It's well known in debating circles that circular reasoning is illogical. But is it
always? Using the Bible to defend the Bible. This week on Creation Magazine LIVE!
Welcome to Creation Magazine LIVE! My name
is Richard Fangrad. And I'm Calvin Smith. Now our topic this week is: Using the Bible to
defend the Bible. Creation Ministries International is well known for accepting the Bible as God's
written Word, and therefore without error and that it is the ultimate authority on whatever
it teaches. Well of course a common objection from people is, "You
believe the Bible to be God's Word because it says so. Well that's arguing in a circle,
and that's circular reasoning." Well, there is a major point to consider here in
answering this: the role of starting assumptions. So let's start with assumptions and we can move
on from there… OK, Yes. All philosophical systems start with
axioms or presuppositions which are non-provable, and these non-provable propositions are accepted
as true. People deduce theorems from them once they have been accepted. We've talked
about this before in season 5 episode 7, you can have a look at that show there. So Christians shouldn't be faulted for having
axioms as well, which are the propositions of Scripture. Evolutionist Michael Ruse admitted
as much when he stated, he said: Evolution, akin to religion, involves making
certain a priori or metaphysical assumptions, which at some level cannot be proven empirically.
Right, so the question for any axiomatic system is whether it is self-consistent and if its consistent
with the real world and that the axioms don't actually contradict each other. Indeed, alleged circular
reasoning at least demonstrates the internal consistency of the Bible's claims it makes
about itself. If the Bible had actually disclaimed divine inspiration, well it would indeed be illogical
to defend it right? Christian axioms provide the basis for a coherent
worldview, that is a thought map that can guide us through all aspects of life. Non-Christian
axioms fail these tests, as do the axioms of other 'holy books' so called. Biblical axioms
logically and historically provided the basis for modern science as we talked about last week. A major one is that the
universe is orderly, because it was made by a God of order, not the author of confusion.
But why should the universe be orderly if there were no God, or if the universe was
just an idea, as Eastern religions teach? I mean, it could change its mind right?
Also very importantly, the Christian axioms provide a basis for objective right and wrong.
Note, it's important to understand the point here—not that atheists can't be moral or can't have a moral life
but its just that they have no objective basis for this morality from within their own system.
Even the fanatical atheistic evolutionist, Richard Dawkins, admits that our "best impulses
have no basis in nature", and another atheist, William Provine, said that evolution means
that "There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning in life, and no
free will for humans, either." So Dawkins makes a great leap of faith to say that we should
be "anti-Darwinian when it comes to morality", that we should 'rebel' against our selfish
genes, etc. But his own philosophy just can't justify these 'shoulds' that he says we should do.
Christian axioms also provide a basis for things like voluntary choice, most people
don't think about things like that, since we are made in the image of God.
But evolutionists believe that we are just machines and that our thoughts are really
motions of atoms in our brains, which are just 'computers made of meat'. 'Chemical
predestination' so to speak. But then they actually realize that we can't really
function in the everyday world like this. Science is supposed to be about predictability,
but an evolutionist can predict his wife's behaviour a lot easier if he treats her as
a free agent with likes and dislikes so on. Exactly. For example, if he brings her flowers,
he'll make her happy, that is for all practical purposes, his wife is a free agent who likes
flowers. Nothing's gained in the practical world by treating her as an automaton with
certain olfactory responses programmed by genes that in turn produce certain brain chemistry.
So evolutionists claim that free will is a 'useful illusion' is what they claim.
I mean you've got to wonder why these atheists call themselves 'freethinkers' if they believe
thoughts are the results of atomic motion in the brain obeying the fixed laws of chemistry.
By their own philosophy, they can't help what they believe!
Then they're not free then. Exactly. We'll be back in just one moment…
Stromatolites are regarded by many as the oldest fossils on earth. They are interpreted as the remains of colonies of blue-green algae,
or more accurately, cyanobacteria. The oldest ones are claimed to be 3.5 billion years old.
Within this evolutionary perspective, one would expect these colonies to have radically
changed, but remarkably, they are essentially the same today. Stromatolites, therefore,
are classic examples of living fossils. Living fossils cause major problems for evolution
because they provide stunning examples of how evolution hasn't occurred.
They also call into question the evolutionary timeframe.
