2 Sets of Six Major Worldviews 1. Atheism Atheism comes from two Greek terms: “theos” which means “God,” and “a” which is a negation. Therefore, “a” “theos” literally means “no God.” This is the worldview held by those who claim that they absolutely deny God’s existence. Naturalists, who hold that the physical universe is all that exists, and secular humanists, who believe that man is the measure of all things, are two such groups that comprise the atheist worldview. Although atheism makes up a very low percentage of the world’s population, militant atheists (or anti-theists, those who oppose belief in God) are the loudest. Atheism can be discounted if there is any chance that God could exist. If there is only a one percent chance that God could exist, then atheism becomes futile. 2. Agnosticism Agnosticism also comes from two Greek words: “a” a negation, and “gnosis” which means “knowledge.” Therefore, the agnostic is one who claims to have “no knowledge of God’s existence.” It is claimed that Siddhartha Gautama, better known as the Buddha, was an agnostic, however this is debatable. In my opinion, agnosticism is more honest than atheism. Most who claim to be atheists are actually agnostics at heart. Some agnostics come to the point that they give up searching for God, or claim that God’s existence is beyond the scope of human knowledgeably. 3. Pantheism Pantheism can be difficult for many Westerners to understand because it is rooted in Eastern tradition. Buddhism in its’ purest form can be accepted as pantheistic thought. Pantheists believe that God is in the universe. Pantheists would see God as being restrained by the universal laws. Some would see the universe and God as being the one and the same. For this reason, the ultimate in Buddhist thought is that of Nirvana. Nirvana is an escape. It is when one becomes one with the universe. 4. Panentheism Panentheism is a little different than pantheism. Instead of believing that the universe is God, or God is in the universe, panentheists believe that the universe and everything in it is in God. This would mean that you are God and I am God. The rocks in your backyard are God. The birds flying in the air are God. The mosquito that bites you is God. In essence, everything is God. Panentheists make God more personal than their pantheist counterparts. 5. Deism Deists believe in God’s existence and believe that God is separate from the universe. However, deists do not see God as personal in any way. Deists believe that God designed the universe and all of its’ laws, but does not interact with creation. Therefore, the deist would not believe in personal revelation, miracles, and some would not believe in an afterlife. Some famous deists are: Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and perhaps Albert Einstein. 6. Theism This brings us to the sixth and final worldview: theism. Theism comes from the root Greek term “Theos” which means “God.” Theists believe that God exists, that God created everything, that God is separate from the universe, and that God is personal with the universe and human beings. Theists would have no problem believing in personal revelation, miracles, and an afterlife. Classical Christians, Muslims, and Jews are theists. When we show the design found in the universe and the necessity of God’s existence, we do not necessarily prove Christianity, unless we show Christ to be savior. Conclusion: Not every worldview can be correct. If God exists, then the atheist and agnostic cannot be correct. If God is personal, the Deist could not be correct. If God is separate from the universe, then the pantheist and panentheist cannot be correct. It is not nice in popular society to claim that not all religions are true, but at the end of the day, we have to ask ourselves if it is true. 1

Modernism Naturalism Rationalism Agnosticism

REALITY

HUMANKIND

TRUTH

The material universe is all that exists. Reality is 'one-dimensional'. There is no such thing as a spirit, soul, or the supernatural. Everything can be explained on the basis of natural, physical laws, and reason alone.

Humankind is the chance product of a biological process of evolution. Man is entirely material, as well as autonomous. The human species may one day pass out of existence.

Truth is typically understood in terms of scientific proof or logical deduction. Only that which can be observed with the five senses, verified scientifically, or grasped with logic is real or true. Science and Reason are the guides to the future.

No objective values or morals exist. Morals are only individual preferences, socially useful behaviors, or political expediencies. Morals are subject to evolution and change. Relativism in moral and ethical realms is reasonable.

The one-dimensional world must be interpreted through each individual's language and cultural "paradigm." Since, reality is "socially constructed," these realities can also be "deconstructed."

Humans are 'nodes' in a particular cultural reality; they are a product of their environment. The idea that people are autonomous and free is a myth; they are 'puppets' on their respective social stage.

Truths are mental 'constructs', meaningful only to each individual within a particular cultural paradigm. They do not apply to other paradigms. Thus, reason and logic are simply expressions of European / American cultural bias.

No objective values exist. Morality, or lack there of, is part of each social paradigm. A politically-correct tolerance, freedom of expression, inclusion, and refusal to claim to have answers are the only universal values. Relativism rules!

An infinite, personal God exists. This God created an extraordinarily large, yet finite, material world. Reality is both material and spiritual. The universe as we know it had a beginning and will have an end. Ultimate accountability exists; it's just a matter of timing.

Humankind is the unique creation of God. They were created "in the image of God," which refers to attributes of intellect, emotions, and will, and with the possibility of 'spiritual' relationships. Due to the Fall, mankind became aliened from God.

Truth about God and reality is gained through both general and specific revelation. God has 'selectively' and supernaturally revealed His existence. Truth about the material world is gained via observation using the five senses in conjunction with rational thought.

Moral values are the objective, propositional statements of an absolute Moral Being -- God. He has revealed these standards throughout history. This position is incompatible with relativism.

Allah, the deity mentioned in the Quran, is a unitary caricature of the Biblical Yahweh. Allah has personal attributes, but transcendent and unknowable. Muslims profess, "There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad his messenger."

Islam rejects the truth of the Fall and views humankind as essentially "good." Humans are weak, limited, and forgetful. Through selfdiscipline and obedience to Quranic law, Muslims can become morally acceptable to Allah. Islam is works oriented.

Truth is synonymous with Quranic revelation, which is understood as the final and inerrant Word of God. The texts of the Bible are said to be incomplete and corrupted, in so far as they contradict the socalled revelation given to Muhammad by the angle Gabriel.

Values and virtue are set forth in the Quran, with obedience to Allah's will and devotion to the Islam law central. Religious devotion consists of: profession of faith, prayer, almsgiving, fasting, pilgrimage, and Jihad (holy war). Error is everything which is not Islamic.

Existentialism

VALUES

Atheism Postmodernism A revolt against modernism A growing new form of thinking in Europe and America Cultural Marxism Theism Historical Christianity Traditional Judaism

Aberrant Theism Islam

2

Pantheism Hinduism Taoism Buddhism New Age

Spiritism and Polytheism Tribal and socalled "native" religions

Only the spiritual dimension exists. All else is illusion, maya. Spiritual reality, Brahman, is eternal, impersonal, and unknowable. It is common to say that everything is a part of God, or that God is in everything and everyone.

Humans are one with ultimate reality. Thus man is spiritual, eternal, and impersonal. The belief of individuality is an illusion since mankind is just a part of the Whole.

Truth is an experience of unity with "the oneness" of the universe. Truth is beyond all rational description. Rational thought as it is understood in Western civilization cannot show us reality.

Because ultimate reality is impersonal, many pantheistic thinkers believe that there is no real distinction between good and evil. Instead, "unenlightened" behavior is that which fails to understand essential unity. Relativism demonstrates enlightenment.

The world is inhabited by spirit 'beings' who govern what goes on. Demons and gods are the real cause behind "natural" events. Material things are real, but they have spirits associated with them and, therefore, can be interpreted spiritually.

Humans are a creation of the gods like the rest of the creatures on earth. Often, tribes or races have a special relationship with some gods who protect and reward them or can punish them.

Truth about the natural world is discovered through the shaman figure who has visions telling him what the gods and demons are doing and how they feel.

Moral values take the form of taboos, which are things that irritate or anger various spirits. These taboos are different from the idea of "good and evil" because it is just as important to avoid irritating evil spirits as it is good ones.

3

Near Eastern Religions Hinduism – no known founder. Four Vedas and the Upanishads. Teaches ideas such as karma (retributive action) and moksha (liberation). 330 million living things to worship. Major gods are Brahman (the supreme spirit), Shiva, Vishnu, and Shakti, Krishna (the avatar of the god Vishnu), and Ganesha (elephant headed). Buddhism - comes from 'budhi', 'to awaken'. It has its origins about 2,500 years ago when Siddhartha Gotama, known as the Buddha, separated from Hinduism. He set up the Four Noble Truths. The ultimate goal of Buddhism is the attainment of the sublime state of Nirvana, by practicing the Noble Eightfold Path (also known as the Middle Way). Jainism – right conduct. Prescribes a path of nonviolence (ahimsa) towards all living beings. The blind men and an elephant and the King. Jains take 5 major vows: non-violence, non-lying, non-stealing, chastity, and nonattachment. Jainism identifies four passions of the mind: Anger, Pride (Ego), Deceitfulness, and Greed Jainism recommends conquering anger by forgiveness, pride (ego) by humility, deceitfulness by straightforwardness, and greed by contentment. Sikhism – The central teaching is the belief in the concept of the oneness of God. Sikhism considers spiritual life and secular life to be intertwined. Sikhs also believe that all religious traditions are equally valid and capable of enlightening their followers. Middle Eastern Religions, mono-theistic Islam – founded by Mohammad in AD 610 and detailed in the Quran (Holy Book literally word for word from God) and the Hadith (examples of Mohammad). Islam means submit, as to God. Five Pillars - (1) the creed, (2) daily prayers, (3) almsgiving, (4) fasting during Ramadan and (5) the pilgrimage to Mecca. Baha’i Faith – founded by Bahá'u'lláh in 19th-century Persia. Emphasizes the spiritual unity of all humankind. Three core principles: the unity of God, there is only one God who is the source of all creation; the unity of religion, all major religions have the same spiritual source and come from the same God; and the unity of humanity, all humans have been created equal. Judaism – The initially chosen way that Yahweh revealed Himself and His plan of salvation through Jesus of Nazareth. The Hebrews as the Chosen People were set apart as a beacon to the nations. Their status was maintained by keeping the “Law.” Zoroastrianism – founded by Zoroaster. Zoroastrians believe that there is one universal, transcendent, supreme god, Ahura Mazda (Ahura means "Being" and Mazda means "Mind"). The creator god Ahura Mazda is semidualistic with chaos being against him. The religion states that active participation in life through good deeds is necessary to ensure happiness and to keep chaos at bay.

