincing that we must provide our children with compromise positions or our children will lose their faith. Proverbs 14:12 applies: “There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death.”

Third, the New Testament warns us that even members of the church will be led astray and begin promoting false teachings. Paul warned the elders of Ephesus, saying, “For I know this, that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock. Also from among yourselves men will rise up, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after themselves” (Acts 20:29-30). Indeed, many professed Christians have written papers or entire books denying the Creation account, or attempting to distort the straightforward teaching of the Bible, to accommodate the theory of evolution. Some of these false teachers continue to draw significant followings, leading many astray (see, for example, the review of Clayton in Jackson and Thompson, 1992). Christians should guard themselves against this danger and be unwilling to twist Scripture regardless of the prominence of the speaker. “Test all things; hold fast what is good” (1 Thessalonians 5:21).

It is hard to imagine how God could have made it any clearer that He created the Universe in six literal days a few thousand years ago, and that the Flood described in Genesis 6-9 covered the entire Earth. Given the weakness of current atheistic theories, it is also hard to imagine why some professed Christians feel compelled to distort Scripture in an attempt to accommodate a 13.7 billion year old Universe and some type of non-global flood. If “science” proves we have no free will, should the Bible be “interpreted” to say that criminals are not responsible for their actions? “Science” has already proven that resurrection from the dead is impossible—should we interpret the Bible accordingly? Where do the compromises stop?
As in all other areas, true science is the Christian’s friend when discussing the age of the Universe. For example, advances in true science enabled astronomical observations that cast doubt on the Big Bang theory. In response, supporters of the “Big Bang” created a series of fudge factors (e.g., Dark Energy, Dark Matter, Dark Flow, Dark Light, etc.) that can be used as needed to pretend that the “Big Bang” is somehow valid. To make the theory work, these fudge factors are now said to make up 96% of the Universe! (See Houts, 2007, p. 92).

This desperate attempt to salvage the “Big Bang” has not gone unnoticed by other secular scientists, who have gone so far as to sign a petition suggesting that objective discussion of the “Big Bang” and the development of alternative theories be allowed. Their full petition is available at “cosmologystatement.org,” but two particularly telling paragraphs read as follows:

1. The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed—inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory (emp. added);

2. What is more, the big bang theory can boast of no quantitative predictions that have subsequently been validated by observation. The successes claimed by the theory’s supporters consist of its ability to retrospectively fit observations with a steadily increasing array of adjustable parameters, just as the old Earth-centered cosmology of Ptolemy needed layer upon layer of epicycles.

The petition signers go on to note that “the big bang is not the only framework available for understanding the history of the universe.” While they may have other atheistic theories in mind, there are also biblically consistent frameworks for interpreting the evidence we see in light of a Creation that is a few thousand years old.

Another important observation is that rigid adherence to atheistic principles often squelches potentially significant research. For example, consider the August, 2009 paper published in theProceedings of the National Academies of Science and quoted in the popular press, including USAToday (Vergano, 2009):

Mathematicians have come up with an answer Monday for the mystery of  ‘dark energy’ tearing the universe apart at an accelerating rate. It ain’t there. Blake Temple and Joel Smoller suggest that “expanding waves” from the Big Bang “are propelling the trillions of galaxies filling the universe apart.... Dark energy is an illusion if their equations are right.” However, “the only problem is that for the equations to work, we must be ‘literally at the center of the universe...’” says physicist Lawrence Krauss of Arizona State University in Tempe. I think this is plausible mathematics, but it doesn’t seem physically relevant.

Science News publicized an analogous article from Physical Review Letters in 2008, stating:

If Earth and its environs are centered in a vast, billion-light-year-long bubble, relatively free of matter, in turn surrounded by a massive, dense shell of material, then gravity’s tug would cause galaxies inside the void to hurtle toward the spherical concentration of mass, say theorists Robert Caldwell of Dartmouth College and Albert Stebbins of the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory in Batavia, Ill. That process would mimic the action of dark energy—a local observer would be tricked into thinking that the universe’s expansion is accelerating (Cowen).

The article further notes: “But that scenario violates the Copernican principle, a notion near and dear to the hearts of physicists and cosmologists, including Caldwell and Stebbins” (Cowen).

Both models eliminate the need for “Dark Energy,” the fudge factor that accounts for 73% of the Universe according to the traditional Big Bang theory. However, neither model has been seriously pursued because both violate the arbitrary assumption that the Earth cannot be in a special location (e.g., “Copernican principle”). Many cosmologists feel (rightly) that a special location would imply the existence of God.

But what if the Earth is in a special location? The secular models described in the Proceedings of the National Academies of Science and Physical Review Letters actually correspond quite well with the biblically consistent models proposed by Russ Humphreys and others, especially when the potential effects of gravitational time dilation are taken into account (Humphreys, 1994). These models explain how stars that are billions of light years distant can be seen from an Earth that is 6,000 years old, all based on a straightforward reading of the Bible.

Related to the age of the Earth, considerable evidence exists that radioactive decay rates were different in the past (DeYoung, 2005). Recent true science also suggests that radioactive decay rates (typically assumed to be constant) can change due to causes that are not yet fully understood. For example, in August of 2010, a team of scientists from Purdue and Stanford universities announced that the decay of radioactive isotopes fluctuates in sync with the rotation of the Sun’s core. The team has published a series of articles in Astroparticle Physics, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research, and Space Science Reviews. Although the measured change in decay rate is small (~0.1%), the fact that change occurs at all is extremely significant. Team member Jere Jenkins noted: “[W]hat we’re suggesting is that something that can’t interact with anything is changing something that can’t be changed” (Gardner, 2010).

Scientists have also discovered that changes in radioactive decay rates can be induced. For example, the June 8, 2009 CERN Courier noted:

It is a common belief that radioactive decay rates are unchanged by external conditions, despite many examples of small shifts (particularly involving external pressure and K-capture decays) being well documented and understood. However, Fabio Cardone of the Institute per lo Studio dei Materiali Nanostrutturati in Rome and colleagues have shown a dramatic increase–by a factor of 10,000–in the decay rate of thorium-228 in water as a result of ultrasonic cavitation. Exactly what the physics is and whether or not this sort of effect can be scaled up into a technology for nuclear waste treatment remain open issues (Reucroft and Swain, 2009).