Some people try to downplay the significance of living fossils by arguing that when something
is well adapted to its environment it doesn't need to change. But this would need the environment
to be constant for the supposed period of time. This argument cannot apply to stromatolites,
because during 3.5 billion years of alleged evolutionary time, many radical environmental
changes supposedly occurred, including the arrival of new predators and parasites. To
find out more from Creation Ministries International visit our website Creation.com.
Well if you've just tuned in, this week we are talking about…Using the Bible to defend the Bible, is that logical?
Well as we've been discussing starting axioms, circular reasoning etc, talking about those things, it's important to
understand that once a starting position has been decided upon, in our case the Bible as
truth, then it's not circular to use the internal information within it to prove it
correct, as a matter of fact that helps show its truthfulness.
Exactly. For example it's not circular to use Matthew to prove Genesis, Paul to prove
Luke or Peter to prove Paul. It is also not circular to use Jesus' clear statements
to prove the Bible. His statements such as, "Scripture cannot be broken", we see that in John 10:35
and His repeated use of "It is written …It is written …It is written …" shows that for Jesus, what Scripture said is what
God said. Indeed, Jesus defended many of the doctrines that skeptics love to scoff at. Yes.
Even without accepting Scripture as the authority, many liberal theologians believe that the
is overwhelming historical evidence that Christ affirmed biblical inerrancy, although they
disagree with Him. Yet Jesus proved His credentials beyond doubt by rising from the dead. A problem
for evolutionists is that evolutionary reasoning undercuts itself rather than affirming it.
Social commentator Dr Theodore Dalrymple, no Christian himself, commented on the atheist
philosopher Daniel Dennett, he said this: "Dennett argues that religion is explicable
in evolutionary terms—for example, by our inborn human propensity, at one time valuable
for our survival on the African savannahs, to attribute animate agency to threatening
events. For Dennett, to prove the biological origin
of belief in God is to show its irrationality, to break its spell. But of course it is a
necessary part of the argument that all possible human beliefs, including belief in evolution,
must be explicable in precisely the same way; or else why single out religion for this treatment?"
Right. So either we test ideas according to arguments in their favor, independent of their origins,
thus making the argument from evolution irrelevant, or all possible beliefs come under the same
suspicion of being only evolutionary adaptations—and thus biologically contingent rather than either true
or false. We find ourselves facing a version of the paradox of the Cretan liar: all beliefs,
including this one, are the products of evolution, and all beliefs that are products of evolution
cannot be known to be true. Certainly a problem for evolutionists. Well,
way back in February of 2005 a fellow wrote in to the ministry asking about kind of the same topic
and we thought that the exchange between he and our staff might prove useful to you viewers.
You can find it at Creation.com under the title; Agnostic asks whether biblical Christians
commit circular reasoning just do a search on that and you can see this article. We'll go through it here. He said;
Hi, I'd like to state first of all that I mean
no offence, and ask this purely in the spirit of enquiry, as an agnostic and a philosopher.
I respect your views as far as you hold them, and that despite evidence to the contrary
you have held firm to your beliefs—that is commendable, and respectable.
However, I have long been taught throughout my school-life the virtue of science, and
the 'big-bang theory', evolution and so on.
Having read through your website, I can see that you have well thought-out arguments,
backed up with evidence and study, which could easily hold up for some time against long-held
theories. On the other hand, I notice that many of your theories are backed up by nothing
more than the word of the bible. I'm not denying that the bible is an excellent
book, nor that it may be the word of God, but I will question one tenet:
That the Bible must be the word of God, because it says so.
Now, consider me heretic, but it strikes me that this is a ridiculous line of thought
to take? If I were to say that my face was made of cucumber, and I'm four hundred years
old, would that make it so simply because I said so?
I'm not entirely convinced that it would. Sarcasm there. All in all though, fair play to you, you're
doing some good work there. I will always have to favour the underdog in any
debate! Be happy, and God's love on you,
Joe P. from the UK. Well when we get back we'll look into what
Dr Jonathan Sarfati had to say in response to Joe, its very revealing and we'll see you in just a moment…
What are the theological consequences of adding 'millions of years' to Genesis? How does
it impact doctrines such as the Gospel, sin, the atonement?