4

Five Approaches to Apologetics 1. Classical Method The classical method is an approach that begins by employing natural theology to establish theism as the correct worldview. After God's existence has thus been shown, the classical method moves to a presentation of the historical evidences for the deity of Christ, the trustworthiness of the Scripture, et cetera, to show that Christianity is the best version of theism, as opposed to, say, Judaism or Islam. This school is called the ''classical'' method because it is assumed that this is the method used by the most prominent apologists of earlier centuries. Other contemporary apologists who may be classified at classical apologists include R.C. Sproul, William Lane Craig, Norman Geisler, Stephen T. Davis, and Richard Swinburne. (Gordon Clark) It is usually argued that the order of the two phases in classical apologetics is essential. That is, before one can meaningfully discuss historical evidences, one has to have established God's existence because one's worldview is a framework through which miracles, historical facts, and other empirical data are interpreted. Without a theistic context, no historical event could ever be shown to be a divine miracle. The flipside of this claim is that one cannot appeal to alleged miracles in order to prove God's existence. As Sproul, Gerstner, and Lindsley argue, ''miracles cannot prove God. God, as a matter of fact, alone can prove miracles. That is, only on the prior evidence that God exists is a miracle ever possible.'' However, not everyone who considers himself or herself a classical apologist will insist on this point. Craig argues that the classical methodology need not insist on a theoretical necessity in the order of these two steps, but only, given the nature of probability arguments, that this order is the best argumentative strategy. 2. The Evidential Method The evidential method has much in common with the classical method except in solving the issue concerning the value of miracles as evidence. Evidentialism as a apologetic method may be characterized as the ''one-step'' approach. Miracles do not presuppose God's existence (as most contemporary classical apologists assert) but can serve as one sort of evidence for God. This method is fairly eclectic in its use of various positive evidences and negative critiques, utilizing both philosophical and historical arguments. Yet it tends to focus chiefly on the legitimacy of accumulating various historical and other inductive arguments for the truth of Christianity. Given this focus, evidentialists may and will argue both for theism and Christian theism at the same time without recourse to an elaborate natural theology. They might begin, for instance, by arguing for the historical factuality of Jesus' resurrection and then argue that such an unusual event is explicable only if a being very much like the Christian God exists. Having then established God's existence via Christ's miraculous resurrection, the evidentialist would then go on to contend that Jesus' resurrection also authenticates his claims to be God incarnate and his teaching on the divine authority of Scripture. Besides Gary Habernas, advocates of evidentialism include John W. Montgomery, Clark Pinnock, and Wolfhart Pannenberg.

3. The Cumulative Case Method The third of the Big Four is the cumulative case method. The term ''cumulative case'' is used by apologists in ways different than we are using it in this context, but Basil Mitchell, an early proponent of this view, gave this method that name, and so will use it here. The careful reader will no doubt note that this method belongs to the same broad family of methods as does the evidential (and perhaps classical) method. However, it will also be apparent that as an argumentative strategy, the cumulative case method has something distinctive to offer. Indeed, this approach to apologetics arose because of the dissatisfaction that some philosophers had with these other evidential-type methods (i.e., the first two of the Big Four). 5

According to advocates of cumulative case apologetics, the nature of the case for Christianity is not in any strict sense a formal argument like a proof or an argument from probability. In the words of Mitchell, the cumulative case method does ''not conform to the ordinary pattern of deductive or inductive reasoning.'' The case is more like the brief that a lawyer makes in a court of law or that a literary critic makes for a particular interpretation of a book. It is an informed argument that pieces together several lines or types of data into a sort of hypothesis or theory that comprehensively explains that data and does so better than any alternative hypothesis. Paul Feinberg, this volume's cumulative case methodologist, says that ''Christian theists are urging that [Christianity] makes better sense of all the evidence available than does any other alternative worldview on offer, whether that alternative is some other theistic view or atheism.'' (...). The data that the cumulative case seeks to explain include the existence and nature of the cosmos, the reality of religious experience, the objectivity of morality, and certain other historical facts, such as the resurrection of Jesus. Beside Feinburg and Mitchell, the cumulative case school would likely include C.S. Lewis and C. Stephen Evans. 4. The Presuppositional Method Due to the noetic effects of sin (how sin negatively effects thinking), presuppositionalists usually hold that there is not enough common ground between believers and unbelievers that would allow followers of the prior three methods to accomplish their goals. The apologist must simply presuppose the truth of Christianity as the proper starting point in apologetics. Here the Christian revelation in the Scriptures is the framework through which all experience is interpreted and all truth is known. Various evidences and arguments can be advanced for the truth of Christianity, but these at least implicitly presuppose premises that can be true only if Christianity is true. Presuppositionalist attempt, then, to argue transcendentally. That is, they argue that all meaning and thought indeed, every fact - logically presupposes the God of the Scriptures. John Frame represents presuppositionalism and he puts the matter this way: “[We] should present the biblical God, not merely as the conclusion to an argument, but as the one who makes argument possible.” By demonstrating that unbelievers can not argue, think, or live without presupposing God, presuppositionalists try to show unbelievers that their own worldview is inadequate to explain their experience of the world and to get unbelievers to see that Christianity alone can make sense of their experience. Other presuppositionalists include Cornelius Van Til and Edward Carnell, Gordon Clark, as well as Greg Bahsen and Francis Schaeffer. These four apologetics methods were vying for supremacy in the early eighties. However, a lot has happened in the last twenty or so years in philosophy and apologetics. One of the most dramatic developments has been the arrival of Reformed epistemology. Kelly James Clark contributes to this volume with the suggestion that this new religious epistimology has something distinctive to say with regard to apologetics methodology. 5. The Reformed Epistemology Approach “Since the Enlightenment,'' Clark says, ''there has been a demand to expose all of our beliefs to the searching criticism of reason.” We are told that if a belief is unsupported by evidence of some kind, it is irrational to believe it. Reformed epistemology challenges this ''evidentialist'' epistemological assumption. Those who advocate this view hold that it is perfectly reasonable for a person to believe many things without evidence. Most strikingly, they argue that belief in God does not require the support of evidence or argument in order for it to be rational. The Reformed epistemology apologist will not necessarily eschew making positive arguments in defense of Christianity, but will argue that such arguments are not necessary for rational faith. If Calvin is right that human beings are born with an innate sensus divinitatis (sense of the divine), then people may rightly and rationally come to have a belief in God immediately without the aid of evidence. 6

For the Reformed epistomologist, then, the focus will tend to be on negative or defensive apologetics as challenges to one's theistic belief are encountered. On the positive side, however, the Reformed epistemologist will, in the words of Clark, ''encourage unbelievers to put themselves in situations where people are typically taken with belief in God'' (...), attempting to awaken in them their latent sense of the divine. The list of contemporary Reformed epistemologists includes Kelly James Clark, Alvin Plantinga, Nicholas Wolterstorff, George Mavrodes, and William Alson. These five apologetic methodologies do not constitute an exhaustive list of apologetic approaches. They do represent, however, the most well-known and popular argumentative strategies in the scholarly apologetics community.

Seven Approaches to Apologetics Philosophical, uses ancient to modern philosophers Prophetic, uses the Bible’s prophesies Cultural, uses the arts and stories Biblical, uses the correspondence of truth by authors Resurrection, uses Christ’s incarnation and resurrection Global, uses world religion Scientific, uses physical details

Some terms to understand: noetic – relating to or based on the intellect ontology - the nature and relations of being epistemology - the study of the nature of knowledge especially to its limits and validity sophistry – subtly deceptive reasoning or argumentation teleological - relating to design or purpose, especially in nature

7

Analyzing Worldview and Truth There are generally two tests for truth: the correspondence test, where assertions of fact can be tested against reality; and the coherence test, which ensures that all the assertions that make up a worldview cohere with one another, or are consistent with one another. Correspondence to fact and systemic coherence make for the test of any worldview. Invariably, give or take some minor points, a worldview is based on eight basic components: 1. A good worldview must have a strong basis in fact. This point alone has a two-edged reality: First, can the assertion being made be tested against reality? And second, is the assertion clearly false? If one assertion in the system is clearly false or cannot be tested against reality, there is a failure to meet the test of truth. 2. A good worldview must have a high degree of coherence or internal consistency. The New Spirituality fails miserably here. 3. A good worldview must give a reasonable and logical explanation for the various undeniable realities that we sense all around us. 4. A good worldview will avoid the two extremes of either being too complex or too simplistic. 5. A good worldview is not explained by just one line of evidence. 6. A good worldview must explain contrary worldviews without compromising its own essential beliefs. 7. A good worldview cannot argue just on the basis of a private experience, but must have some objective standard of measurements. 8. A good worldview must justifiably explain the essential nature of good and evil, since those two alternatives are the principal characteristics differentiating human beings from all other entities or quantities. Every worldview must have correspondence and coherence. In questioning these we have the following tests: First, there are three tests that a worldview must pass, plus two more for truth claims. Logical consistency – Its teachings cannot be self-contradictory. Empirical adequacy – Its teachings must match what we see in reality. Existential relevance – Its teachings must speak directly to how we actually live our lives. Truth claim: Unaffirmability – A test for falsity. (The pink elephant that only I can see.) Truth claim: Undeniability – The obvious must be accounted for. (We exist.) Second, each worldview must address the following four ultimate questions: Origin – Where do the universe and human beings come from? Morality – How do we know what is right and what is wrong? Meaning – What is the meaning or purpose of life? Destiny – What happens to us after we die? Third, there are five academic disciplines that must be employed to study a worldview: Theology – the study of God Metaphysics – the study of what is ultimately real Epistemology – the study of how we can know things Ethics – the study of moral right and wrong Anthropology – the study of what and who humans are Is the worldview of biblical Christianity the best choice? Its teachings are logically consistent, they accurately describe reality as it is, and they speak directly to the human condition. In addition, Christianity provides compelling and powerful answers to the questions of origin, meaning, morality, and destiny. Finally, the theology, metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, and anthropology of the Christian worldview are expansively rich and deeply profound – unsurpassed by any other worldview. 8

First Principles – Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics First principles are the foundation of knowledge. Without them nothing could be known (see FOUNDATIONALISM ). Even coherentism uses the first principle of noncontradiction to test the coherence of its system. Realism affirms that first principles apply to the real world. First principles undeniably apply to reality. The very denial that first principles apply to reality uses first principles in the denial. Principles of Reality. Without basic first principles of reality, nothing can be known. Everything we know about reality is known by them. Twelve basic first principles can be set forth. 1. Being Is (B is) = The Principle of Existence. 2. Being Is Being (B is B) = The Principle of Identity. 3. Being Is Not Nonbeing (B is Not Non-B) = The Principle of Noncontradiction. 4. Either Being or Nonbeing (Either B or Non-B) = The Principle of the Excluded Middle. 5. Nonbeing Cannot Cause Being (Non-B > B) = The Principle of Causality. 6. Contingent Being Cannot Cause Contingent Being (Bc > Bc) = The Principle of Contingency (or Dependency). 7. Only Necessary Being Can Cause a Contingent Being (Bn → Bc) = The Positive Principle of Modality. 8. Necessary Being Cannot Cause a Necessary Being (Bn > Bn) = The Negative Principle of Modality. 9. Every Contingent Being Is Caused by a Necessary Being (Bn → Bc) = The Principle of Existential Causality. 10. Necessary Being exists = Principle of Existential Necessity (Bn exists). 11. Contingent being exists = Principle of Existential Contingency (Bc exists). 12. Necessary Being is similar to similar contingent being(s) it causes = Principle of Analogy (Bn — similar → Bc). For a realist, being is the basis of knowing. The rationalist Rene Descartes said, “I think, therefore, I am.” But for a realist such as Thomas Aquinas, “I am, therefore, I think.” For one could not think unless he existed. Existence is fundamental to everything. Being is the basis for everything. Everything is (or, has) being. Hence, there is no disjunction between the rational and the real. Thought cannot be separated from things or knowing from being. Undeniability. First principles are undeniable or reducible to the undeniable. They are either self-evident or reducible to the self-evident. And self-evident principles are either true by their nature or undeniable because the predicate is reducible to the subject. That the predicate is reducible to the subject means that one cannot deny the principle without using it. For example, the principle of noncontradiction cannot be denied without using it in the very denial. The statement: “Opposites cannot be true” assumes that the opposite of that statement cannot be true. Not all skeptics or agnostics (see AGNOSTICISM ) are willing to grant that the principle of causality, which is crucial in all cosmological arguments for God, is an undeniable first principle. Indeed, not every skeptic is willing to admit that something exists (the principle of existence). Thus, it is necessary to comment on their undeniability. 1. The principle of existence. Something exists. For example, I exist. This is undeniable, for I would have to exist in order to deny my existence. In the very attempt to explicitly deny my existence I implicitly affirm it. 2. The principle of identity. A thing must be identical to itself. If it were not, then it would not be itself. With these and other principles, it is important to note the difference between unsayable and undeniable . I can say or write the words, “I do not exist.” However, when I said it I implicitly affirmed that I do exist. The affirmation that I do not exist is actually unaffirmable. I must actually exist in order to grammatically say I do not exist. Some contemporary nominalists suggest that this is a quirk of language. They insist that such statements as “I cannot speak a word in English” are only self-defeating because one is speaking in English. One could use French and avoid the difficulty. They add that one can make a metastatement in even the same language that avoids this difficulty. That is, they posit a class of statements about statements (called metastatements) which they claim are not statements about the real world. These metastatements are supposedly exempt from being self-defeating. Thus, one who says, “No statements about God are descriptive,” is supposedly not making a descriptive statement about God, but rather about the statements that can be made of God. It is true that a statement in French saying that one cannot speak in English is not self-defeating. However, a statement in French affirming that one cannot speak a word in French is self-defeating. The metastatement maneuver does not avoid the trap of self-destruction. For statements about statements that affirm something about reality are indirectly statements about reality. For example, if one says, “I am not making a statement