Most available dating methods indicate a young (i.e., few-thousand-year-old) Earth (cf. Humphreys, 2005). The modern foundation for claiming an old (i.e., 4.54-billion-year) Earth is radiometric dating and the assumption that radioactive decay rates have always been constant. Biblically consistent models typically assume accelerated radioactive decay during Creation week and/or the Flood. The fact that fluctuations in radioactive decay rates are observed even today indicates that God designed nuclei such that changes in radioactive decay can occur, giving the potential for greatly accelerated radioactive decay under certain conditions. Technical concerns with biblically consistent models are also being addressed by modern science. For example, a change in decay rate would also change the amount of energy released per decay, potentially resolving the concern that the Earth could overheat during a time of greatly accelerated radioactive decay.

To be clear, the “Big Bang” and the assumption of constant radioactive decay rates still dominate the thinking of cosmologists and other secular scientists. However, ongoing advances in true science are making it easier and easier for Christians to challenge those assumptions, even from a purely technical standpoint.

CONCLUSION

Bible-believing Christians are often portrayed as scientifically ignorant or anti-science. This portrayal is perpetuated, not only by the secular world, but by individuals who profess a belief in God but are willing to reject a straightforward reading of the Bible in order to accommodate contemporary human wisdom. Christians can inadvertently reinforce this “anti-science” stereotype if they do not distinguish between the statements of scientists and the statements of atheists who happen to have scientific credentials.
“Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth” (John 17:17). Throughout the ages true science has repeatedly confirmed Christ’s words. True science is the Christian’s friend, and the enemy of the evolutionist.

REFERENCES

Balme, D.M. (1962), “Development of Biology in Aristotle and Theophrastus: Theory of Spontaneous Generation,” Phronesis: A Journal for Ancient Philosophy, 7[1–2]:91–104.

Bergman, Jerry and George F. Howe (1990), “Vestigial Organs” Are Fully Functional (Kansas City, MO: Creation Research Society).

Brooks, Will (2010), “Footprints of NONSentient Design Inside the Human Genome,” Reason & Revelation, 30[10]:73-76, October, http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/240441.

Cowen, Ron (2008), “A Special Place,” Science News, 7[173]:18, June.

Darwin, Charles (1859), The Origin of Species (New York: Modern Library, 1998 reprint).

DeYoung, Don (2005), Thousands...Not Billions (Green Forest, AZ: Master Books).

Gardner, Elizabeth (2010), “Purdue-Stanford Team Finds Radioactive Decay Rates Vary With the Sun’s Rotation,” Purdue University News Service, http://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/research/2010/100830FischbachJenkinsDec.html.

Gillen, Alan (2008), “Louis Pasteur’s Views on Creation, Evolution, and the Genesis of Germs,”Answers Research Journal, 1:43-52.

Gitt, Werner (1997), In the Beginning was Information (Bielfeld: Christliche Literatur-Verbreitung).

Grigg, Russell (1996), “Ernst Haeckel: Evangelist for Evolution and Apostle of Deceit,” Creation, 18[2]:33–36, March.

Haeckel, Ernst (1876), The History of Creation, vol. 1 (New York: D. Appleton and Company).

Houts, Michael (2007), “Evolution is Religion—Not Science (Part II),” Reason & Revelation, 27[12]:89-95, October.

Hoyle, Fred, and Chandra Wickramasinghe (1984), Evolution from Space: A Theory of Cosmic Creationism (New York: Simon and Schuster).

Humphreys, D. Russell (1994), Starlight and Time (Green Forest, AR: Master Books).

Humphreys, D. Russell (2005), “Evidence for a Young World,” Impact, 384, June,  http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4005.asp.

Jackson, Wayne and Bert Thompson (1992), In the Shadow of Darwin (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).

Johnson, George B. (1998), Biology: Visualizing Life (Orlando, FL: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston).

Kuska, Bob (1998), “Should Scientists Scrap the Notion of Junk DNA?” Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 90:1032-1033.

Lamarck, John B. (1809), Zoological Philosophy: An Exposition with Regard to the Natural History of Animals (Chicago: University of Chicago Press), 1984 reprint.

“The Last Word” (2003), New Scientist, 177[2381]:65, February 8.

Lemonick, Michael (2009), “Ida: Humankind’s Earliest Ancestor! (Not Really),” Time/CNN, May 21, http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1900057,00.html.

Lewontin, Richard (1997), “Billions and Billions of Demons,” The New York Review, January 9.

Lowe, L. and S. Scherer, (1997), “Mitochondrial Eve: The Plot Thickens,” Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 12[11]:422-423.

Lyons, Eric and Kyle Butt (2009), “Ida—A Missing Link?”http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/240160. Cf. “Ida (Darwinius masillae): the Missing Link at Last?” http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/05/19/ida-missing-link.

Reucroft, Steve and J. Swain (2009), “Ultrasonic Cavitation of Water Speeds Up Thorium Decay,”CERN Courier, June 8, http://cerncourier.com/cws/article/cern/39158.

Ross, Alexander (1652), Arcana Microcosmi, II,10,151-156, http://penelope.uchicago.edu/ross/index.html.

Sagan, Carl, F.H.C. Crick, and L.M. Mukhin in Carl Sagan, ed. (1973), Communication with Extraterrestrial Intelligence (CETI) (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).

Selim, Jocelyn (2004), “Useless Body Parts,” Discover Magazine, 25[6]:42-46, June 26.

Sheridan, Michael (2010), “Scientists: NASA’s Claim of Microbe That Can Live on Arsenic is ‘Flawed,’”  New York Daily News, http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2010/12/08/2010-12-08_scientists_nasas_claim_of_microbe_that_can_live_on_arsenic_is_flawed.html.

Vergano, Dan (2009), “Mystery Solved: Dark Energy Isn’t There,” USA Today, http://blogs.usatoday.com/sciencefair/2009/08/mystery-solved-dark-energy-isnt-there.html.

Wiedersheim, Robert (1895), The Structure of Man: An Index to His Past History, trans. H. and M. Bernard (London: Macmillan).