Refuting Compromise is the most powerful biblical and scientific defence of a straightforward
view of Genesis. Loaded with scientific support for a recent creation in 6 real days, it demolishes
all attempts to twist the biblical text in order insert 'millions of years', bringing
clarity into an area usually mired in confusion. Must reading for Bible college students and
anyone involved in church leadership or teaching. Get your copy at creation.com
On this week's episode we are talking about: using the Bible to defend the Bible, that's
our topic… Now, in the last segment we read a letter
sent to us from Joe P in the UK. Here is his letter again but this time it has selected responses from
Dr Jonathan Sarfati, and hopefully help sort through our subject here today. We're not going to
read it all because later on Jonathan repeats a lot of what we actually talked about earlier. But anyway, let's get
started. OK so Joe said,
Hi, I'd like to state first of all that I mean
no offence, and ask this purely in the spirit of enquiry, as an agnostic and a philosopher.
So Jonathan wrote back and said, Thanks. I will try to answer in the same spirit. I will say though that
many of the answers you seek are already on our website, as will be shown below.
OK and back to Joe who said, I respect your views as far as you hold them, and that despite
evidence to the contrary you have held firm to your beliefs—that is commendable, and
respectable. And Jonathan replied, he said, However, there
is a worldview in what you say whether you are conscious of it or not.
[Some people] place Christian beliefs in the realm of 'values', that is mere personal
beliefs that have no connection with reality. There are less scrupulous people than you
who will say the same sort of things, that they 'respect' Christianity, but at a
frightful cost of dismissing Christian ideas from any rational discussion.
However, Christianity is a system of Total Truth. It makes objective claims about the
world, including its history and about absolute right and wrong.
Yes good points there! Joe continued: However, I have long been taught throughout my school-life
the virtue of science, and the 'big-bang theory', evolution and so on.
To which Dr Sarfati said, "Did they also teach you about the many cosmogonists skeptical
of the big bang because of the ad hoc unobservable entities required to prop up the theory, e.g.
hypothetical inflation field, dark matter and energy, as well as adjustable parameters
to bring the theory into line? Or did they teach you the many chemical hurdles
of chemical evolution required before nonliving chemicals can form even a simple living cell?
I also have to wonder whether their 'evidence' for evolution was mere change…?" He's pointing out these huge
holes in the evolutionary theory. Yes. Some good questions there. OK so Joe continued, he said, "Having read through your website,
I can see that you have well thought-out arguments, backed up with evidence and study, which could
easily hold up for some time against long-held theories. On the other hand, I notice that
many of your theories are backed up by nothing more than the word of the Bible."
And Jonathan hits the nail on the head, when he says, "Since the creation/evolution issue is
about history, we do what the best historians do—we go to eyewitness accounts. That is what
the Bible is." Then Joe said, "I'm not denying that the
Bible is an excellent book, nor that it may be the word of God, but I will question one
tenet: and that's that the Bible must be the word of God, because
it says so." Now Jonathan's reply was great here! He said, "Then
I have to ask you, why do you think it is an excellent book? If it claims to be written
by God (and it does many times), then if this claim is false, the Bible would be a fraudulent
or delusional book. This is parallel to the C.S. Lewis's famous Trilemma argument right: Jesus
claimed to be God, so either this is true or false; if true, then worship Him! But if
false, then he is either deliberately lying, or is hopelessly deluded, worse than the man
who thinks that he is a baked potato. One option He just does not logically allow is
'he was just a very great teacher'. And of course this is the same as the Bible, this is what he's pointing out."
So we'll stop there, but again, the question for any axiomatic system is whether it is
self-consistent and is consistent with the real world. Christianity, based on the Bible
is, and we'll be back in a moment with even more on this topic…
Many people think that Charles Darwin first thought of the idea of natural selection. However, others prior to Darwin described
the concept, although they sometimes used slightly different terminology.
For instance, Carl Linnaeus, the creationist 'father of taxonomy' wrote of a 'struggle
for survival' in nature. Similarly, James Hutton wrote about the concept of natural
selection. Probably the most influential character was Edward Blyth, an English chemist and zoologist
who wrote major articles on natural selection two decades before Darwin published 'On the Origin
of Species'. Darwin differed in trying to use the concept
of natural selection to promote the idea of unlimited change. However, modern studies
of natural selection have revealed that it is limited. It can only select between variations
that already exist—it is incapable of producing the new genetic information required for true
evolutionary change to occur, such as growing feathers on a reptile.
Natural selection is not evolution. To find out more from Creation Ministries International
visit our website Creation.com.