9

about reality when I say that statements cannot be made about reality” he is making a statement about reality. It is the most radical kind of statement that can be made about reality, since it prohibits all other statements about reality. Thus, the statement “Something exists” cannot be denied without implicitly affirming that something does exist (e.g., the maker of that statement). 3. The principle of noncontradiction. Being cannot be nonbeing, for they are direct opposites. And opposites cannot be the same. For the one who affirms that “opposites can both be true” does not hold that the opposite of this statement is true. 4. The principle of the excluded middle. Since being and nonbeing are opposites (i.e., contradictory), and opposites cannot be the same, nothing can hide in the “cracks” between being and nonbeing. The only choices are being and nonbeing. Any attempt to deny that all meaningful statements must be noncontradictory, by its very nature as a meaningful statement, must be noncontradictory. Likewise, any attempt to deny the law of noncontradiction applies to reality is itself a noncontradictory statement about reality - which is self-defeating. So, like other first principles, the law of noncontradiction is undeniable. Two challenges to this conclusion have been offered, one philosophical and one scientific. The philosophical objection charges that this argument begs the question, using the law of noncontradiction to prove the law of noncontradiction. It says in effect that it is contradictory to deny the principle of noncontradiction. But the law of noncontradiction is not used as the basis of the argument. It is merely used in the process of giving an indirect argument for the validity of the law of noncontradiction. Just as the statement “I can speak a word in English” uses English in the process of demonstrating that I can speak a word in English, even so the law of noncontradiction is used in the process of showing the validity of the law of noncontradiction. But it is not the basis for the argument. The direct basis for the law of noncontradiction is its self-evident nature, whereby the predicate is reducible to the subject. And the indirect proof is shown by the fact that any attempt to deny it implies it. That is, it is a necessary condition for all rational thought. A second objection to the law of noncontradiction comes from science. Niels Bohr’s principle of complementarity is used to show that subatomic reality is contradictory. For according to this principle there are contradictory ways to describe the same reality, such as, light is both particles and waves. However, this is a misunderstanding of the principle of complementarity. As Werner Heisenberg noted, these are “two complementary descriptions of the same reality . . . these descriptions can only be partially true: there must be limitations to the use of the particle concept as well as of the wave concept, else once could not avoid contradictions.” Thus “if one takes into account those limitations which can be expressed by uncertainty relations, the contradictions disappear” (Heisenberg, 43). The objection that Heisenberg’s principle of uncertainty or unpredictability is contrary to the principle of causality is unfounded. At best, it does not show that events have no cause, but only that they are unpredictable as presently perceived with available technology. For a complete discussion see INDETERMINACY, PRINCIPLE OF. 5. The principle of causality. Only being can cause being. Nothing does not exist, and only what exists can cause existence, since the very concept of “cause” implies an existing thing that has the power to effect another. From absolutely nothing comes absolutely nothing. The statement “Nonbeing cannot produce being” is undeniable. The very concept of “produce” or “cause” implies something exists to cause or produce the being produced. To deny that relationship of cause to effect is to say, “Nothing is something” and “Nonbeing is being,” which is nonsense. This should be distinguished from David Hume ’s point that it is not absurd for nothing to be followed by something. Hume himself accepts, that something is always caused by something. And theists accept Hume’s point that, as a matter of sequence, there was no world and then there was a world, which is nothing followed by something. There is no inherent contradiction in saying nothing can be followed by something. That doesnchange the fact that nothing can cause absolutely nothing. Another way to understand why nonbeing cannot cause being is by noting that everything that “comes to be” must have a cause. If it came to be it is not a Necessary Being, which by its nature must always be. So what comes to be is, by definition, a contingent being, a being that is capable of existing or not existing. For every contingent thing that comes to be there must be some efficient action that causes it to pass from a state of potentiality (potency) to a state of actuality (act). For, Aquinas noted, no potency for being can actualize itself. To actualize itself it must be in a state of actuality, and before it is actualized it must be in a state of potentiality. But it cannot be both at the same time (a violation of the principle of noncontradiction). Hence, one cannot deny the principle of causality without violating the principle of noncontradiction. 6. The principle of contingency (or dependency). If something cannot be caused by nothing (5), neither can anything be caused by what could be nothing , namely, a contingent being. For what could be nothing does not account for its own

10

existence. And what cannot account for even its own existence cannot account for the existence of another. Since it is contingent or dependent for its own being, it cannot be that on which something else depends for its being. Hence, one contingent being cannot cause another contingent being. 7. The positive principle of modality. Absolutely nothing cannot cause something (5). Neither can one contingent kind (mode) of being cause another contingent being (6). So, if anything comes to be, it must be caused by a Necessary Being. 8. The negative principle of modality. A Necessary Being is by definition a mode (kind) of being that cannot not be. That is, by its very mode (modality), it must be. It cannot come to be or cease to be. But to be caused means to come to be. Hence, a Necessary Being cannot be caused. For what comes to be is not necessary. 9. The principle of existential causality. All contingent beings need a cause. For a contingent being is something that is but could not be. But since it has the possibility not to exist, then it does not account for its own existence. That is, in itself there is no basis explaining why it exists rather than does not exist. It literally has nothing (nonbeing) to ground it. But nonbeing cannot ground or cause anything (5). Only something can produce something. 10. Necessary Being exists = Principle of Existential Necessity (Bn exists). The Principle of Existential Necessity follows from two other Principles: the Principle of Existence (no. 1) and the Principle of Causality (no. 5). Since something undeniably exists (no. 1), either it is (a) all contingent or (b) all necessary or (c) some is necessary and some is contingent. But both (b) and (c) acknowledge a Necessary Being, and (a) is logically impossible, being contrary to the self-evident principle no. 5. For if all being(s) is (are) contingent, then it is possible for all being(s) not to exist. That is, a state of total nothingness is possible. But something now undeniably exists (e.g., I do), as was demonstrated in premise no. 1. And nothing cannot cause something (no. 5). Therefore, it is not possible (i.e., it is impossible) for there to have been a state of total nothingness. But if it is impossible for nothing to exist (since something does exist), then something necessarily exists (i.e., a Necessary Being does exist). To put it another way, if something exists and if nothing cannot cause something, then it follows that something must exist necessarily. For if something did not necessarily exist, then nothing would have caused the something that does exist. Since it is impossible for nothing to cause something, then it is necessary for something to always have been. 11. Contingent being exists = Principle of Existential Contingency (Bc exists). Not everything that exists is necessary. For change is real, that is, at least some being(s) really change. And a Necessary Being cannot change in its being. (This does not mean there can be no change in external relations with another being. It simply means there can be no internal change in its being. When a person changes in relation to a pillar, the pillar does not change.) For its being is necessary, and what is necessary in its being cannot be other than it is in its being. And all change in being involves becoming something else in its being. But it is evident that I change in my being. I change from not being to being. By “I” is meant the self-conscious individual being I call myself. (This is not to claim that all the parts or elements of my being are not eternal. There are good reasons to believe they are not because usable energy is running down and cannot be eternal [ see THERMODYNAMICS, LAWS OF ], but this is not the point here.) This “I” or unifying center of consciousness around which these elemental parts of matter come and go, is not eternal. This is clear for many reasons. First, my consciousness changes. Even those who claim they are eternal and necessary (namely, that they are a Necessary Being, God) were not always conscious of being God. Somewhere along the line they change from not being conscious they were God to being conscious they were God. But a Necessary Being cannot change. Hence, I am not a Necessary Being. Rather, I am a contingent being. Therefore, at least one contingent being exists. Everything is not necessary. Further, there are other ways to know one is contingent. The fact that we reason to conclusions reveals that our knowledge is not eternal and necessary. We come to know (i.e., change from a state of not knowing to a state of knowing). But no necessary being can come to know anything. It either eternally and necessarily knows everything it knows, or else it knows nothing. If it is a knowing kind of being, then it necessarily knows, since it is a necessary kind of being. And a being can only know in accordance with the kind of being it is. A contingent or finite being must know contingently, and a Necessary Being must know necessarily. But I do not know all that I can know eternally and necessarily. Therefore, I am a contingent kind of being. 12. The principle of analogy. Since nonbeing cannot produce being (5), only being can produce being. But a contingent being cannot produce another contingent being (6). And a necessary being cannot produce another necessary being (8). So only Necessary Being can cause or produce only a contingent being. For to “cause” or “produce” being means to bring something into being. Something that comes into being, has being. A cause cannot bring nonbeing into being, since being is not nonbeing (4). The fact that Being produces being implies that there is an analogy (similarity) between the cause of being and the being it causes (8). But a contingent being is both similar and different from a