Zimmer, Carl (2010), “This Paper Should Not Have Been Published,” Slate, http://www.slate.com/id/2276919.

Is Jesus Really Michael the Archangel? by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=10&article=1473

Is Jesus Really Michael the Archangel?

by	Eric Lyons, M.Min.

According to the Jehovah’s Witnesses, “Jesus is not God and never claimed to be” (“Should You Believe…?,” 2000). Rather, Jesus can be understood “from the scriptures to be Michael the Archangel” (The Watchtower, 1979, p. 29). “Michael the great prince is none other than Jesus Christ himself,” they allege (The Watchtower, 1984, p. 29). The May 15, 1969 issue of Jehovah’s Witnesses’ Watchtower magazine suggested: “There is Scriptural evidence for concluding that Michael was the name of Jesus Christ before he left heaven and after his return” (p. 307). Where is the “scriptural evidence” for such a doctrine? In an article titled “The Truth About Angels” that appears on the official web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses (www.watchtower.org), 1 Thessalonians 4:16 and Jude 9 were the only two passages listed as proof that “the foremost angel, both in power and authority, is the archangel, Jesus Christ, also called Michael” (2001).

Michael the archangel is mentioned only five times in the Bible (Daniel 10:13,21; 12:1; Jude 9; Revelation 12:7), and yet never do these passages indicate that he is to be equated with the preincarnate Christ, nor with the ascended Jesus. First Thessalonians 4:16 also alludes to “an archangel,” and, although the name Michael is not mentioned, this is the passage Jehovah’s Witnesses frequently cite as proof of Jesus being the archangel. Concerning the Second Coming of Christ, Paul wrote: “For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first” (emp. added). Supposedly, since Jesus is described as descending from heaven “with the voice of an archangel,” then He must be the archangel Michael. However, this verse does not teach that Jesus is an archangel, but that at His Second Coming He will be accompanied “with the voice of an archangel.” Just as He will be attended “with a shout” and “with the trumpet of God,” so will He be accompanied “with the voice of an archangel.” Question: If Jesus’ descension from heaven “with the voice of an archangel” makes Him (as Jehovah’s Witnesses claim) the archangel Michael, then does His descent “with the trumpet of God” not also make Him God? Jehovah’s Witnesses reject this latter conclusion, yet they accept the first. Such inconsistency is one proof of their erroneous teachings about Jesus.

One of the strongest arguments against Jesus being an angel is found in the book of Hebrews. In chapter one, the writer of Hebrews showed the superiority of Jesus over the angelic beings, and contrasted Him with them.

For to which of the angels did He ever say: “You are My Son, today I have begotten You”? And again: “I will be to Him a Father, and He shall be to Me a Son”? But when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says: “Let all the angels of God worship Him.” And of the angels He says: “Who makes His angels spirits and His ministers a flame of fire.” But to the Son He says: “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; a scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness; therefore God, Your God, has anointed You with the oil of gladness more than Your companions.” And: “You, Lord, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of Your hands. They will perish, but You remain; and they will all grow old like a garment; like a cloak You will fold them up, and they will be changed. But You are the same, and Your years will not fail.” But to which of the angels has He ever said: “Sit at My right hand, till I make Your enemies Your footstool”? (1:5-13).

Jesus’ superiority over the angels is seen in the fact that the Father spoke to Jesus as His special begotten Son to Whom He gave the seat of honor at His right hand (1:5,13). Furthermore, the writer of Hebrews indicated that God commanded all angels to worship Jesus (1:6; cf. Revelation 5:11-13; Philippians 2:10). Yet, if Jesus were an angel, how could He accept the worship of other “lesser” angels when, according to Revelation 19:10 and 22:8-9, angels do not accept worship, but rather preach the worship of God, and no other? Hebrews chapter one is a death knell to the idea of Jesus, the Son of God, being Michael, the archangel. [NOTE: Interestingly, John H. Paton, the most frequently used contributing writer in 1879 of Charles Taze Russel (the founder of The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society), admitted such when he stated in The Watchtowermagazine near the end of its inaugural year: “Hence it is said, ‘let all the angels of God worship him’: (that must include Michael, the chief angel, hence Michael is not the Son of God)…” (1879, p. 4, emp. added). Sadly, even though Paton rejected the idea of Jesus being Michael the archangel, and even though Russell, The Watchtower's founder and first editor and publisher, allowed such a teaching in the magazine's first year of publication, Jehovah’s Witnesses today hold firmly to the doctrine that Jesus is Michael, the archangel.]

The writer of Hebrews returned to the subject of Jesus’ superiority over angels in chapter two, saying, “He [God] has not put the world to come, of which we speak, in subjection to angels” (2:5). To whom will the world be in subjection? Scripture indicates that it would be Jesus, “the appointed heir of all things” (Hebrews 1:2). “All authority” has been given, not to any angel, but to Jesus (Matthew 28:18). All angels, authorities, and powers “have been made subject to Him” (1 Peter 3:22). “In putting everything under him, God left nothing that is not subject to him” (Hebrews 2:8, NIV, emp. added). Jesus, therefore, is not Michael, the archangel, “for it was not to angels that God subjected the world to come” (Hebrews 2:5, RSV).

One final proof that Jesus is not Michael the archangel actually comes from one of the five passages in which Michael’s name is found in Scripture—Jude 9. According to Jude: “Michael the archangel, in contending with the devil, when he disputed about the body of Moses, dared not bring against him a reviling accusation, but said, ‘The Lord rebuke you!’ ” Whereas Michael would not dare pronounce a railing judgment against the devil (cf. 2 Peter 2:11), Jesus once declared about Satan: “He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it” (John 8:44). Jesus did not approach the subject of rebuking Satan with the same hesitation as godly angels like Michael. Jesus, as Lord of heaven and Earth (Matthew 28:18), boldly called the devil a murderer and liar, and even went so far as to declare that “there is no truth in him.” The Son of God obviously is not Michael the archangel.

I find it extremely puzzling how Jehovah’s Witnesses can conclude that there is no biblical proof of Jesus being deity, and yet at the same time allege that “[t]here is Scriptural evidence for concluding that Michael was the name of Jesus Christ before he left heaven and after his return” (Watchtower, 1969, p. 307, emp. added). Where is the evidence? There is none. Jesus is not Michael the archangel; rather, He is exactly Who the apostle John said He was (John 1:1,14), Who Thomas said He was (John 20:28), and even Who His enemies accused Him of making Himself (John 5:18; 10:33). Jesus is God!