So our subject this week is…Using the Bible to defend the Bible. Is it logical? So what we've seen so far is that Christian
creationists in one sense, they actually are guilty of circular reasoning, but that ultimately all worldviews
do, because all starting axioms are held by faith. So at the level of a 'worldview starting
point', all beliefs kind of get a pass as far as 'circular reasoning' goes. However, past
that point then circular reasoning actually isn't allowed. Now here at CMI, we think that we have good
grounds for believing the Bible. Neither we nor the Bible advocate a 'blind faith'
approach to belief in God and His word. Instead, we show how Christianity makes better sense
of reality, better than any other worldview. Yes. Still, once we are firmly convinced that
the Bible is the Word of God and that Genesis teaches six days, young earth creationism etc., it is appropriate
to use that knowledge to test other truth claims. When for example new ape-man claims are trumpeted, we
talked about this just a little while ago, trumpeted in the media, for example, we don't immediately question our entire worldview, but we ask how
these facts, how could they themselves be better interpreted within a creationist paradigm.
Right. And it's not like those committed to an evolutionary paradigm don't do the same
thing. Notice how, when evolutionist Dr Mary Schweitzer found soft tissues, blood cells,
proteins, and DNA within dinosaur bones rather, she didn't question the 65+ million year age
of the bones, but assumed that there must be some mechanism to preserve soft tissue
for all that incredible time. Right. You'll often find that when evolutionists have a problem with something that has been
found they don't question the premise of evolution itself. Right. They might say they're open minded and scientific-Oh we're open to changing our minds...
Yes well they are open to changing their minds about small details but they're not open to changing their minds about the big paradigm of evolution...
The history...Which includes the millions of years. The history is sacrosanct. I mean don't forget the
example of 'first life'. For example, because atheistic evolutionists have to explain their existence without God
they ultimately have to believe in life coming from non-life sometime in the past. And of course this disagrees
with the Law of Biogenesis which we pointed out on another show which states life comes only from life and is therefore unscientific.
I mean, disagreeing with a scientific law is by definition pretty 'unscientific'. Pretty unscientific!
Yes, atheistic evolutionists have to believe that this scientific law was once 'broken'
in the distant past and that life did come from non-living matter, but that would mean
that this law of science isn't actually a 'law', after all a single exception
to any scientific law would mean its falsified. And this shows false circular reasoning in spite
of evidence against it. So atheism requires that there is no Intelligent Designer, so life
must have been generated through a natural process. But observable science disagrees with that
but of course they believe it happened anyway. So while our interpretation of the Bible is
crucial, the Bible isn't the only thing being interpreted. Evolutionists and long
agers often try to sell their interpretations as facts, but we've often shown how they simply kind of
smuggle faulty assumptions into their reconstructions of history.
Of course, the Bible often gives us a clearer picture of history than the study of nature
because (1) the Bible contains propositional statements, whereas nature doesn't literally
say anything, its got to be interpreted, and (2) the Bible gives us eyewitness testimony from an infallible source. For these
and other reasons, it is appropriate to trust the Bible even when we don't have all the
answers about a particular evolutionary claim. After all, the Bible itself tells us in Proverbs
3:5–6, to "Trust in the LORD with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding.
In all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make straight your paths". Right.
But this doesn't mean that if the earth was completely flooded again in another world-wide
flood, for example, that we should keep believing the Bible anyway because the Bible says in
Genesis 9 that God promised He would never again flood the earth as He did in Noah's day so that would be a falsification of the text.
That's right, I've actually heard that question asked of Christians before. What would falsify the scriptures to you?
Well, if there was another world wide flood...A global flood would...that would do it...And that's a physical thing you can observe I guess.
Now Creationists are thus not guilty of circular
reasoning beyond their starting presupposition, which is allowed like we explained. Also, accepting the biblical
presuppositions is not a matter of blind faith. Biblical faith is not blind; rather, it is a
belief for sound reasons.1 Peter 3:15 tells us to give a reason for
the hope that we have. Were to have reasons for the hope that we have, that's part of our faith. And Christianity is a reasonable faith. Furthermore, we are not merely asking opponents
to consider biblical presuppositions as an alternative way of looking at the evidence.
Nor are we merely saying that they are 'nicer', nor even that they provide a superior framework
that better explains the data, although both of these are true as well. Rather, the claim
is even stronger: that the biblical framework is the only one that provides the foundation
for science, voluntary will, logic and morality and a number of other things. That's right, and that's a very bold claim.
and when you have conversations with people they look at you like you've got three heads...because the whole idea right now is plurality. Well everybody has a place at the table.