11

Necessary Being. It is similar in that both have being. It is different in that one is necessary and the other is contingent. Whatever is both similar and different is analogous. There is an analogy between Necessary Being and the being it produces. Two things, then, are entailed in the principle that Necessary Being causes being: First, the effect must resemble the cause, since both are being. The cause of being cannot produce what it does not possess. Second, while the effect must resemble its cause in its being (i.e., its actuality), it must also be different from it in its potentiality. For the cause (a Necessary Being), by its very nature, has no potential not to be. But the effect (a contingent being) by its very nature has the potential not to be. Hence, a contingent being must be different from its Cause. Since, the Cause of contingent beings must be both like and different from its effect, it is only similar. Hence, there is an analogical likeness between the Cause of a contingent being and the contingent being it causes to exist. Demonstrating God’s Existence. Given these principles of being, one can know many things about reality; they relate thought and thing. Knowing is based in being . By these principles, one can even prove the existence of God (see GOD, EVIDENCE FOR) as follows: 1. Something exists (e.g., I do) (no. 1). 2. I am a contingent being (no. 11). 3. Nothing cannot cause something (no. 5). 4. Only a Necessary Being can cause a contingent being (no. 7). 5. Therefore, I am caused to exist by a Necessary Being (follows from nos. 1–4). 6. But I am a personal, rational, and moral kind of being (since I engage in these kinds of activities). 7. Therefore, this Necessary Being must be a personal, rational, and moral kind of being, since I am similar to him by the Principle of Analogy (no. 12). 8. But a Necessary Being cannot be contingent (i.e., not-necessary) in its being which would be a contradiction (no. 3). 9. Therefore, this Necessary Being is personal, rational, and moral in a necessary way, not in a contingent way. 10. This Necessary Being is also eternal, uncaused, unchanging, unlimited, and one, since a Necessary Being cannot come to be, be caused by another, undergo change, be limited by any possibility of what it could be (a Necessary Being has no possibility to be other than it is), or to be more than one Being (since there cannot be two infinite beings). 11. Therefore, one necessary, eternal, uncaused, unlimited (= infinite), rational, personal, and moral being exists. 12. Such a Being is appropriately called “God” in the theistic sense, because he possesses all the essential characteristics of a theistic God. 13. Therefore, the theistic God exists. Conclusion. First principles are indispensable to all knowledge. And first principles of being are a necessary prerequisite for all knowledge of being. These first principles are undeniable or reducible to the undeniable. For the very attempt to deny them affirms them. By them not only is reality known, but the existence of God can be demonstrated. Sources Aristotle, On Interpretation ———, On Metaphysics W. Heisenberg, Physics and Philosophy L. M. Regis, Epistemology Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on the Metaphysics of Aristotle ———, On Interpretation F. D. Wilhelmsen, Man’s Knowledge of Reality

12

Presuppositional Apologetics - Stated and Defended Greg L. Bahnsen Here then is the logical oddity of arguments between skeptics and believers. Only if Christianity is true when it claims that all men have a presupposed knowledge of God can there be any common ground on which to maintain an argument at all, and only if God provides the authoritative beginning premise in an argument can the non-Christian ever hope to do more than merely persuade (in an irrational or emotive fashion). No matter what type of argument is carried on and no matter what type of attack is argumentatively directed against Christianity, they must all presuppose the truth of Christianity if they purpose to be genuine arguments. The only point of contact between any skeptic and believer who argue with each other must be the truth that the non-Christian is attempting to disprove! He does in fact presuppose this truth but will not acknowledge it (because of his depraved mind). Nevertheless, all genuine argumentation and the attempt to prove a truth presupposes Christianity. To the degree that the unbeliever has any knowledge at all he is dependent upon the revelation of God, even though he may outwardly repudiate this revelation. This knowledge, which God commonly and graciously allows those who disobey Him, makes it possible for them to argue. The non-Christian, while recognizing the necessity of common presuppositions for argumentation, cannot be assured of them on his own autonomous basis nor can he supply unquestionable axioms that all men know and use. Only the Christian, depending upon the verbal revelation of God, can be assured that God has revealed certain unquestionable truths to all men in all ages. This revelation given to all men provides the necessary point of contact for an argument between two men. Without it, disputants would be incapable of proving anything, being adrift without a common foundation. Because the unbeliever will outwardly denounce the truths that Scripture declares God has revealed to all men, truths that are necessary for all science and philosophy, the Christian apologist must not carry on his dispute with the unbeliever on the unbeliever’s own terms or opinion of himself. Common ground cannot be found at this level. The apologist must appeal to the truth that the unbeliever suppresses (yet utilizes in order to arrive at truth). On the level of outward profession there is antithesis in the presuppositions used by the Christian and the non-Christian, but in their “heart of hearts” all men know the truth about God—for God has Himself shown it to them. Argument will be possible on this level only. It is only because the unbeliever is not true to his professed position but unconsciously draws upon his “ignorant” beliefs that argument can be exercised between him and a believer. Hence the Christian apologist should seek to lay bare the character of those presuppositions on which the non-Christian operates when arguing against the faith, demonstrate their self-vitiating quality, and then show the suppressed beliefs that make the unbeliever’s formal reasoning and knowledge possible and that offer common ground for legitimate argumentation.

13

Ultimate Proof of Creation - video Dr. Jason Lisle Christian worldview is the only rational possibility Ultimate proof does not mean that people will be persuaded. The Christian faith is objectively provable. Information never gains in the process of transmission. Every piece of information is traceable backwards to a mental source. DNA is information and mutations have never been observed to add information to the genome. “Rescuing Device” – a theoretical assumption to answer an unknown response. Similar science, different starting points for worldviews Presuppositions – basic beliefs about reality and rules of interpretation (reliability of senses, memory) There are no neutral philosophies. There are different worldviews. Creation: the Bible is the ultimate standard Evolution: Naturalism/Materialism, Empiricism/Measurements (5 senses) Philosophically a person won’t be persuaded by evidence. The Bible makes sense of evidence. The problem is worldview, not evidence. No neutral ground. With or against Christ. Friend or enemy of God. You can’t win an argument by admitting defeat. Do not leave your Bible behind. 2 things about neutrality. 1) They’re not. 2) You shouldn’t be. It’s logical to use the Bible to defend the Bible. Only biblical presuppositions make knowledge possible. Reliability of senses is possible since God made them. Laws of logic are based on God’s nature. (such as, non-contradiction; laws of nature, morality) Secular worldview has no reason/basis to believe in logic. Strict empiricism not can prove itself. Secularists and non-Christians constantly steal from the Christian worldview. Don’t Answer… Answer! Based on Proverbs 26:4, 5 4 Do not answer a fool according to his folly lest you become like him. 5 Answer a fool according to his folly, or else he will be wise in his own eyes. 14

Blunders in Reasoning – video Dr. Jason Lisle To think logically is be consistent with the nature of God Logic – the study of correct and incorrect reasoning Argument – group of propositions where the truth of one follows from the others Premise – statement being make that is assumed true (syllogism has two premises) Conclusion – statement being proved Fallacies Logical Fallacy – conclusion does not follow from the premises Deductive – (formal) conclusion is true if premises are true (general to specific) Inductive – (informal) conclusion is likely true if premises are true (specific to general) Informal Logical Fallacies Ambiguity – confusing or unclear language Equivocation – shifting from one meaning of a word to another within an argument Amphiboly - relying on an ambiguous word or grammatical structure in a sentence Reification – attributing a concrete characteristic to something that is abstract Bifurcation – falsely assume that there are only two possible answers Question-begging Epithet – using biased (often emotional) language to persuade people instead of logic Ad Hominem (Circumstantial) – to the man, attacking the individual not his/her argument Irrelevant Thesis – True, perhaps. But irrelevant Straw-man Fallacy – misrepresentation of opponent’s position by an easily destroyed position Faulty Appeals – authority, majority

15

Discerning Truth Dr. Jason Lisle 14 Real-world Examples The examples used previously are hypothetical, though they are based on actual fallacies that I have encountered in evolutionary literature and conversations with evolutionists. Sometimes in real-world conversations, the fallacy is not quite so obvious. Most everyday arguments consist of “enthymemes.” An enthymeme is an argument where a premise or the conclusion is left unstated because it is obvious. For example: “Scientists are supposed to be objective. And you are a scientist, aren’t you?” The unstated conclusion is clear: “Therefore, you are supposed to be objective.” In ordinary real-world conversations, we must think through what the critic is saying, and what he or she is implying. Additionally, everyday arguments can contain more than one fallacy. Depending on what you take to be the main point of the argument, you might spot a different fallacy than someone else. Or, you may not see the argument as fallacious at all. There is a degree of subjectivity when we deal with real-world examples. All of the following examples are from evolutionary publications. In these publications, the authors are attempting to persuade the reader that evolution is true, that it is an important concept in science, and that there are no reasonable alternatives (particularly creation). So, you should evaluate the statements in light of that context. I suggest that you use these examples to test yourself. I have provided an “answer key” in chapter 15, but keep in mind that there is a degree of subjectivity in terms of which fallacy is most obvious. 1. “In public discussions of evolution and creationism, we are sometimes told by creationists and opponents of religion alike that we must choose between belief in creation and acceptance of the theory of evolution, between religion and science.”1 2. “Science has boosted living standards, has enabled humans to travel into earth’s orbit and to the moon, and has given us new ways of thinking about ourselves and the universe. Evolutionary biology has been and continues to be a cornerstone of modern science.”2 3. “The rapid advances now being made in the life sciences and in medicine rest on principles derived from an understanding of evolution.”3 4. “And it explains why nonscientific alternatives to evolution such as creationism (including intelligent design creationism) should not be part of the science curriculum in the nation’s public schools.”4 5. “But there is no controversy in the scientific community about whether evolution has occurred.”5 6. “On the contrary, the evidence supporting descent with modification, as Charles Darwin termed it, is both overwhelming and compelling.”6 7. “Biological evolution refers to changes in the traits of organisms over multiple generations.”7 8. “An understanding of evolution was essential in the identification of the SARS virus. The genetic material in the virus was similar to that of other viruses because it had evolved from the same ancestor virus.”8 9. “Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory). . . . Like these other foundational scientific theories, the theory of evolution is supported by so many observations and confirming experiments. . . .”9 10. “The evolutionary biologists who discovered Tiktaalik [see page 2] predicted that they would find fossils intermediate between fish and limbed terrestrial animals in sediments 16

that were about 375 million years old. Their discovery confirmed the prediction made on the basis of evolutionary theory.”10 11. “Because the evidence supporting it is so strong, scientists no longer question whether biological evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur.”11 12. “The atomic structure of matter, the genetic basis of heredity, the circulation of blood, gravitation and planetary motion, and the process of biological evolution by natural selection are just a few examples of a very large number of scientific explanations that have been overwhelmingly substantiated.”12 13. “Scientists and theologians have written eloquently about their awe and wonder at the history of the universe and of life on this planet, explaining that they see no conflict between their faith in God and the evidence for evolution.” [In a section explaining why evolution can be compatible with religious faith.]13 14. [In support of the big bang]:“Later observations with satellites showed that the background radiation in the universe has exactly the properties that would be predicted from the Big Bang.”14 15. “According to modern cosmology, the particles that constitute ordinary matter (protons, neutrons, and electrons) formed when the universe cooled after the Big Bang.”15 16. “Evidence from the most ancient fossils reveals that life has existed on earth for most of our planet’s history”16 17. “Nevertheless, all organisms share some common traits because they all share common ancestors at some point in the past.”17 18. “The bones in the forelimbs of terrestrial and some aquatic vertebrates are remarkably similar because they have all evolved from the forelimbs of a common ancestor.”18 19. “Another compelling feature of the fossil record is its consistency. Nowhere on earth are fossils from dinosaurs, which went extinct 65 million years ago, found together with fossils from humans, who evolved in just the last few million years.”19 20. “Nowhere are the fossils of mammals found in sediments that are more than about 220 million years old.”20 21. “We are about to enter a century in which the United States will be even more dependent on science and technology than it has been in the past. . . . Yet the teaching of science in the nation’s public schools often is marred by a serious omission. Many students receive little or no exposure to the most important concept in modern biology, a concept essential to understanding key aspects of living things — biological evolution.”21 22. “More than one-half of Americans say that they would like to have creationism taught in public school classrooms — even though the Supreme Court has ruled that ‘creation science’ is a religious idea and that its teaching cannot be mandated in the public schools.”22 23. “All living things use the same biochemical system to pass genetic information from one generation to another. From a scientific standpoint, there is one compelling answer to questions about life’s commonalities. Different kinds of organisms share so many characteristics of structure and function because they are related to one another.”23 24. “Though humans, fish, and bacteria would seem to be so different as to defy comparison, they all share some of the characteristics of their common ancestors.”24 25. “In short, biological evolution accounts for three of the most fundamental features of the world around us: the similarities among living things, the diversity of life, and many features of the physical world we inhabit.”25 26. “To teach biology without explaining evolution deprives students of a powerful concept that brings great order and coherence to our understanding of life.”26 27. “Evolution explains why many human pathogens have been developing resistance to formerly effective drugs and suggests ways of confronting this increasingly serious problem”27 17

28. “However, there is no debate within the scientific community over whether evolution occurred, and there is no evidence that evolution has not occurred.”28 29. “The central feature of this revolution has been the abandonment of one notion about stability after another: . . . that the world’s living things are unchangeable, that the continents of the earth are held rigidly in place, and so on. . . . To accept the probability of change — and to see change as an agent of opportunity rather than as a threat — is a silent message and challenge in the lesson of evolution.”29 30. “Teaching biology without evolution would be like teaching civics and never mentioning the United States Constitution.”30 31. “The debate in science is over some of the details of how evolution occurred, not whether evolution happened or not.”31 32. “A lot of science and science education organizations have made statements about why it is important to teach evolution.”32 33. “We accept evolution as the best scientific explanation for a lot of observations — about fossils and biochemistry and evolutionary changes we can actually see, like how bacteria become resistant to certain medicines.”33 34. “Scientists have looked at the arguments [for creation] and have found they are not supported by verifiable data.”34 35. “Fossils of primitive microorganisms show that life had emerged on earth by about 3.8 billion years ago.”35 36. “Similarly, the fossil record reveals profound changes in the kinds of living things that have inhabited our planet over its long history.”36 37. [In dealing with the fact that scientists have discovered that mutations can cause variations in expressed traits]: “They showed that all variations, both slight and dramatic, arose through changes, or mutations, in genes.”37 38. “Almost immediately, it became clear that certain proteins that serve the same function in different species have very similar amino acid sequences. The protein evidence was completely consistent with the idea of a common evolutionary history for the planet’s living things.”38 39. “This uniformity in the genetic code is powerful evidence for the interrelatedness of living things, suggesting that all organisms presently alive share a common ancestor that can be traced back to the origins of life on earth.”39 40. “Natural selection tests the combinations of genes represented in the members of a species and allows to proliferate those that confer the greatest ability to survive and reproduce.”40 41. [In response to “no one has ever seen evolution occur”]: “Scientific conclusions are not limited to direct observation but often depend on inferences that are made by applying reason to observations.” [On the same page, in explaining why creation is not science]: “But science cannot test supernatural possibilities. . . . Because such appeals to the supernatural are not testable using the rules and processes of scientific inquiry, they cannot be a part of science.”41 42. “The annual changes in influenza viruses and the emergence of bacteria resistant to antibiotics are both products of evolutionary forces.”42 43. “Another example of ongoing evolution is the appearance of mosquitoes resistant to various insecticides, which has contributed to a resurgence of malaria in Africa and elsewhere.”43 44. “Creationists reject such scientific facts in part because they do not accept evidence drawn from natural processes that they consider to be at odds with the Bible.”44 45. “To young-earth creationists, no amount of empirical evidence that the earth is billions of years old is likely to refute their claim that the world is actually young but that God simply made it appear to be old.”45 18

46. “They argue that certain biological structures are so complex that they could not have evolved through processes of undirected mutation and natural selection, a condition they call ‘irreducible complexity.’ . . . Biologists have examined each of the molecular systems claimed to be the products of design and have shown how they could have arisen through natural processes. For example, in the case of the bacterial flagellum, there is no single, uniform structure that is found in all flagellar bacteria.”46 47. “The arguments of creationists reverse the scientific process. They begin with an explanation that they are unwilling to alter — that supernatural forces have shaped biological or earth systems — rejecting the basic requirements of science that hypotheses must be restricted to testable natural explanations.”47 48. “Their beliefs cannot be tested, modified, or rejected by scientific means and thus cannot be a part of the processes of science.”48 49. “The pressure to downplay evolution or emphasize nonscientific alternatives in public schools compromises science education.”49 50. “Despite the lack of scientific evidence for creationist positions, some advocates continue to demand that various forms of creationism be taught together with or in place of evolution in science classes.”50 51. “Fossils found in rocks of increasing age attest to the interrelated lineage of living things, from the single-celled organisms that lived billions of years ago to Homo sapiens.”51 52. “Even a casual look at different kinds of organisms reveals striking similarities among species, and anatomists have discovered that these similarities are more than skin deep. All vertebrates, for example, from fish to humans, have a common body plan characterized by a segmented body and a hollow main nerve cord along the back. The best available scientific explanation for these common structures is that all vertebrates are descended from a common ancestor species and that they have diverged through evolution.”52 53. “For example, as described in chapter 3, comparisons of the differences in DNA sequences among organisms provides evidence for many evolutionary events that cannot be found in the fossil record.”53 54. “Evolution is the only plausible scientific explanation that accounts for the extensive array of observations summarized above.”54 55. “It is no longer possible to sustain scientifically the view that the living things we see today did not evolve from earlier forms or that the human species was not produced by the same evolutionary mechanisms that apply to the rest of the living world.”55 56. “Evolution by natural selection is not only a historical process — it still operates today. For example, the continual evolution of human pathogens has come to pose one of the most serious public health problems now facing human societies.”56 57. “The creation of a new species from a pre-existing species generally requires thousands of years, so over a lifetime a single human usually can witness only a tiny part of the speciation process.”57 58. “The best available evidence suggests that life on earth began more than three and a half billion years ago.”58 59. “Somewhat more than 400 million years ago, some marine plants and animals began one of the greatest of all innovations in evolution — they invaded dry land.”59 60. “Second, the statements of science should never be accepted as ‘final truth.’ ”60 61. “Many teachers are under considerable pressure from policy makers, school administrators, parents, and students to downplay or eliminate the teaching of evolution.”61 62. “As a result, many U.S. students lack access to information and ideas that are both integral to modern science and essential for making informed, evidence-based decisions 19

about their own lives and our collective future.”62 63. “Given the importance of science in all aspects of modern life, the science curriculum should not be undermined with nonscientific material.”63 64. “Several court decisions . . . have ruled that the various forms of creationism, including intelligent design creationism, are religion, not science, and that it is therefore unconstitutional to include them in public school science classes.”64 65. “If intelligent design creationism were to be discussed in public schools, then Hindu, Islamic, Native American, and other non-Christian creationist views, as well as mainstream religious views that are compatible with science, also should be discussed.”65 66. “At the same time, many religious people accept the reality of evolution, and many religious denominations have issued emphatic statements reflecting this acceptance.”66 67. “Acceptance of evolution is not the same as a religious belief.”67 68. “But evolution itself has been so thoroughly tested that biologists are no longer examining whether evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur.”68 69. “Measurements of the radiation left over from the Big Bang also support the universe’s great age.”69 70. “There is no scientific controversy about the basic facts of evolution.”70 71. “The ideas supported by creationists, in contrast, are not supported by evidence and are not accepted by the scientific community.”71 72. “Because creationism is based on specific sets of religious convictions, teaching it in science classes would mean imposing a particular religious view on students and thus is unconstitutional, according to several major rulings in federal district courts and the Supreme Court of the United States.”72 73. [Scientific claims] “. . . should never be accepted as ‘final truth.’ Nevertheless, in the case of heliocentricism, as in evolution, the data are so convincing that the accuracy of the theory is no longer questioned in science.”73 74. “Tiny fossils first reveal the existence of bacteria 3.5 to 3.8 billion years ago, and animals composed of more than a single cell are known from about 670 million years ago. But the organisms that lived between these two dates lacked hard parts and, hence, were rarely preserved as fossils.”74 75. “Scientists believe the earth’s age to be about 4.6 billion years because meteorites and rocks of the moon — both of which formed about the same time as the earth — date from this time.”75 76. “By now, so much evidence has been found that supports the fundamental idea of biological evolution that its occurrence is no longer questioned in science.”76 77. “The theory of evolution implies that each organism should contain detailed molecular evidence of its relative place in the hierarchy of living things. This evidence can be found in the DNA sequences of living organisms.”77 78. “Scientists can never be sure that a given explanation is complete and final. Yet many scientific explanations have been so thoroughly tested and confirmed that they are held with great confidence. The theory of evolution is one of these explanations. An enormous amount of scientific investigation has converted what was initially a hypothesis into a theory that is no longer questioned in science.”78 79. [Evolution] “. . . is no longer questioned in science. . . . One of the most characteristic features of science is this openness to challenge. The willingness to abandon a currently accepted belief when a new, better one is proposed is an important demarcation between science and religious dogma.”79 80. “Furthermore, because the basic proposals of creation science are not subject to test and verification, these ideas do not meet the criteria for science.”80 81. “Indeed, U.S. courts have ruled that ideas of creation science are religious views and 20

cannot be taught when evolution is taught.”81 82. “For example, evidence for a very young earth is incompatible with many different methods of establishing the age of rocks.”82 83. “Furthermore, many key aspects of evolution occur in relatively short periods that can be observed directly — such as the evolution in bacteria of resistance to antibiotics.”83 84. “No one saw the evolution of one-toed horses from three-toed horses, but that does not mean that we cannot be confident that horses evolved.”84 85. “The scientific consensus around evolution is overwhelming.”85 86. “For example, dinosaurs were extinct long before humans walked the earth. We know this because no human remains have ever been found in rocks dated to the dinosaur era.”86 87. “Humans did not evolve from modern apes, but humans and modern apes shared a common ancestor, a species that no longer exists. Because we shared a recent common ancestor with chimpanzees and gorillas, we have many anatomical, genetic, biochemical, and even behavioral similarities with the African great apes.”87 88. “Also, Cambrian fossils did not appear spontaneously. They had ancestors in the Precambrian period, but because these Precambrian forms were soft-bodied, they left fewer fossils.”88 89. “Usually ‘faith’ refers to beliefs that are accepted without empirical evidence. . . . If there is a component of faith to science, it is the assumption that the universe operates according to regularities — for example, that the speed of light will not change tomorrow. . . . This ‘faith’ is very different from religious faith.”89 1 Peter M.J. Hess, “Science and Religion,” 11/25/09, www.ncse.com/religion. 2 Committee on Revising Science and Creationism, Science, Evolution, and Creationism (Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 3rd edition, 2007), p. xi. 3 to 20 Ibid. 21 Working Group on Teaching Evolution, NAS, Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science, (Washington DC: National Academies Press, 1998), p. viii. 22 to 40 Ibid. 41 Science, Evolution, and Creationism, p. 39. 42 to 50 Ibid. 51 Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science, p. 16. 52 to 60 Ibid. 61 Science, Evolution, and Creationism, p. 43. 62 to 72 Ibid. 73 Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science, p. 30. 74 to 89 Ibid.

21

15 - Real-world Examples — Answers 1. Question-begging Epithet: “evolution vs. creationism”: The “-ism” implies that creation is simply a belief whereas evolution is not, without making an argument for this. “. . . between religion and science”: The author uses biased language to equate creation with religion and evolution with science, but no argument is made for this. 2 . Fallacy of False Analogy and Equivocation: Here the author equates science (testable and repeatable operational science in the present) with evolution (the nontestable, non-repeatable belief in molecules-to-man evolution). The analogy is fallacious. Evolution is not the same kind of “science” as putting men on the moon, so an equivocation is used here as well. 3. Fallacy of False Cause: The advances in life sciences are due to scientists studying the continued predictable behavior of the universe, and have not been caused by a belief in evolution in the molecules-to-man sense. 4 . Question-begging Epithet: The author uses biased language rather than logic to persuade the reader that creation is “nonscientific” and simply a belief. Note the “-ism” attached to “creation” but not “evolution.” 5. Faulty Appeal to Authority and Majority: The implication is that evolution must (or is likely to) be true since most scientists believe it. Even if everyone within the scientific community believed in evolution (which they don’t) it wouldn’t make it true. 6. Equivocation and Question-begging Epithet: Creationists do believe in “descent with modification”; that is, organisms do exhibit variation from one generation to the next. But this doesn’t prove that all life is descended from one common ancestor, which is the issue in question. So the author has implicitly equivocated on “evolution.” The statement that evidence for evolution is “both overwhelming and compelling” is not backed up by anything. It is simply biased language — the question-begging epithet. 7. Equivocation: The type of “evolution” (any changes in traits) defined here is not the type of evolution for which the critic is arguing (common descent). 8. Equivocation and Appeal to Fear: The type of “evolution” referenced here (variation within a kind: virus to virus) is not the type of “evolution” in question (fish to people). The reference to the SARS virus may also be a subtle appeal to fear, implying that not believing in evolution could pose a health risk. 9. False Analogy: The theory that the earth orbits the sun is testable and repeatable in the present, unlike the belief in particles-to-people evolution. 10. Begging the Question: The author simply states that Tiktaalik is an intermediate form between fish and terrestrial animals. But this is an evolutionary assumption, it begs the question. 11 . Begging the Question and Question-begging Epithet: The author here simply assumes that there is abundant evidence for evolution; but this is the very question at issue. He’s assuming what he’s supposed to be proving. By using biased language to persuade the reader rather than logic (i.e., all the evidence points to evolution, so it would be silly to question it, and the scientists don’t), he is committing the question begging epithet. 12. False Analogy: By lumping evolution in with legitimate, well-established sciences, the author hopes the reader will accept evolution by association. However, all the examples provided are operational science, which is testable and repeatable in the present and has supporting evidence. Evolution lacks these things. So the analogy fails. 13. Faulty Appeal to Authority and Appeal to Emotion: The fact that scientists and theologians believe that evolution can be compatible with faith doesn’t necessarily make it so. The “awe and wonder at the history of the universe and life on this planet” are meant to stir an emotional affection for evolution, rather than making a case for it — the appeal to emotion. In fact, evolution is a rather bloody and gruesome mechanism for the explanation of life. 22

14. Affirming the Consequent: Presumably we are meant to draw the conclusion that the big bang must be (or is likely to be) true. But this is invalid. In deductive logic, the syllogism would be stated this way: (1) If the big bang is true, we should expect to detect a cosmic microwave background. (2) We do detect a cosmic microwave background. (3) Therefore, the big bang is true. This affirms the consequent since there could be many other explanations for the cosmic microwave background. 1 5 . The Fallacy of Reification: “According to modern cosmology . . .” implies that “cosmology” can have an opinion on something. It cannot, since it is a concept. It is cosmologists (i.e., people) who have the opinions. But of course, people’s opinions are not always right, are always biased (for the better or the worse), and can be diverse. The author may have committed this fallacy to make the argument seem more objective than it really is. 16. Begging the Question: That the fossils are tremendously ancient is part of the very claim at issue in the debate. Certainly a biblical creationist would not accept that. The author is subtly assuming part of what he is supposed to be proving. 17. Begging the Question, Fallacy of False Cause, and Affirming the Consequent: Whether the organisms share common traits because they have a common ancestor or a common Creator is the very question at issue. The author simply assumes his position in arguing for it. Depending on how we fill in this enthymeme, the argument could also be classified as the fallacy of false cause (since creation can also account for similarity) or affirming the consequent: (1) If organisms are descended from a common ancestor, then they would share some traits. (2) They do share some traits. (3) Therefore, they are descended from a common ancestor. 18. Begging the Question, Fallacy of False Cause, and Affirming the Consequent: This argument is of the same form as the previous one. 19. Denying the Antecedent: Putting the enthymeme as a standard mixed hypothetical syllogism, we can see the fallacy: 1. If dinosaurs and humans lived at the same time, then we would find fossils of them in the same layers. 2. We do not find fossils of them in the same layers. 3. Therefore, they did not live at the same time. But of course, there could be a number of reasons why dinosaur and human fossils (which are somewhat rare, incidentally) are not typically found together. 20. Begging the Question: If a mammal fossil were found in sediment that had been estimated to be more than 220 million years old, the estimated age would certainly be changed. 21. Appeal to Pity: “Think of the children!” seems to be the message of this argument. That is, if children are not taught evolution, then they are missing essential concepts in science and will be unprepared for the future. This isn’t true, of course. But even if it were, it is utterly irrelevant to the topic at issue: whether or not evolution is true. 22. Irrelevant Thesis and Faulty Appeal to Authority: Whether or not the Supreme Court allows creation to be mandated in schools is utterly irrelevant to whether or not it is true. Just because the justices believe something doesn’t make it so (faulty appeal to authority). 23. Affirming the Consequent and Fallacy of False Cause: Restating this argument as a deductive syllogism, the fallacy becomes clear: (1) If evolution were true, we’d expect to find similar biochemistry in all life. (2) We do find similar biochemistry in all life. (3) Therefore, evolution is true. But, of course, creationists would also expect to find similar biochemistry in all life, since they share a common Creator, and are designed to live in the same world. 24. Begging the Question and False Cause: Whether the similarity is due to common ancestry or common design is the very question at issue. The author has simply assumed what he is trying to prove. 23

25. Affirming the Consequent: Presumably we are supposed to draw the conclusion that evolution is true since it can account for these things. But biblical creation can account for these things, too. 26. Appeal to Pity: The phrase “deprives students” is another indication that we are dealing with an emotional approach to persuasion, rather than a logical one. 27. Equivocation: Here the author conflates the variation-within-a-kind type of change (which is well-established, testable, and repeatable in the present), with particles-topeople evolution (which has not been observed). By establishing the former, he hopes to persuade people of the latter — a typical “bait and switch.” 2 8 . Faulty Appeal to Authority, Majority, Appeal to Ignorance, and Begging the Question: The majority of people within the scientific community may indeed embrace evolution, but that does not make it so — a faulty appeal to authority/majority. Even if it were the case that there is no evidence against evolution, that would not mean that evolution is true — an appeal to ignorance. Also, the notion that there is no evidence against evolution is very much the issue at hand. The author has begged the question. 2 9 . Equivocation: This fallacy centers on the word “evolution.” The author uses the “evolution” of the earth (in the sense of “change” in the generic sense) as evidence of “evolution” in the particles-to-people sense. 30. False Analogy: Whereas the constitution is highly relevant to civics, the concept of evolution (in the common descent sense) is not at all necessary to understand the science of biology. 31. Question-begging Epithet: No logical argument is made. The author simply uses biased language to persuade, e.g., “There really is no debate. Nothing to see here. Move along.” 32. Faulty Appeal to Authority: The fact that certain organizations have issued public statements about evolution does not make it true. 33. Equivocation: The author conflates “evolution” (in the sense of variation within a kind — bacteria becoming resistant) with evolution (in the sense of common descent). 3 4 . Question-begging Epithet and Faulty Appeal to Authority: This is simply a dismissal of arguments for creation, rather than a logical refutation of them. Since there are many scientists who do embrace good arguments for creation, the author’s claim that scientists reject such arguments is a faulty appeal to authority. 3 5 . Begging the Question: The author is assuming the validity of the evolutionary worldview when he assigns dates to the fossils; he then uses this as the proof of the evolutionary worldview. This begs the question. Also, the notion that the fossil microorganisms are “primitive” is begging the question. 36. Begging the Question: The claim that organisms found lower in the rock strata gradually evolved into organisms found higher in rock strata is the very claim at issue. The author simply assumes an evolutionary relationship between these fossil organisms, and uses this as his argument for an evolutionary relationship between the fossil organisms. 3 7 . Hasty Generalization: The fact that mutations are known to cause certain trait variations does not mean that they have caused all trait variations. 38. Affirming the Consequent: Presumably, this enthymeme is designed to persuade us that evolution must be true. Since the amino acid sequence determines the functionality of the protein, it stands to reason that proteins with nearly identical functions should have very similar amino acid sequences — regardless of their origin. This fact is consistent with either creation or evolution, and so the author has affirmed the consequent. 39. Affirming the Consequent: The argument has this basic form: (1) If evolution were true, there would be similarity in the genetic code of all life. (2) There is similarity in the genetic code of all life. (3) Therefore, evolution is true. The fallacy is obvious when we 24

consider that creationists would also expect to find similarity in the genetic code of all life, since all life has the same Creator. 40. Fallacy of Reification: Natural selection is a concept. Even though it is a true concept, it cannot literally “test” anything. By reifying natural selection, the author gives it an intellectual ability that it does not truly have, thus sidestepping the issue of why organisms appear to be designed by intelligence. 41. Special Pleading and Irrelevant Thesis: On the one hand, the author indicates that it is okay to believe in evolution even though it is not directly observable/testable, since inferences from observations are allowed in science. On the other hand, the author indicates that creation is not science since it is not directly observable/testable, but is based on inference from observations. The author has exempted his position from his own standard — special pleading. Also, notice that whether or not creation can be classified as “science” is totally irrelevant to the truth of the position. The author has committed the fallacy of irrelevant thesis. 42. Equivocation: The annual changes in influenza viruses never result in anything but influenza viruses. The author conflates this change (within a kind) with evolution in the particles-to-people sense. 43. Equivocation: Once again, we see equivocation on the word “evolution.” Change within a kind is used as alleged support for changes between kinds. 44. Strawman Fallacy: This misrepresents the creationist position. Creationists do not reject any facts (things that are observable/ knowable in the present). Rather, biblical creationists interpret facts in light of biblical history. 45. Strawman Fallacy: Biblical creationists do not claim that God made the earth “appear” old. “Appearance of age” is an oxymoron since age cannot be seen. Instead, we would contend that God made the earth fully functioning from the beginning. The evidence today is consistent with an age of thousands of years. 46. Fallacy of Irrelevant Thesis: The fact that many different types of flagella exist is not at all relevant to the question at issue. It does not solve the problem of how an apparently irreducibly complex structure could arise through a gradual evolutionary process. 47. Fallacy of Special Pleading: Here the author criticizes creationists for their apparent unwillingness to give up the basic interpretive framework (the Bible) in light of which they interpret the evidence. However, evolutionists are also not willing to give up their basic interpretive framework (naturalism) regardless of any evidence to the contrary. The author is using a double standard. 48. Fallacy of Special Pleading and Irrelevant Thesis: Again, the basic interpretive framework of evolution is naturalism. And most evolutionists are unwilling to consider alternatives. Yet here the author criticizes creationists for doing what he himself does. He is exempting himself from his own standard. Also, whether creation is scientifically testable is not relevant to whether or not it is true. 49. Question-begging Epithet: Rather than making a logical argument for evolution, the author simply labels alternatives as “nonscientific.” He uses biased language rather than logic to persuade. 50. Question-begging Epithet: The author simply states that there is a lack of scientific evidence for creationist positions, rather than arguing for this. Once again, we see “-ism” attached to “creation” but not “evolution,” implying that the former is simply a belief. 51. Begging the Question: The evolutionist claim that living things are all biologically related is supported by the evolutionist claim that rocks have increasing ages spanning billions of years. Since evolution is being used to support evolution, this argument begs the question. Even if the latter claim were true, it would not prove that one kind is descended from another kind. 25

52. Affirming the Consequent and Begging the Question: This argument begs the question since the reason for the similarities among species is the very claim at issue. The arguer simply assumes that such similarities are due to evolution — the very point he is trying to prove. When put into standard form, this argument affirms the consequent; i.e., (1) If evolution is true, there should be similarities. (2) There are similarities. (3) Therefore, evolution is true. But creationists expect such similarities as well. 53. Affirming the Consequent and Begging the Question: That the similarities in DNA are due to evolution rather than a common creator/common purpose is the very claim at issue. In standard form, this argument commits the fallacy of affirming the consequent, just as the previous one did. 54. Bifurcation and Question-begging Epithet: The arguer here has implicitly assumed that there are only two options: (1) either evolution explains the data, or (2) there is no explanation. But, since there is a third option (creation), the argument fails. No argument is made for the claim — it is simply an epithet. 55. Begging the Question: The idea that “the same evolutionary mechanisms . . . apply to the rest of the living world” is the very point at issue. The arguer has simply assumed evolution to support evolution. 56. Equivocation: This is a very clear example of equivocating on the word “evolution.” Here, “evolution” in the sense of change within a kind of organism is used as alleged support for particles-to-people evolution. But these are two different concepts. 57. Begging the Question: It doesn’t occur to the author that perhaps the reason we do not observe evolution (in the particles-to-people sense) today is because it is not true. Instead, he argues that this must be because evolution happens far too slowly to be observed today. He has assumed evolution in his argument for evolution. 58. Question-begging Epithet and Reification: Notice that it is the “best” evidence that allegedly supports evolution, yet no support or examples are given. Biased language takes the place of an argument — the fallacy of the question-begging epithet. This argument also contains a mild form of reification, since evidence as a concept cannot actually “suggest” anything. Rather, people make suggestions based on evidence interpreted through their worldview. 5 9 . Pathetic Fallacy: Plants and animals are given intelligent characteristics in this example: they are said to begin an “innovation in evolution” by adapting to dry land. This sidesteps the problem of how such design could come about without a designer. 60. Reification: Science is a conceptual tool and does not make “statements.” Implicitly, the author has also committed the fallacy of special pleading since he has argued earlier that no scientists today seriously question evolution. 61. Appeal to Pity: This is meant to stir sympathy for those evolutionists who want to teach evolution in schools, but are being “pressured” by those nasty creationists to not teach evolution. However, most creationists want evolution to be taught in schools — as long as the problems with evolution are not hidden from the students. 62. Appeal to Pity: This is another “think of the children” type argument where we are supposed to feel sympathy for the poor deprived students who allegedly won’t be able to make good life decisions if they are not taught evolution. 63. Question-begging Epithet: Without making an actual argument, the author simply implies that alternatives to evolution are nonscientific. 64. Fallacy of Irrelevant Thesis: Whether or not creation is classified as religion or science by the courts is totally irrelevant to whether or not it is true. There is also a subtle appeal to force fallacy in this argument — i.e., “if you teach creation, you might be sued” seems to be implied. 65. Slippery Slope Fallacy: The author suggests that discussing intelligent design or creation in schools will lead to the chain of events whereby the creation views of many 26

other religions must be discussed as well. This isn’t likely since most other religions embrace some form of evolution anyway. So there is a false analogy here as well. A subtle question-begging epithet also occurs here: “as well as mainstream religious views that are compatible with science” implies that creationists are a fringe community and that creation is not compatible with science — but no argument has been made for this. 66. Faulty Appeal to Authority and Question-begging Epithet: The fact that many people believe in evolution and that many denominations have issued such statements is totally irrelevant to whether or not evolution is true. Also, “accept the reality of evolution” is a question-begging epithet, since whether or not evolution is reality is the very claim at issue. 67. Special Pleading: This one is subtle. Here the author is trying to exempt himself from the fact that he too has beliefs that color his interpretation of the evidence. He has a double standard. We might very well respond, “If that is so, then I don’t have a religious belief in creation, I simply accept it.” 68. Question-begging Epithet: No argument is presented. The author simply uses biased language to persuade the reader that evolution is unquestionable. 69. Begging the Question: Whether the microwave background radiation is from the big bang or something else is the very question at issue. The author assumes the big bang is true, in order to argue that the radiation allegedly produced by it supports the big bang. He is assuming what he is trying to prove. 70. Question-begging Epithet: No argument is made. The author simply asserts that evolution is true using biased language to persuade. 71. Begging the Question and Faulty Appeal to Authority: The author merely assumes that the evidence does not support creation in order to argue against creation. But this is the very point at issue. He then appeals to the scientific community in support for evolution. But even if every member of the scientific community believed in evolution (which is not the case), it wouldn’t make it so. 7 2 . Special Pleading, Irrelevant Thesis, a nd Appeal to Authority: Whether or not creation is based on religious beliefs or is unconstitutional are both irrelevant to the truth of the position — so this is an irrelevant thesis. Also, evolution is also based on a religious/philosophical view: naturalism. So the author has exempted himself from the same standard (special pleading). The reference to the Supreme Court is an irrelevant appeal to authority. 73. False Analogy and Special Pleading: The author has linked heliocentricism (which is observable and testable in the present) with particles-to-people evolution (which is not observable/testable in the present), so this is a false analogy. The author also has a double standard: on the one hand, scientific claims should never be accepted as final truth, but on the other hand, evolution is no longer questioned. 74. Begging the Question and Appeal to Ignorance: The estimated ages of such fossils are based on the evolutionary worldview; yet they are used in support of the evolutionary worldview. Also, the supposed transitional forms are said to have soft parts that do not fossilize well, which is allegedly why there is no evidence of their existence — an appeal to ignorance. 75. Begging the Question: The estimated evolutionary age of the earth is based on an evolutionary interpretation of radiometric dating of moon rocks, which allegedly formed at the same time as the earth in the evolution worldview. 76. Question-begging Epithet: Yet, no such evidence is presented, only evidence that makes just as much sense in a biblical creation worldview. 77. Affirming the Consequent: Essentially the argument is: (1) If evolution, then hierarchy in DNA. (2) There is hierarchy in DNA. (3) Therefore, evolution is true. But creation scientists also expect such a hierarchy, since God has made it possible for us to classify 27

living things. 78. Special Pleading: On the one hand, scientists can never be sure. On the other hand, evolution is allegedly no longer questioned (i.e., we can be sure about it) — an inconsistent double standard. 79. Special Pleading: On the one hand, evolution is said to be no longer questioned in science. On the other hand, one of the most characteristic features of science is openness to challenge. The author is apparently exempting his own view from this criterion. 80. Fallacy of Irrelevant Thesis: Whether or not creation can be classified as “science” is totally irrelevant to whether it is true. 81. Faulty Appeal to Authority: The rulings of U.S. courts on whether or not creation science is a religious view and whether or not it can be taught in public schools has no bearing on the truth of creation. 82. Begging the Question: Since such methods are based on old-earth assumptions (i.e., uniformitarianism), the author has merely assumed what he is trying to prove. This is arbitrary and reversible. We could equally well say that evidence for an old earth is incompatible with all those methods that establish a young age for the earth. 83. Equivocation: As usual, the equivocation occurs on the word “evolution,” which is used in the particles-to-people sense, and then switched to the adaptation-within-a-kind sense (bacteria resistance). 84. Appeal to Ignorance and Equivocation: The lack of observational evidence against horse “evolution” is taken as evidence for horse evolution. Also, the type of “evolution” involved seems to all be within the horse kind, and is thus not evolution in the moleculestoman sense. This is the fallacy of equivocation. 85. Faulty Appeal to Authority/Majority: The opinion of the majority of scientists does not prove the claim at issue. 86. Denying the Antecedent: The formal argument is: (1) If dinosaur and human fossils were found together, then they lived at the same time. (2) They are not found together. (3) Thus, they did not live at the same time. 87. Begging the Question and False Cause: The reason why we share some anatomical features with animals (common ancestor or common Creator) is the very question at issue. 88. Appeal to Ignorance and Begging the Question: The reason we do not find certain transitional forms is because they didn’t exist. Yet the evolutionist takes such a lack of evidence and points out that if they were soft-bodied then they would leave no evidence — which begs the question. 89. Strawman Fallacy: Biblical faith is not belief without evidence. Rather, biblical faith is the confidence we have in the self-attesting Word of God, which is confirmed by evidence. It is not a blind faith.

28

Appendix Alternate Names of Fallacies Including Latin Names (in Italics) The appeal to emotion: argumentum ad populum The appeal to force: argumentum ad baculum The appeal to ignorance: argumentum ad ignorantiam The appeal to pity: argumentum ad misericordiam Begging the question: petito principii Complex question: plurium interrogationum Equivocation: “bait and switch” Fallacy fallacy: Argumentum ad logicam, “argument to logic” Fallacy of false cause: non causa pro causa (subclass 1): “After this, therefore because of this”: post hoc ergo propter hoc (subclass 2): “With this, therefore because of this”: cum hoc ergo propter hoc Faulty appeal to authority: Appeal to Inappropriate/Improper Authority, argumentum ad verecundiam Hasty generalization: the fallacy of converse accident, a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter Irrelevant thesis: irrelevant conclusion, red herring, ignoratio elenchi Reification: hypostatization, or the fallacy of misplaced concretion (subclass): the pathetic fallacy Slippery slope fallacy: absurd extrapolation Sweeping generalization: the fallacy of accident, a dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid (sometimes simplified to: dicto simpliciter) “to the man”: ad hominem (subclass): “poisoning the well”

Glossary Ad Hominem — directing an argument against the person making a claim rather than the claim itself. Affirming the Consequent — an argument where the second premise affirms the consequent of the first premise. Appeal to Emotion — fallacy of attempting to persuade people by stirring powerful emotions rather than making a logical case. Appeal to Force/Fear — arguing for a position on the basis that negative consequences will follow if a person does not accept the position. Appeal to Ignorance — fallacy of appealing to the unknown; specifically when a person argues that a claim is probably true simply because it has never been proven false. Appeal to Pity — persuading people to accept a position by generating sympathy for those who hold the position. Begging the Question — merely assuming what one is attempting to prove. Bifurcation — claiming there are only two mutually exclusive possibilities, when there may actually be three or more options. Complex Question — attempting to persuade by asking a loaded question. Denying the Antecedent — an argument where the second premise denies the antecedent of the first premise. Equivocation — shifting from one meaning of a word to another within an argument. “Fallacy” Fallacy — assuming that a claim is false simply because an argument for that position is fallacious. Fallacy of Composition — arguing that what is true of the parts must also be true of the whole, or what is true of the members of a group is also true of the group. 29

Fallacy of Division — arguing that what is true of the whole must also be true of the parts. Fallacy of False Cause — attributing a false cause-and-effect relationship between two events. Fallacy of Irrelevant Thesis — proving a point, but not the point at issue. False Analogy — making a comparison between two things that are alike in only trivial ways, irrelevant to the argument. Faulty Appeal to Authority — endorsing a claim simply based on the person making it. Formal Fallacies — mistakes in reasoning stemming from the structure (the form) of the argument. Genetic Fallacy — dismissing an argument because one objects to the source of the argument. Hasty Generalization — drawing a generalization from too few specific examples. Hypothetical Proposition — a proposition stating that if part A is true, then part B must be true as well. Mixed Hypothetical Syllogism — an argument with two premises, only one of which is hypothetical. Moralistic Fallacy — asserting that because something should be a particular way, it is a particular way. Naturalistic Fallacy — arguing that since something is a particular way, it is morally acceptable for it to be that way. “No True Scotsman” Fallacy — when an arguer defines a term in a biased way to protect his argument from rebuttals. Question-begging Epithet — using biased (often emotional) language to persuade people rather than using logic. Reification — attributing a concrete characteristic to something abstract. Slippery Slope Fallacy — arguing that a particular action will set off an undesirable chain of events, when in reality other factors would tend to prevent such a result. Special Pleading — fallacy of applying a double standard. Strawman Fallacy — misrepresenting an opponent’s position and proceeding to refute the misrepresentation rather than what the opponent actually claims. Sweeping Generalization — applying a generalization to an exception.

30

Religion, Reason, and Revelation Gordon Clark

Clark argues that "Free will was put forward to relieve God of responsibility for sin. But this it does not do... if God merely permits men to be engulfed in sin of their own free wills, the original objections ... are not thereby met." He adds, "free will is not only futile but false. Certainly, if the Bible is the Word of God, free will is false; for the Bible consistently denies free will." He quotes Georgia Harkness' Conflict in religious thought, "But not many, even of the most rigorous of Calvinists, would now say that if a man gets drunk and shoots his family, it is the will of God that he should do so." But Clark then clearly states, "I wish very frankly and pointedly to assert that if a man gets drunk and shoots his family, it was the will of God that he should do so. The Scriptures leave no room for doubt... that it was God's will for Herod, Pilate, and the Jews to crucify Christ." He asserts that "Choice and necessity are therefore not incompatible... Choice then may be defined ... as a mental act that consciously initiates and determines a further action... A choice is still a deliberate volition even if it could not have been different." Excerpt Chapter 5 God and Evil. Craig Press, 1961, pp. 238 – 241. Let it be unequivocally said that this view certainly makes God the cause of sin. God is the sole ultimate cause of everything. There is absolutely nothing independent of him. He alone is the eternal being. He alone is omnipotent. He alone is sovereign. Not only is Satan his creature, but every detail of history was eternally in his plan before the world began; and he willed that it should all come to pass. The men and angels predestined to eternal life and those foreordained to everlasting death are particularly and unchangeable designed; and their number is so certain and definite that it cannot be either increased or diminished. Election and reprobation are equally ultimate. God determined that Christ should die; he determined as well that Judas should betray him. There was never the remotest possibility that something different could have happened. “Whatsoever the LORD pleased, that did he in heaven, and in earth” (Psa. 135:6). “All the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing: and he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?” (Dan. 4:35). “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things” (Isa 45:7). “The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil” (Prov. 16:4) “Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God… Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor?” (Rom. 9:19-21). “Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God” (Rom. 11:22). One is permitted to ask, however, whether the phrase ‘cause of sin’ is the equivalent of the phrase ‘author of sin.” Is the latter phrase used to deny God’s universal causality? Obviously not, for the same people who affirm causality deny the authorship. They must have intended a difference. An illustration is close at hand. God is not the author of this book, as the Arminians would be the first to admit; but he is its ultimate cause as the Bible teaches. Yet I am the author. Authorship therefore is one kind of cause, but there are other kinds. The author of a book is its immediate cause; God is its ultimate cause. …When accordingly the discussion comes to God’s being the author of sin, one must understand the question to be, Is God the immediate cause of sin? Or, more clearly, Does God commit sin? This is a question concerning God’s holiness. Now, it should be evident that God no more commits sin than he is writing these words. Although the betrayal of Christ was foreordained from eternity as a means of effecting the atonement, it was Judas, not God, who betrayed Christ. The secondary causes in history are not eliminated by divine 31

causality, but rather they are made certain. And the acts of these secondary causes, whether they be righteous acts or sinful acts, are to be immediately referred to the agents; and it is these agents who are responsible. God is neither responsible nor sinful, even though he is the only ultimate cause of everything. He is not sinful because in the first place whatever God does is just and right. It is just and right simply in virtue of the fact that he does it. Justice or righteousness is not a standard external to God to which God is obligated to submit. Righteousness is what God does. Since God caused Judas to betray Christ, this causal act is righteous and not sinful. By definition God cannot sin. At this point it must be particularly pointed out that God’s causing a man to sin is not sin. There is no law, superior to God, which forbids him to decree sinful acts. Sin presupposes a law, for sin is lawlessness. Sin is any want of conformity unto or transgression of the law of God. But God is “Ex-lex.” …Thus the law that defines sin envisages human conditions and has no relevance to a sovereign Creator. …As God cannot sin, so in the next place God is not responsible for sin, even though he decrees it. [see 1 Chron. 18:20-22 where God sends a lying spirit to the prophets.] Another aspect of the human conditions presupposed by the laws God imposes on man is that they carry with them a penalty that cannot be inflicted on God. Man is responsible because God calls him to account; man is responsible because the supreme power can punish him for disobedience. God, on the contrary, cannot be responsible for the plain reason that there is no power superior to him; no greater being can hold him accountable; no one can punish him; there is no one to whom God is responsible; there are no laws which he could disobey. The sinner therefore, and not God, is responsible; the sinner alone is the author of sin. Man has no free will*, for salvation is purely of grace; and God is sovereign. *[ Clark draws a distinction between man’s “free will” and man having a “will.”]

32

Top 65 Questions about Christianity by Category – Top 20 in Red Questions About the Existence and Nature of God 1. What key arguments are there for (and against) God’s existence? 2. What are the practical implications of an atheistic worldview? 3. Why would a good God allow evil to exist? 4. Why would a good God allow suffering to exist? 5. Why would God command the death of so many people in the Bible (e.g., the Canaanites)? 6. How can a loving God send people to hell? 7. Why does God remain so “hidden?” 8. Why does the “Old Testament God” seem different than the “New Testament God?” 9. Why would God need people to worship Him (isn’t that egotistical and arrogant)? Questions About Truth and Worldviews 10. What is the difference between absolute and relative truth? 11. How can it be reasonable for Christians to claim knowledge of an objective truth? 12. What is the role and danger of using “common sense” in evaluating truth claims? 13. Isn’t hell an unreasonable punishment for not believing in a specific set of truth claims? 14. How can Christians think their personal religious experiences with God are any more “true” than those of adherents to other belief systems? 15. Do all religions ultimately point to the same God? Why or why not? 16. What are key similarities and differences between the world’s major religions (e.g., Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism)? 17. Is Christianity a less intelligent worldview than atheism? Why or why not? Questions About Jesus 18. What extra-biblical evidence is there that Jesus existed (as a historical person)? 19. What major Old Testament prophecies did Jesus fulfill? 20. Was Jesus wrong about the timing of his second coming? Why or why not? 21. What are the key passages in the Bible that show Jesus claimed to be God? 22. What does the Bible say about the exclusivity of Jesus with regard to salvation? 23. Why did Jesus have to die on the cross for our sins to be forgiven (couldn’t God have just pardoned sins without a gruesome death involved)? 24. What are the four minimal facts of the resurrection that are “so strongly attested historically that they are granted by nearly every scholar who studies the subject, even the rather skeptical ones?” 25. What are the main theories non-believers have about the resurrection (e.g., unknown tomb, wrong tomb, disciples stole the body, authorities hid the body, etc.)? 26. Why do Christians believe a supernatural (bodily) resurrection explains the minimal facts better than all the other theories? 27. Why does it matter whether or not Jesus was resurrected (and that the resurrection wasn’t simply a metaphor)? Questions About the Bible 28. Who selected what books are in the Bible? 29. How were the books of the Bible selected? 30. Why were some “books” we know about today (e.g., the Gospel of Thomas) left out of the Bible? 31. How can we know that the Bible we have today is a reliable record of the original writings? 32. What major “contradictions” exist in the Bible (and what are the explanations)? 33. Does the Bible support slavery? Why or why not? (Don’t laugh at this and the next two questions…these come up constantly in discussion with atheists.) 34. Does the Bible support rape? Why or why not? 35. Does the Bible support human sacrifice? Why or why not? 36. What does the Bible say about homosexuality? 37. How do Christians determine what parts of the Bible are prescriptive and which are descriptive? 33

Science and Christianity Young Earth Creationism 38. What is Young Earth Creationism (YEC)? 39. What are key pieces of scriptural support for the YEC interpretation of creation in six 24-hour days? 40. How do YECs determine that the earth is 6,000-10,000 years old? Evidence for an Old Earth (i.e., billions of years old) 41. What areas of science have implications for the age of the earth? 42. What are major methods scientists use to estimate the age of the earth, and what is their consensus on the estimate? 43. What is the relationship between belief in a global flood and the age of the earth? Old Earth Creationism 44. What is “Old Earth Creationism (OEC)?” 45. What are the major reasons OECs reject the YEC interpretation of creation? 46. What are the key pieces of scriptural support for the OEC interpretation? Intelligent Design 47. What is Intelligent Design? 48. Why do Intelligent Design proponents consider it a scientific theory and not a religious one? 49. What are the major reasons Intelligent Design proponents reject evolution as a sufficient explanation for the existence of life? 50. What does it mean that the universe appears to be “finely tuned?” Evolution 51. What is evolution (from a purely scientific perspective)? 52. What are the key pieces of evidence for evolution? 53. What are the key questions evolution has not answered? 54. What do people mean when they talk about “macroevolution” versus “microevolution”? 55. Why do evolutionists reject the theory of intelligent design? 56. What are the theological implications for an acceptance of evolution? 57. What are the theological implications specifically for Adam and Eve not being literal, historical people? Other Science and Christianity Questions 58. Why would Jesus-loving, Bible-believing Christians differ on their view of origins? 59. How can Christians believe miracles are possible, given what we know about science (e.g., the miracle of Jesus’ resurrection)? Other Important (and Common) Questions 60. What does it mean (biblically) to have faith, and how is that different than the popular definition of faith? 61. If Christianity is true, why are there so many Christians whose lives look no different than those of nonbelievers (aren’t many Christians hypocrites)? 62. Why are there so many denominations (and does the fact of many denominations invalidate the truth of Christianity)? 63. Is Christianity “responsible” for millions of deaths throughout history? Why or why not, and what implications does the answer have for the evaluation of Christian truth claims? 64. What happens to people who have never heard the Gospel? 65. Why don’t miracles happen as frequently today as they did in the Bible?

34