REFERENCES

“Should You Believe in the Trinity?” (2000), [On-line], URL: http://www.watchtower.org/library/ti/index.htm.

The Truth About Angels (2001), [On-line], URL: http://www.watchtower.org/library/w/1995/11/1/the_truth_about_angels.htm, originally appeared in The Watchtower, November 1, 1995.

The Watchtower, 1879, November.

The Watchtower, 1969, May 15.

The Watchtower, 1979, February 15.

The Watchtower, 1984, December 15.

Water is Thicker than Blood by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=934

Water is Thicker than Blood

by	Dave Miller, Ph.D.

The human relationships that exist between individuals who are physically kin to each other can, indeed, be precious and beautiful. In fact, God was responsible for creating the family framework (Genesis 2:24). Ideally, He intends for people to experience the warm, tender ties of blood kin and the multiple blessings associated with such ties.

Perspective is lost, however, when physical ties are permitted to interfere with obedience to God. God’s point is missed when a higher premium is placed on physical family than on spiritual family, when a Christian fails to relish to a greater degree association with the family of God—the church. The Bible teaches that Christians should not hesitate for a moment to relinquish fleshly relationships if it becomes necessary to do so in order to put God first (Luke 14:20,24).

Commenting on the status of His own blood relatives, Jesus declared: “Whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My brother and sister and mother” (Matthew 12:50). He recognized that the stringency of His teaching would disrupt family relationships, and so He stated that “a man’s foes will be those of his own household” (Matthew 10:36). He even went so far as to relegate physical ties to the comparative level of hatred when contrasted to the priority of spiritual ties: “If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple” (Luke 14:26). [For a discussion of the meaning of “hate” in this verse, see Butt, 2003.]

Such explains why, during the Mosaic period of Bible history, Aaron was not permitted to mourn the deaths of his two sons (Leviticus 10:6). Such explains why the wives, and even some children, perished along with Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, as they apparently were unwilling to oppose the blood ties of kinfolk who sinned (Numbers 16:27,32-33). Such explains why the people were to show no pity for their relatives who promoted false teaching, but were to lead the way in the execution process (Deuteronomy 13:6-11).

Yes, the family ties of blood kin can be extremely wonderful, providing unending security and acceptance, and frequently fulfill an important, divinely intended function. But these same blood ties can be the very thing that diverts a Christian from the strait and narrow, discouraging one from standing strongly and firmly on the solid bedrock of truth and right. It is imperative that God’s church be put first—even above family (Matthew 6:33). First allegiance and loyalty must be given to those who have been cleansed by the blood of Christ by passing through the waters of baptism (Ephesians 5:6; Titus 3:5; Hebrews 10:22). For with God, water is thicker than blood.

REFERENCES

Butt, Kyle (2003), “Hate Your Parents—or Love Them?” [On-line], URL:http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/601.

The Moral Argument for the Existence of God by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=4101

The Moral Argument for the Existence of God

by	Eric Lyons, M.Min.

In November 2006, several of the world’s leading atheistic evolutionary scientists gathered in La Jolla, California for the first “Beyond Belief” symposium (see Lyons and Butt, 2007), which the scientific journal New Scientist called “an ‘atheist love fest’” (Reilly, 2007, 196[2629]:7). The conference was held to discuss science, religion, and God, and specifically whether science should “do away with religion” (Brooks, 2006, 192[2578]:9). New Scientist writer Michael Brooks summarized the overall attitude of the attendees in the following words: “science can take on religion and win” (p. 11). The participants were ready to roll up their sleeves and “get on with it” (p. 11). They were ready to put science “In Place of God,” as Brooks titled his article.

Fast-forward one year to 2007—to the “Beyond Belief II” symposium—where some of the participants apparently approached the idea of a Supernatural Being much more cautiously. EvenNew Scientist, who covered the conference for a second year in a row, chose a drastically different article title the second time around—from “In Place of God” to the more sober, “God’s Place in a Rational World” (see Reilly, 196[2629]:7, emp. added). Author Michael Reilly gave some insight into the meeting by recording what one attendee, Edward Slingerland of the University of British Columbia (and founder of the Centre for the Study of Human Evolution, Cognition and Culture), openly acknowledged.

“Religion is not going away,” he announced. Even those of us who fancy ourselves rationalists and scientists, he said, rely on moral values—a set of distinctly unscientific beliefs.

Where, for instance, does our conviction that human rights are universal come from? “Humans’ rights to me are as mysterious as the holy trinity.... You can’t do a CT scan to show where humans’ rights are, you can’t cut someone open and show us their human rights.... It’s not an empirical thing, it’s just something we strongly believe. It’s a purely metaphysical entity” (p. 7, emp. added).

Although some at the conference had the naïve belief that “[g]iven time and persistence, science will conquer all of nature’s mysteries” (Reilly, p. 7, emp. added), it is encouraging to know that at least one person alluded to one of the greatest proofs for God’s existence—the moral argument.

OBJECTIVE MORALITY

Why do most rational people believe in objective morality? That is, why do people generally think that some actions are “right” and some actions are “wrong,” regardless of people’s subjective opinions? Why do most people believe that it is “evil” or “wicked” (1) for someone to walk into a random house, shoot everyone in it, and steal everything in sight? (2) for a man to beat and rape a kind, innocent woman? (3) for an adult to torture an innocent child simply for the fun of it? or (4) for parents to have children for the sole purpose of abusing them sexually every day of their lives? Because, as evolutionist Edward Slingerland noted, humans have metaphysical rights—rights that are “a reality beyond what is perceptible to the senses” (“Metaphysical,” 2011)—and  “rely on moral values.” The fact is, most people, even many atheists, have admitted that real, objective good and evil exist.

Antony Flew

During the last half of the 20^th century, Dr. Antony Flew, Professor of Philosophy at the University of Reading in Reading, England, was considered one of the world’s most well known atheistic philosophers. From 1955-2000, he lectured and wrote extensively on matters pertaining to atheism. Some of his works include, but in no way are limited to, God and Philosophy (1966),Evolutionary Ethics (1967), Darwinian Evolution (1984), The Presumption of Atheism (1976), andAtheistic Humanism (1993). In September 1976, Dr. Flew debated Dr. Thomas B. Warren, Professor of Philosophy of Religion and Christian Apologetics at Harding Graduate School of Religion in Memphis, Tennessee. Prior to this four-night debate on the existence of God, Warren, in agreement with the rules of the debate, asked Flew several questions in writing, including the following: “True/False. In murdering six million Jewish men, women, and children the Nazis were guilty of real (objective) moral wrong.” Flew answered “True.” He acknowledged the existence of “real (objective) moral wrong” (Warren and Flew, 1977, p. 248). [NOTE: In 2004, Flew started taking steps toward theism as he acknowledged the impossibility of a purely naturalistic explanation for life. See Miller, 2004 for more information.]

Wallace Matson

In 1978, Dr. Warren met Dr. Wallace Matson, Professor of Philosophy at the University of California in Berkeley, California, in a public debate on the existence of God in Tampa, Florida. Once again, per the agreed-upon guidelines, the disputants were allowed to ask up to 10 questions prior to their debate. Once more, Warren asked: “True/False. In murdering six million Jewish men, women, and children the Nazis were guilty of real (objective) moral wrong.” Like Flew, Matson answered “True:” “real (objective) moral wrong” exists (Warren and Matson, 1978, p. 353). Matson even acknowledged in the affirmative (i.e., “true”) that “[i]f you had been a soldier during World War II and if the Nazis (1) had captured you and (2) had given you the choice of either joining them in their efforts to exterminate the Jews or being murdered, you would have had the objective moral obligation to die rather than to join them in the murder of Jewish men, women, and children” (p. 353, underline in orig.). Do not miss the point: Matson not only said that the Nazis were guilty of objective moral wrong, he even indicated that a person would have the “objective moral obligation to die” rather than join up with the murderous Nazi regime.

As Easy as 2 + 2

Although objective morality may be outside the realm of the scientific method, every rational person can know that some things are innately good, while other things are innately evil. Antony Flew and Wallace Matson, two of the leading atheistic philosophers of the 20^th century, forthrightly acknowledged the existence of objective morality. Though at times atheist Michael Ruse has seemed opposed to the idea of moral objectivity (see Ruse, 1989, p. 268), evenhe admitted in his book Darwinism Defended that “[t]he man who says that it is morally acceptable to rape little children, is just asmistaken as the man who says that 2 + 2 = 5” (1982, p. 275, emp. added). Indeed, one of the many reasons that “religion (i.e., God—EL) is not going away,” to use Edward Slingerland’s words, is because moral values are a metaphysical reality (cf. Romans 2:14-15). Philosophers Francis Beckwith and Gregory Koukl said it well: “Those who deny obvious moral rules—who say that murder and rape are morally benign, that cruelty is not a vice, and that cowardice is a virtue—do not merely have a different moral point of view; theyhave something wrong with them” (1998, p. 59, emp. added). 

THE MORAL ARGUMENT

The moral argument for the existence of God has been stated in a variety of ways through the centuries. One way in which the basic argument has been worded is as follows (see Craig, n.d.; Craig and Tooley, 1994; Cowan, 2005, p. 166):

Premise 1: If God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist.

Premise 2: Objective moral values exist.

Conclusion: God exists.

Thomas B. Warren worded the argument in a positive, more detailed manner in his debates with atheist Antony Flew (p. 173) and Wallace Matson (p. 285).

1. If the moral code and/or actions of any individual or society can properly be subjects of criticism (as to real moral wrong), then there must be some objective standard (some “higher law which transcends the provincial and transient”) which is other than the particular moral code and which has an obligatory character which can be recognized.
2. The moral code and/or actions of any individual or society can properly be subjects of criticism (as to real moral wrong).
3. Therefore, there must be some objective standard (some “higher law which transcends the provincial and transient”) which is other than the particular moral code and which has an obligatory character which can be recognized.

The “society” that Warren used as a case study in his debates was Adolf Hitler’s Nazi regime. In the 1930s and 40s, Nazi Germany committed state-sponsored genocide of so-called “inferior races.” Of the approximately nine million Jews who lived in Europe at the beginning of the 1930s, some six million of them were exterminated. The Nazis murdered approximately one million Jewish children, two million Jewish women, and three million Jewish men. The Nazis herded them into railway cars like cattle, shipping them to concentration camps. Sometimes the floors of the railway cars were layered with quicklime, which would burn the feet of the prisoners, including the children. The Jews were starved, gassed, and experimented on like animals. Hitler slaughtered another three million Poles, Soviets, gypsies, and people with disabilities (see “Holocaust,” 2011 for more information).

So were the Nazis guilty of “real (objective) moral wrong”? According to atheist Antony Flew, they were (Warren and Flew, p. 248). Atheist Wallace Matson agreed (Warren and Matson, p. 353). Whether theist or atheist, most rational people admit that some things really are atrocious. People do not merely feel like rape and child abuse may be wrong; they are wrong—innately wrong. Just as two plus two can really be known to be four, every rational human can know that some things are objectively good, while other things are objectively evil. However, reason demands that objective good and evil can only exist if there is some real, objective point of reference. If something (e.g., rape) “can properly be the subject of criticism (as to real moral wrong) then there must be some objective standard (some ‘higher law which transcends the provincial and transient’) which is other than the particular moral code and which has an obligatory character which can be recognized” (Warren and Matson, p. 284, emp. added).

DOES ATHEISM PROVIDE A LEGITIMATE OBJECTIVE STANDARD FOR MORALITY?

Recognition by atheists of anything being morally wrong begs the question: How can an atheistlogically call something atrocious, deplorable, evil, or wicked? According to atheism, man is nothing but matter in motion. Humankind allegedly evolved from rocks and slime over billions of years. But who ever speaks of “wrong rocks,” “moral minerals,” “corrupt chemicals,” or “sinful slime?” People do not talk about morally depraved donkeys, evil elephants, or immoral monkeys. Pigs are not punished for being immoral when they eat their young. Komodo dragons are not corrupt because 10% of their diet consists of younger Komodo dragons. Killer whales are not guilty of murder. Black widows are not exterminated simply because the female often kills the male after copulation. Male animals are not tried for rape if they appear to forcibly copulate with females (cf. Thornhill, 2001). Dogs are not depraved for stealing the bone of another dog.

The fact that humans even contemplate morality testifies to the huge chasm between man and animals. Atheistic evolutionists have admitted that morals arise only in humans. According to Antony Flew, man is a moral being, yet “value did not exist before the first human being” (Warren and Flew, p. 248). Flew believed that morals came into existence only after man evolved, not beforehand when allegedly only animals existed on Earth. Though George Gaylord Simpson, one of the most recognized atheistic evolutionists of the 20^th century, believed that “man is the result of a purposeless and materialistic process that did not have him in mind,” he confessed that “[g]ood and evil, right and wrong, concepts irrelevant in nature except from the human viewpoint, become real and pressing features of the whole cosmos as viewed morally because morals arise only in man” (1951, p. 179, emp. added). Atheists admit that people (i.e., even “atheists”) have “their own innate sense of morality” (“Do Atheists…?, n.d.). No rational person makes such admissions about animals. As evolutionist Edward Slingerland stated, “Humans,” not animals, “rely on moral values” (as quoted in Reilly, 2007, 196[2629]:7).

Atheistic evolution cannot logically explain morals. Real, objective moral right or wrong cannot exist if humans are the offspring of animals. Young people (who are not allowed to act like animals at school) are frequently “reminded” in public school textbooks that they are the offspring of animals. According to one Earth science textbook, “Humans probably evolved from bacteria that lived more than 4 billion years ago” (Earth Science, 1989, p. 356).

When I graduated from high school in 1994, millions of public high school students in America were introduced to a new biology textbook by Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. What sort of amazing things did they learn? For one, they were informed, “You are an animal and share a common heritage with earthworms” (Johnson, 1994, p. 453, emp. added). Allegedly, man not onlydescended from fish and four-footed beasts, we are beasts. Charles Darwin declared in chapter two of his book The Descent of Man: “My object in this chapter is solely to show that there is no fundamental difference between man and the higher mammals in their mental faculties” (1871, 1:34). More recently, evolutionary environmentalist David Suzuki was interviewed by Jo Marchant of New Scientist magazine. Suzuki proclaimed: “[W]e must acknowledge that we are animals.... We like to think of ourselves as elevated above other creatures. But the human body evolved” from animals (as quoted in Marchant, 2008, 200[2678]:44, emp. added). One has to look no further than Marchant’s title to know his view of humanity. Allegedly, “We Should Act Like the Animals We Are” (p. 44, emp. added). The fact is, as Thomas B. Warren concluded in his debate with Antony Flew, “[T]he basic implication of the atheistic system does not allow objective moral right or objective moral wrong” (1977, p. 49).

ATHEISM: CONTRADICTORY AT BEST, HIDEOUS AT WORST

Atheists cannot logically condemn the Nazis for objective moral evil, while simultaneously saying that we arose from rocks and rodents. They cannot reasonably rebuke a child molester for being immoral, while at the same time believing that we evolved from slime. Reason demands that objective good and evil can only exist if there is some real, objective reference point. As Warren stated: “[T]here must be some objective standard (some “higher law which transcends the provincial and transient”) which is other than the particular moral code and which has an obligatory character which can be recognized” (Warren and Matson, p. 284).

Atheists find themselves in a conundrum: (1) They must admit to objective morality (which ultimately means that a moral lawgiver, i.e., God, Who is above and beyond the provincial and the transient, exists); or, (2) They must contend that everything is relative—that no action on Earth could ever be objectively good or evil. Rather, everything is subjective and situational.

Relatively few atheists seem to have had the courage (or audacity) to say forthrightly that atheism implies that objective good and evil do not exist. However, a few have. Some of the leading atheists and agnostics in the world, in fact, understand that if there is no God, then there can be no ultimate, binding standard of morality for humanity. Charles Darwin understood perfectly the moral implications of atheism, which is one reason he gave for being “content to remain an Agnostic” (1958, p. 94). In his autobiography, he wrote: “A man who has no assured and ever present belief in the existence of a personal God or of a future existence with retribution and reward, can have for his rule of life, as far as I can see, only to follow those impulses and instincts which are the strongest or which seem to him the best ones” (1958, p. 94, emp. added). If a person has the urge to suffocate innocent children, like a snake may suffocate its victims (including people), then, if there is no God, there is no objective moral law against suffocating children. If a person impulsively drowns a kind elderly person, similar to a crocodile drowning its prey, then, if atheism is true, this action could neither be regarded as objectively good or evil.

According to Richard Dawkins, one of the early 21^st century’s most famous atheists, “[L]ife has no higher purpose than to perpetuate the survival of DNA” (1995, 273[5]:80):

So long as DNA is passed on, it does not matter who or what gets hurt in the process. Genes don’t care about suffering, because they don’t care about anything…. DNA neither cares nor knows. DNA just is. And we dance to its music…. This universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but pitiless indifference (p. 85, emp. added).

Although Dawkins could never prove that life’s sole purpose is to perpetuate DNA, he is right about one thing: if there is no God, then there is no good and no evil, only “pitiless indifference.” “It does not matter” to atheistic evolution “who or what gets hurt.”

Like Darwin and Dawkins, atheistic evolutionary biologist William Provine implicitly acknowledged the truthfulness of the first premise of the moral argument as stated by philosophers Craig and Cowan (“If God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist”). In 1988, Provine penned an article for The Scientist titled, “Scientists, Face It! Science and Religion are Incompatible” (2[16]:10). Although true science and Christianity live in perfect harmony with each other, Provine, in so far as he was referring to evolutionary science and its implications, was exactly right: evolutionary science and religion are incompatible. According to Provine,

No purposive principles exist in nature. Organic evolution has occurred by various combinations of random genetic drift, natural selection, Mendelian heredity, and many other purposeless mechanisms. Humans are complex organic machines that die completely with no survival of soul or psyche. Humans and other animals make choices frequently, but these are determined by the interaction of heredity and environment and are not the result of free will. No inherent moral or ethical laws exist, nor are there absolute guiding principles for human society. The universe cares nothing for us and we have no ultimate meaning in life (1988, p. 10, emp. added).

Provine went on in the article to accuse evolutionists who fail to take their theory to its logical conclusion of suffering from the “trying to have one’s cake and eat it, too” syndrome. He supposed that they may be acting out of fear or wishful thinking or may just be intellectually dishonest. Why? Because they do not boldly admit what he does: atheistic evolution is true. Therefore, “No inherent moral or ethical laws exist.”

Atheistic philosopher Jean Paul Sartre summarized atheism well in a lecture he gave in 1946 titled “Existentialism is a Humanism.” Sartre stated, “Everything is indeed permitted if God does not exist…. [H]e cannot find anything to depend upon either within or outside himself ” (1989, emp. added). “If God does not exist,” Sartre recognized that we have no “values or commands that could legitimise our behaviour. Thus we have neither behind us, nor before us in a luminous realm of values, any means of justification or excuse” (1989).

Though few they may be, atheists such as Provine, Sartre, and others refuse to walk down the road of contradiction. That is, rather than deny the premise: “If God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist,” they acknowledge it: “[e]verything is indeed permitted if God does not exist” (Sartre, 1989). Yet, if atheists refuse to admit that real moral objectivity exists, then they are forced to admit that, for example, when the Jews were starved, gassed, and experimented on “like the animals” they reportedly were (cf. Marchant, 2008), the Nazis did nothing inherently wrong. They were, to borrow from Provine, merely complex organic, meaningless mechanisms that chose to follow the orders of the Fuhrer. Or, to apply Dawkins reasoning, how could Hitler be guilty of wrong doing if he was simply trying to perpetuate the survival of the “best” DNA possible? “[I]t does not matter who or what gets hurt in the process,” right? “So long as DNA is passed on” (Dawkins, 273[5]:85). Should we not just react with  “pitiless indifference” since atheism implies that objective good and evil do not exist (p. 85)?

What about most of humanity’s condemnation of rape as an objective moral evil? Is it really an inherently evil act? Although evolutionist Randy Thornhill, co-author of the book A Natural History of Rape, “would like to see rape eradicated from human life” (Thornhill and Palmer, 2000, p. xi), he touted in a 2001 speech he delivered in Vancouver that rape is actually “evolutionary, biological and natural…. Our male ancestors became ancestors in part because they conditionally used rape” (2001). According to Thornhill and Palmer, “Evolutionary theory applies to rape, as it does to other areas of human affairs, on both logical and evidentiary grounds. There is no legitimate scientific reason not to apply evolutionary or ultimate hypotheses to rape…. Human rape arises from men’s evolved machinery for obtaining a high number of mates in an environment where females choose mates” (2000, pp. 55,190). If God does not exist, and if man evolved from lower life forms, in part because they “conditionally used rape,” then even rape cannot be called an objective moral evil. In fact, that is exactly what atheist Dan Barker admitted.

In his 2005 debate with Peter Payne on Does Ethics Require God?, Barker stated: “All actions are situational. There is not an action that is right or wrong. I can think of an exception in any case” (emp. added). Four years later, Kyle Butt asked Barker in their debate on the existence of God, “When would rape be acceptable?” (2009, p. 33). Although Barker tried to make his response as palatable as possible, he ultimately admitted that rape would be permissible if, for example, it meant saving humanity from certain destruction (pp. 33-34). [NOTE: One wonders how Barker can logically say that no actions are right or wrong, but then claim that situation ethics is right? Such a claim is a self-defeating statement. “Nothing is right. But situation ethics is right!?” Furthermore, on what basis does Barker think it is “right” to save humanity? His entire answer ultimately contradicts his already contradictory contentions.] Barker went on to admit (and even disturbingly joke) that it would be acceptable to rape two, two thousand, or even two million women, if, say, it resulted in saving six billion people from hypothetical alien invaders (p. 34). [NOTE: Alien invaders are not really all that imaginary in the world of atheism. After all, since life supposedly evolved on Earth, according to atheistic evolutionists it had to have also evolved in one form or another on some other distant planets in the Universe.] Do not miss the point. Dan Barker admitted that rape would be acceptable given certain circumstances. One obvious question is: who gets to decide the circumstances that warrant the rape of innocent women? Who is Barker to say that a man would be wrong to rape a woman for revenge, say, because she crashed into his new car? Or, who is Barker to say that it would be wrong to rape a woman for stealing $1,000 from him, etc. The fact is, once Barker (or any atheist) alleges that (1) God does not exist, and (2) therefore, “[n]o inherent moral or ethical laws exist” (Provine, 1988, 2[16]:10; a logical deduction if God does not exist), then no one can logically be criticized for anything. As Sartre put it: “Everything is indeed permitted if God does not exist” (1989). Rape, child abuse, multiple murder, pedophilia, bestiality, etc. cannot be condemned as objective evil, if God does not exist.

What happens when atheistic evolutionists take their godless philosophy to its logical conclusion, at least theoretically? They unveil the true, hideous nature of atheism. Consider, for example, the comments evolutionary ecologist Eric Pianka made in 2006 in Beaumont, Texas where he was recognized as the Distinguished Texas Scientist of the Year. According to Forrest M. Mimms, III, Chairman of the Environmental Science Section of the Texas Academy of Science, Pianka condemned “the idea that humankind occupies a privileged position in the Universe” and “hammered his point home by exclaiming, ‘We’re no better than bacteria!’” (Mims, 2006). Pianka followed up this comment by expressing his concerns “about how human overpopulation is ruining the Earth” (Mims). According to Mims, 

Professor Pianka said the Earth as we know it will not survive without drastic measures. Then, and without presenting any data to justify this number, he asserted that the only feasible solution to saving the Earth is to reduce the population to 10 percent of the present number.... His favorite candidate for eliminating 90 percent of the world’s population is airborne Ebola (Ebola Reston), because it is both highly lethal and it kills in days, instead of years (2006; for more information, see Butt, 2008, 28[7]:51-52).

Although most people (a good 90% anyway) find Pianka’s suggestion appalling, if atheism is true, and humanity really “evolved from bacteria” (Earth Science, 1989, p. 356), there would be nothing inherently wrong for a man to attempt to murder billions of people, especially if he is doing it for a “good” reason (i.e., to save the only planet in the Universe on which we know for sure life exists). [NOTE: Again, such a  reason that is deemed “good” can only exist if God does.]

CONCLUSION

The moral argument for God’s existence exposes atheism as the self-contradictory, atrocious philosophy that it is. Atheists must either reject the truthfulness of the moral argument’s first premise (“If God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist”) and illogically accept the indefensible idea that objective morality somehow arose from rocks and reptiles, or (2) they must reject the argument’s second premise (“Objective moral values exist”), and accept the insane, utterly repulsive idea that genocide, rape, murder, theft, child abuse, etc. can never oncebe condemned as objectively “wrong.” According to atheism, individuals who commit such actions are merely doing what their DNA led them to do. They are simply following through with their raw impulses and instincts, which allegedly evolved from our animal ancestors. What’s more, if atheism is true, individuals could never logically be punished for such immoral actions, since “no inherent moral or ethical laws exist” (Provine, 1988, p. 10).

For those who refuse to have God in their knowledge (Romans 1:28), life will forever be filled with the self-contradictory, unreasonable, inhumane lies of atheistic evolution. Indeed, “The fool has said in his heart, ‘There is no God’” (Psalm 14:1a). When atheists actually follow through with their godless philosophy and let it complete its journey of indifference, they peel back the phony charming façade of atheism and reveal it for what the psalmist said that it actually is: corrupt and abominable, where no one does good (Psalm 14:1b). On the other hand, when theists follow the evidence to the Creator (cf. Psalm 19:1-4), they discover a benevolent God Who is good (Psalm 100:5; Mark 10:18) and Who demands that His obedient followers “do good to all” (Galatians 6:10).

REFERENCES

Barker, Dan and Peter Payne (2005), Does Ethics Require God?, http://www.ffrf.org/about/bybarker/ethics_debate.php.

Beckwith, Francis and Gregory Koukl (1998), Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker), http://books.google.com/books?id=JulBONF0BKMC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false).

Brooks, Michael (2006), “In Place of God,” New Scientist, 192[2578]:8-11, November 18.

Butt, Kyle (2008), “The Bitter Fruit of Atheism—Part 1,” Reason & Revelation, 28[7]:49-55, July,http://www.apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=603.

Butt, Kyle and Dan Barker (2009), Butt/Barker Debate: Does the God of the Bible Exist? (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).

Cowan, Steven (2005), “The Question of Moral Values,” The Big Argument: Does God Exist?, eds. John Ashton and Michael Westcott (Green Forest, AR: Master Books).

Craig, William Lane (no date), “Moral Argument,” Reasonable Faith, http://www.reasonablefaith.org/documents/podcast_docs/defenders_2/Existence_of_God_Moral-Argument.pdf.

Craig, William Lane and Michael Tooley (1994), “Dr. Craig’s Opening Statement,” A Classic Debate on the Existence of God, http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/craig-tooley1.html.

Darwin, Charles (1871), The Descent of Man: Volume 1 (New York: Appleton), http://books.google.com /books?id=ZvsHAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA126&dq=The+Descent+of+Man+volume+1&hl=en&ei=vzwwTtjoDurc0QH7 mNWFAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false.

Darwin, Charles (1958), The Autobiography of Charles Darwin, ed. Nora Barlow (New York: W.W. Norton).

Dawkins, Richard (1995), “God’s Utility Function,” Scientific American, 273[5]:80-85, November.

“Do Atheists Have Morals?” (no date), http://www.askanatheist.org/morals.html.

Earth Science (1989), (New York: Harcourt, Brace, & Jovanovich).

“Holocaust” (2011), Encyclopedia.com, http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Holocaust.aspx#1.

Johnson, George B. (1994), Biology: Visualizing Life (New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston).

Lyons, Eric and Kyle Butt (2007), “Militant Atheism,” Reason & Revelation, 27[1]:1-5, January,http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/3195,http://www.apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=585.

Marchant, Jo (2008), “We Should Act Like the Animals We Are,” New Scientist, 200[2678]:44-45, October 18-24.

“Metaphysical” (2011), Merriam-Webster, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/metaphysical.

Miller, Dave (2004), “Atheist Finally ‘Sobers Up,’” Apologetics Press,http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=1467.

Mims, Forrest (2006), “Meeting Doctor Doom,” The Ecologic Powerhouse, http://www.freedom.org/board/articles/mims-506.html.

Provine, William (1988), “Scientists, Face It! Science and Religion are Incompatible,” The Scientist, 2[16]:10, September 5, http://classic.the-scientist.com/article/display/8667/.

Reilly, Michael (2007), “God’s Place in a Rational World,” New Scientist, 196[2629]:7, November 10.

Ruse, Michael (1982), Darwinism Defended: A Guide to the Evolution Controversies (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley).

Ruse, Michael (1989), The Darwinian Paradigm (London: Routledge), http://books.google.com/books?id= 4iAhPbYwHOUC&printsec=frontcover&dq=The+darwinian+paradigm&hl=en&ei=3dgtTomSOofagAeiqLH7Cg& sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&sqi=2&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false.

Sartre, Jean-Paul (1989), “Existentialism is Humanism,” in Existentialism from Dostoyevsky to Sartre, ed. Walter Kaufman, trans. Philip Mairet (Meridian Publishing Company), http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/sartre/works/exist/sartre.htm.

Simpson, George Gaylord (1951), The Meaning of Evolution (New York: Mentor).

Thornhill, Randy (2001), “A Natural History of Rape,” Lecture delivered at Simon Fraser University, http://www.d.umn.edu/cla/faculty/jhamlin/3925/Readings/Thornhill_on_rape.pdf.

Thornhill, Randy and Craig T. Palmer (2000), A Natural History of Rape (Cambridge: MIT Press).

Warren, Thomas and Antony G.N. Flew (1977), The Warren-Flew Debate on the Existence of God(Ramer, TN: National Christian Press), info@nationalchristianpress.net.

Warren, Thomas B. and Wallace I. Matson (1978), The Warren-Matson Debate (Ramer, TN: National Christian Press), info@nationalchristianpress.net.