The fact is that when you look at worldviews and you break them down Christianity is the only worldview that explains all of reality.
That's right. And we'll be back in a little while...
The Genesis Account is the "Rolls Royce" of creation books. It's a thorough, verse-by-verse
analysis of the first 11 chapters of Genesis, revealing what the text means.
Unlike most commentaries it includes the additional step of providing cutting-edge scientific
support for the history recorded in Genesis because its author, Dr Jonathan Sarfati, is
a PhD scientist. Since science confirms the truths in God's
Word, if both are properly interpreted, this nearly 800-page book makes a fantastic reference
tool for pastors or anyone wanting to know what Genesis really means. Order your copy at creation.com.
Well welcome back, this is the 'In The News' section here on Creation Magazine LIVE! and folks, for this type of stuff all I do when I know we are preparing shows
is I just go on the news and I look through and through a week you can't get by without finding something to do with the creation/evolution debate...Always something...
Always something. Now here's an article, some facts that were found and we're going to look at it and see how the evidence has been interpreted
once again through an evolutionary lens, it's called 'Dinosaurs may have performed bird-like dances to attract mates'
So take it away. I've already got a picture in my mind, how about you? How this works...OK here we go. The article starts this way,
Some dinosaurs may have engaged in courtship rituals similar to ostriches and other birds, a finding that could shed light on the poorly understood mating behavior of these giants.
Shake the ground as you...anyway...The evidence comes from a series of scrapes that were uncovered in 100 million year old Dakota sandstone at four sites in western Colorado.
These ancient scrapes from Cretaceous theropod are similar to a behavior known as 'nest scrape display' or 'scrape ceremonies' among modern birds, where
males show off their ability to be good mates by digging up pseudo nests for their prospective partners.
So that's how the article starts, a little bit later on; Until now, theories abounded about dinosaur sex including that it was driven by sexual selection and the idea that male dinosaurs in
prehistoric times looked for mates and drove off weaker rivals. Females, meanwhile, would have selected the biggest and strongest mates – much as we see in the animal kingdom today.
And as we keep going here, the problem was there was no physical evidence – until now.
The scrapes, which the researchers believe were most likely associated with territorial activity during the breeding season, demonstrate that the mating behavior
is similar to birds - which makes sense since they are descended from dinosaurs. "The scrape evidence...There's a quote here... The scrape evidence has significant implications," Lockley said.
"This is physical evidence of pre-historic foreplay that is very similar to birds today. Modern birds using scrape ceremony courtship usually do so near their final nesting sites.
So the fossil scrape evidence offers a tantalizing clue that dinosaurs in 'heat' may have gathered here millions of years ago to breed and then nest nearby."
There's some excerpts from the article. I mean so the big thrust of the whole article is look dinosaurs evolved into birds
and here's evidence that's going to show it and we're going to take these scratch marks that we've found and we're going to put it into that interpretation and that's the only interpretation...
The evidence is scratch marks, love it... Scratch marks, that's what you've got, so are there other ways that we could interpret these scratch marks? I think so.
You think so? I think so. Possibly, maybe! I mean not all birds do this whole scratchy scratchy thing before they mate. They talk about sexual selection in there
well Darwin's theory about sexual selection for example Peacocks, the ones with the biggest and brightest feathers, those are the ones that attract the mates, well
that's been thrown out the window so this whole idea of sexual selection only the biggest and strongest are the ones that mate, that's not true.
There's little... it's not just the biggest and strongest all the time... Yes it makes you think too, since they got the activity with peacocks wrong, peacocks are living today!
And you can go look at them and kind of examine what's going on there before and go and mate... There are other... A hundred million years ago is the timeframe here?
From scratch marks, how do you know you are going to be right about their mating behaviour if you can't even get peacocks right? Well you've got to
assume that their birds etc. There's other creatures that scratch things and they spray urine as territorial markers so there's different ways of explaining that.
Could they have been digging for prey? All sorts of different ways they could have explained this but anyway...
Next week on Creation Magazine LIVE!: Are Genesis 1 and 2 contradictory? We'll see you then...
For more infomation >> Ask a Herbert Erpaderp #29: Pardon me boy, is that the Chattanooga Choo Choo? - Duration: 18:29. 
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét