Tag Archive for: Problem of evil

Answering Stephen Law’s Evil God Challenge

If you’ve followed the problem of evil at the popular or academic level, then there’s a good chance you’ve come across the rather interesting objection from Stephen Law which he terms the “Evil God challenge.”

In essence he contends that skeptics can reverse any efforts from theists to explain God’s goodness in spite of the facts of evil in the world. The conventional problem of evil claims that God doesn’t exist or probably doesn’t exist given the facts of evil (gratuitous evil, animal suffering, moral evil, etc.) in the world. While theists typically appeal to things like free and sublime unknown divine purposes to explain away these evils, the skeptic can counter that these evils are equally good evidence that there exists a maximally evil God. Free will is the accommodation that this maximally evil God permits since deterministic evils aren’t as evil as freely chosen evils. And that supreme Satan wants the worst evils.

I consider Stephen Law’s “Evil God Challenge” to be one of the smarter objections within the Problem of Evil (PoE) debate. That said, his argument does have some limitations.

Independent Evidence          

As Bill Craig rightly notes, and Law unwisely dismisses, there could exist independent reasons for believing in God’s existence (such as the Cosmological, Teleological, and Moral Arguments), wherein a cumulative case could assimilate the Free will theodicy but would rebut the Evil God Challenge. Considered together these arguments point to a tremendously powerful, intelligent, and good creator God. The evil god hypothesis doesn’t fit theological picture from these arguments.

The Moral Argument

The Moral Argument is stronger than how Law treats it. Only some versions/elements of the Moral Argument submit to his “evil God” recasting. I’d suggest that we have preliminary knowledge of at least some moral facts whereby some things are good and some things are bad even if a whole society were to legalize that evil or prohibit that good. Yet the existence of moral facts (i.e., a category of truth) requires a moral truthmaker. Nature seems wholly incapable, in itself, of mustering the requisite teleology for enabling the referential relation needed for any such “truth” to exist. In other words, there’s nothing nature that could make a moral truth “true.” (i.e., “Raping women is evil. As such we ought not do it. But nature never mustered a single ‘ought.’ Therefore, that “oughtness” originates from outside of nature). So, I take the moral argument to be strong evidence of a morally good God.[i]

Fallenness

Brute theism doesn’t predict the Fall of Man (Gen. 3), but more specific brands of theism in the Abrahamic tradition predict the Fall of Man, the Angelic Fall, heaven, hell, and the subsequent problems in nature. I don’t pretend to have a ready answer here for the many and sordi problems related to animal suffering, pre-adamic pain, hell, etc. But, it’s worth noting that Christian theism does not predict that this earth would be heavenly. It’s atheists who think that Christianity should predict a heavenly/morally perfect created order. Christianity instead predicts that this earth would look like perfection tainted, goodness flawed, like a cracked looking glass for gazing at greater things.

Law and other atheists often present the problem of evil like the fact of evil in the fallen world are supposed to scandalize us Christians as if we had no biblical-Christian reasons to expect such things. Instead, I’d suggest the existence of any moral facts whatsoever should scandalize atheists for whom nature’s red tooth and claw is as much the “moral law” as anything–if nature were all that exists.

Law is smart enough to use his ‘evil god’ hypothesis as a kind of argument by analogy. He’s not directly refuting the free will theodicy. He’s using the free will theodicy to prove an objectionable conclusion. If the facts of free will and evil equally predict an evil god as a good God, then they are not (together) strong unique evidence for either. Law has a smart argument here.

And the doctrine of fallenness doesn’t directly address the core of Law’s argument. The fact of fallenness, however, is still part of the biblical Christian explanatory package. And it would be scandalous to Christian theists if the world looked like what atheists think theism should look like. There’s an underlying disconnect between Biblical-Christian theism and the atheists conception of what such a ‘god’ would look like. In this way, Law’s ‘evil god’ might not be a strong or helpful analogue to the biblical God. Law’s evil god might be only a symmetrical foil for the abstraction that atheists label “god.” But this “god” – as conceived among atheists – is acaricature compared to the nuanced personal God of historic Christian theism.

Privation Definition of Evil    

Given the evidence of the Cosmological, Teleological, and Moral arguments, we have sufficient independent evidence for thinking that God is the more ultimate reality, beyond even nature itself. And this God is the metaphysical grounding for moral goodness. An interesting implication of this conception of moral goodness is that goodness and evil aren’t ontological parallels. Goodness has independent substantial existence whereas evil has only dependent insubstantial existence as a privation of goodness. They don’t share the same metaphysical spectrum, rather evil exists only as a descriptor for the lack of  goodness. Evil needs goodness, but goodness doesn’t need evil. Goodness is the metaphysical substance and evil is just the description for the lack of whatever goodness that should exist, but doesn’t. Rocks are blind, but that’s not “evil” since rocks aren’t supposed to have sight. Blind infants are an example of ontological evil. It’s somehow wrong that they are blind since infants are supposed to be able to see. Evil is still real, but it’s a real lack of metaphysical goodness. This idea is called the privation definition of evil, and is attributed to St. Augustine in his 4th-5th century address of the problem of evil. I agree with Augustine on this because every single evil I’ve yet encountered or imagined appears to be a corruption of a metaphysically prior goodness. Rape is a corruption of sexual love. Death is a corruption of life. Any brokenness is a disordering of proper form or function. Divorce is a corruption of marriage. Diseases is a corruption of health. Etc. etc.

The impossibility of “maximal evil” 

Following from the last point, a privative sense of evil prohibits the “existence” of a maximally evil being. Maximal privation is literally nothingness. If we took the whole bag of all coherent, possible, actual, necessary or contingent goods and started subtracting each one of them–that’s what privation is, it’s the substraction of something–we would not end up with some maximally evil “thing.” No, we’d have literal nothingness, a wholly privated remainer wherein nothing whatsoever exists. The very notion of “maximal evil” is incoherent, and intrinsically self-defeating (not in the logically self-defeating sense, but in the metaphysical sense of depriving itself till it can no longer exist). A parasite without a host is lives no long in this world.

The Euthyphro Dilemma       

William Lane Craig makes an interesting use of the Euthyphro Dilemma to rebut Law’s “evil god.” Skeptics are familiar with the euthyphro dilemma as a way to object to traditional forms of theism, whereby God is either “beneath” goodness answering to some external objective moral standard or God is “above” goodness arbitrarily choosing what is “good” or “bad” and mandating those standards for his creation. Conventional responses have suggested that this is a false dilemma since God, instead of being beneath or above goodness, could be identical with goodness. God is good. He does not have goodness from some external source, or invent goodness as an arbitrary creation. He just is good. Craig takes this classic dilemma and applies it to Law’s “evil god” to interesting effect.

Suppose we concede for the sake of argument that an evil Creator/Designer exists. Since this being is evil, that implies that he fails to discharge his moral obligations. But where do those come from? How can this evil god have duties to perform which he is violating? Who forbids him to do the wrong things that he does? Immediately, we see that such an evil being cannot be supreme: there must be a being who is even higher than this evil god and is the source of the moral obligations which he chooses to flout, a being which is absolute goodness Himself. In other words, if Law’s evil god exists, then God exists.

Craig doesn’t mention how theists escape the problem, but he allows Law to get trapped in it. Augustinians like myself, can admit that evil is a privation. It’s a wholly contingent entity that cannot exist without being hosted by a good substrate. Evil can’t exist without goodness, but goodness can exist without evil. A good God can split the horns of euthyphro’s dilemma, but an evil God could not. One is left to wonder what is the more basic moral substrate that enables the existence of that god’s evil. Does that god derive evil from some higher moral standard, perhaps a Good God whom this demigod (Satan?) has rebelled against? Or does this evil god first encounter ‘evil’ as an arbitrary creation though he himself isn’t good or evil, right or wrong? Either of these options leave Law’s argument handicapped. And because the nature of privative evil doesn’t allow a maximally evil independent god, then Law’s god cannot split the dilemma. He’s gored on either horn.

Conclusion

Summarizing the course of argument so far, Law has a clever rebuttal to the Free Will Theodicy, but it can only stand by conceiving of evil substantially (as opposed to a privation), and only then if there do not exist other independent reasons for expectng God to be Good instead of evil. In this way, the cumulative case method and the moral argument specifically reinforced the conventional Free Will Theodicy to the exclusion of Law’s ‘evil god.’ The Problem of Evil is a serious philosophical objection to classical theism, but Stephen law’s “evil god challenge” has only limited value in reinforcing that avenue of anti-theism.


Additional Resources

References: 

[i] Some atheists agree that nature cannot produce (or be known to produce) what’s required for objective morality (moral realism) but instead of granting the moral argument for God’s existence, they appeal to some mysterious third option between nature and supernature. G.E. Moore calls this occult realm “non-naturalism.” The most famous proponent of the non-natural, non-theistic, moral realism is Erik Weilenberg. Non-naturalism has it’s own problems (see, the critique of his position in Philosophia Christi). Stephen Law’s position, however, doesn’t appeal to non-naturalism. So, his use of ethics falls well within the conventional critiques of naturalistic evolutionary ethics (namely, nature is “at bottom, blind pitiless and indifferent” rendering human ethics relativistic at best, and illusory nonsense at worst. See my “Nature is a Jerk” blog or presentation). Law has not allowed himself the liberty of appealing to immaterial brute moral facts as the truthmakers for his moral system.

Recommended Resources: 

Was Jesus Intolerant? by Frank Turek (DVD and Mp4)

Stealing From God by Dr. Frank Turek (Book, 10-Part DVD Set, STUDENT Study Guide, TEACHER Study Guide)

Reflecting Jesus into a Dark World by Dr. Frank Turek – DVD Complete Series, Video mp4 DOWNLOAD Complete Series, and mp3 audio DOWNLOAD Complete Series

Is Morality Absolute or Relative? by Frank Turek (Mp3/ Mp4)

 

Dr. John D. Ferrer is a speaker and content creator with Crossexamined. He’s also a graduate from the very first class of Crossexamined Instructors Academy. Having earned degrees from Southern Evangelical Seminary (MDiv) and Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary (ThM, PhD), he’s now active in the pro-life community and in his home church in Pella Iowa. When he’s not helping his wife Hillary Ferrer with her ministry Mama Bear Apologetics, you can usually find John writing, researching, and teaching cultural apologetics.

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/4lJkxFQ

/by

Gen Z, Atheism, and The Problem of Evil

Generation Z is the generation born from 1999 to 2015. They are the successors of Gen X (born 1965-1980) and Gen Y, also known as Millennials (b. 1981-1998). The dates are approximations and arbitrary creations of sociologists and scholars studying generational trends. The Barna Group alongside the ministry Impact360 has conducted as study of Gen Z’ers called “Who Is Gen Z.” A short introductory video of their study can be viewed here.

 

Jonathan Morrow, director of Cultural Engagement at Impact360, wrote an article titled “Why Gen Z Is Not Prepared To Follow Jesus In A Post-Everything World” and revealed that only 4% of Gen Z has a Biblical Worldview while atheism is on the rise amongst this generation.

Gen Z and Atheism

One of the things that has come to light in the Barna study is that, “Atheism Doubles Among Generation Z.” As the Barna report reveals:

Enter Generation Z: Born between 1999 and 2015, they are the first truly “post-Christian” generation. More than any other generation before them, Gen Z does not assert a religious identity. They might be drawn to things spiritual, but with a vastly different starting point from previous generations, many of whom received a basic education on the Bible and Christianity. And it shows: The percentage of Gen Z that identifies as atheist is double that of the U.S. adult population.

The percentage of Gen Z’ers to be atheist has more than doubled previous generations: 13% of Generation Z compared to 6% of adults:


Image source: Barna “Atheism Doubles Among Generation Z” (4 Jan 2018)

Gen Z and The Problem of Evil

Why is Gen Z more likely to be atheistic?  Well, Barna asked and they answered:

Teens, along with young adults, are more likely than older Americans to say the problem of evil and suffering is a deal breaker for them. It appears that today’s youth, like so many throughout history, struggle to find a compelling argument for the existence of both evil and a good and loving God.

The problem of evil isn’t a new objection, however. It’s an ancient objection dating all the way back to the Greek philosopher Epicurus who formulated the problem as such:

“Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot; or he can, but does not want to; or he cannot and does not want to. If he wants to, but cannot, he is not all powerful. If he can, and he does not want to, he is wicked. But, if God both can and wants to abolish evil, then how comes evil in the world?” [1]

The Problem of Evil and Apologetics

Notice, this is an intellectual objection to the truth of Christianity. Oddly, Christian philosophers, theologians, and apologists have answered this intellectual objection. In fact, they have answered it so convincingly that even professional atheists have admitted that there is not a logical problem of evil that has successfully demonstrated that God doesn’t exist. The late atheist philosopher William Rowe, stated that “Some philosophers have contended that the existence of evil is logically inconsistent with the existence of a theistic God. No one, I think, has succeeded in establishing such an extravagant claim.” [2] Consider Paul Draper, agnostic philosopher of religion at Purdue: “I do not see how it is possible to construct a convincing logical argument from evil against theism.” [3]

Christian scholars have gone on to differentiate between two types of intellectual problems of evil: the logical problem (as commented on by Rowe and Draper above) and the evidential problem of evil. I won’t address the difference here (see the videos by Reasonable Faith below as well as the other resources), but just seeing the categorization by Christian scholars shows how extensively they have thought and contemplated the issue of evil.

Intellectual vs. Emotional Evil

While Rowe and Draper are referring to the intellectual problem of evil, evil and suffering has another side: emotional. This is an important distinction we need to make. While one can provide answers to the intellectual problem of evil, it doesn’t mean that we won’t experience evil personally. We still have to grapple and suffer through evil and pain. Some of it is quite horrific. But the emotional experience of pain and suffering is not an argument, but a personal struggle. It is a struggle that the Christian worldview can offer satisfying resources and comfort for someone who is suffering pain and evil. Christianity can speak of the patience and mercy of God. It can mention the future perfection that awaits all who trust in Christ. It can offer the comfort that a redemptive God is working to cause all things to work together for good to those who love Him and are called according to His purpose. It has a “good news” of hope for a broken world. The atheistic worldview denies these luxuries.

Apologetics and the Christian worldview has the intellectual and emotional resources for Gen Z. It just needs to be communicated: which Christian apologetics does. Not just intellectual answers, but deeply personal, psychological, and spiritual answers.

Resources

Books:

Primary Videos:

Other videos:

References:

[1] Attributed to Epicurus in David Hume, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion (1779), part 10.

[2] William Rowe, “The Problem of Evil and Some Varieties of Atheism,” American Philosophical Quarterly 16, no. 4 (1979), pg. 335, ftnt 1, reposted at: https://ia803006.us.archive.org/32/items/RoweTheProblemOfEvil/Rowe_The_Problem_of_Evil.pdf

[3] Paul Draper, “The Argument from Evil,” in Philosophy of Religion: Classic and Contemporary Issues, ed. Paul Copan and Chad Meister (Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2008), 146.

Recommended Resources: 

If God, Why Evil? (DVD Set), (MP3 Set), and (mp4 Download Set) by Frank Turek 

Why Doesn’t God Intervene More? (DVD Set), (MP3 Set), and (mp4 Download Set) by Frank Turek

Why does God allow Bad Things to Happen to Good People? (DVD) and (mp4 Download) by Frank Turek 

Relief From the Worst Pain You’ll Ever Experience (DVD) (MP3) (Mp4 Download) by Gary Habermas 

 

J. Steve Lee has taught Apologetics for over two and a half decades at Prestonwood Christian Academy.  He also has taught World Religions and Philosophy at Mountain View College in Dallas and Collin College in Plano.  With a degree in history and education from the University of North Texas, Steve continued his formal studies at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary with a M.A. in philosophy of religion and has pursued doctoral studies at the University of Texas at Dallas and is finishing his dissertation at South African Theological Seminary.  He has published several articles for the Apologetics Study Bible for Students as well as articles and book reviews in various periodicals including Philosophia Christi, Hope’s Reason: A Journal of Apologetics, and the Areopagus Journal.  Having an abiding love for fantasy fiction, Steve has contributed chapters to two books on literary criticism of Harry Potter: Harry Potter for Nerds and Teaching with Harry Potter.  He even appeared as a guest on the podcast MuggleNet Academia (“Lesson 23: There and Back Again-Chiasmus, Alchemy, and Ring Composition in Harry Potter”).  He is married to his lovely wife, Angela, and has two grown boys, Ethan and Josh.

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/4i1f1gM

/by

Silence Equals Consent: The Sin of Omission | with Bill Federer

Why do so many Christians find it acceptable to stay silent in the face of evil? The idea that politics are merely “worldly” and that disengaging from culture is the best path forward has deceived far too many Christians into falling in line with cultural norms. But if the Church continues to withdraw from what’s going on in the world, who’s going to be left in charge?

This week, historian and bestselling author Bill Federer joins Frank to discuss his latest book, ‘Silence Equals Consent -The Sin of Omission: Speak Now or Forever Lose Your Freedom.‘ In this eye-opening episode, they dive deep into the Church’s history of political indifference and explore why now, more than ever, Christians must engage with the world to preserve (religious) freedom. Together, Frank and Bill tackle key questions, including:

  • How did God address globalism in the Bible?
  • What subtle tactics has Satan used to keep Christians silent?
  • How did America’s founders draw inspiration from ancient Israel’s covenant government?
  • What happens when Christians stop speaking up and lose their influence in society?
  • How should Romans 13 be interpreted in a self-governing republic versus a monarchy?

As the future of freedom hangs in the balance, will the Church step up to make a lasting impact? Listen as Bill unpacks powerful stories from history that will challenge us to rethink how we engage with the world around us. To learn more, be sure to grab a copy of ‘Silence Equals Consent‘—a must-read for anyone curious about how faith can shape the future of our culture and our country. And while you’re at it, be sure to check out the livestream Frank did with Bill last week, ‘The Shocking History of Open Borders‘, as well as other helpful resources at VoteYourFaith.net.

Did you enjoy this episode? HELP US SPREAD THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY BY SUPPORTING THE PODCAST HERE.

Resources mentioned during the episode:

Billi’s book: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1736959077
Bill’s website: https://americanminute.com/

 

Download Transcript

 

/by

What If I Don’t Like Either Candidate?

Is not voting in the 2024 presidential election a wise option for Christians who don’t like either of the candidates? When George Barna recently appeared on The Charlie Kirk Show, he revealed some troubling data indicating that as many as 41 million Christians are choosing not to vote this year because they don’t like Harris or Trump. If politics isn’t your thing or you’ve lost your enthusiasm to vote, you REALLY need to tune in!

With the election just around the corner, Frank dedicates this podcast episode to focusing on the top three questions that Christians need to consider when it comes to “religion and politics” and what history has taught us when Christians disengage from the world of politics. He also summarizes some of the helpful information you’ll find available at VoteYourFaith.net by answering questions and issues like:

  • What are the consequences when Christians don’t vote?
  • How was Jesus involved in politics, and how does that help us vote?
  • If a politician can’t save you, why vote at all? (Sorry, but you’ll see why this is a really stupid objection!)
  • Does abortion trump everything else?
  • Where do both parties stand on “the more important matters of the law”?
  • Should Christians vote for the most good or the least evil?
  • What is the Equality Act and how could it hurt our children, our jobs, and our religious freedoms?
  • Why you’re actually not voting for one person!

As you’ll be reminded during this episode, Christians have the responsibility to be involved in what’s going on in our society, and that means loving our neighbors through politics by enacting laws that protect them from evil. God calls us to be ambassadors for His kingdom and we don’t stop just because we’re not over the moon excited about our choices. God has used both righteous and unrighteous leaders all through the Bible to accomplish His good purposes, so get informed, go vote, and leave the results to God!

Did you enjoy this episode? HELP US SPREAD THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY BY SUPPORTING THE PODCAST HERE.

Resources mentioned during the episode:

Helpful Resources and Local Voting Guide: VoteYourFaith.net
George Barna on The Charlie Kirk Show: https://apple.co/4eQeAEk
David Daleiden & Planned Parenthood video: https://bit.ly/3BFt6jQ
New York Post article on Kamala Harris & Planned Parenthood: https://bit.ly/483XgcC
New York Post article on FEMA “Disaster Equity”: https://bit.ly/3zT22Nr
The Heritage Foundation Explains The Equality Act: https://herit.ag/3Y07Z31
The Washington Stand: For the 41 Million Christians ‘Unlikely’ to Vote: https://bit.ly/3BItiPh

Download Transcript

/by

The Eclipse of God with | Dr. Erwin Lutzer

Is the American Church still shining as the light of Christ, or have we made too many compromises in the name of “tolerance” and “inclusion”? As darkness in our nation grows, it’s becoming clear that the faith of many has become cloudy and confused, leading to the rise of secularism and threats to the freedoms once rooted in the Christian worldview. Where are we headed, and what lessons from the past should serve as warnings for our future?

This week, Frank sits down with the one and only Dr. Erwin Lutzer about his brand new book, ‘The Eclipse of God: Our Nation’s Disastrous Search for a More Inclusive Deity (and What We Must Do About It)‘, which explores how America is attempting to redefine God, replacing Him with one made in our image. Dr. Lutzer will challenge listeners to count up the cost of being a true follower of Christ in the face of growing cultural persecution as well as expose how the redefining of God has crept into the American Church. They’ll answer tough questions like:

  • In what ways have both Christians and non-Christians attempted to make God more inclusive and “sin-friendly”?
  • Does God love people “unconditionally”?
  • Why does Dr. Lutzer refer to Marx, Darwin, and Freud as “the three grave diggers?”
  • What are the 3 critically important historical lessons that Dr. Lutzer wants to share with the American Church?
  • What can we learn from martyrs throughout Church history and how can we stand up for our biblical principles instead of giving into cultural incentives?
  • What can we do to turn the tide and prepare our children and grandchildren for what’s coming next?

This podcast episode also touches on the rise of Marxism, the gender pronoun craze, and the naivety of some Christians today when it comes to the importance of getting involved in politics. Listen as Frank and Dr. Lutzer reflect on the Church’s biblical mandate to stand against evil, and how history has shown the inevitable consequences that have occurred when the Church remained silent. Be sure to grab your copy of ‘The Eclipse of God‘ to dig deeper into this urgent call to the American Church!

Did you enjoy this episode? HELP US SPREAD THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY BY SUPPORTING THE PODCAST HERE.

Resources mentioned during the episode:

DR. LUTZER’S BOOK: The Eclipse of God
RESOURCES BY DR. LUTZER: https://www.moodymedia.org/
SERMON PREP MADE SIMPLER: https://www.moodymedia.org/blog/2021/10/sermon-prep-made-simpler/

 

Download Transcript

 

/by

Boy Swept Away by Floodwaters: Why Didn’t God Save Him? | with Dr. Clay Jones and Dan Hodges

How could a good God allow such evil, pain, and suffering to take place in this world? And why doesn’t He intervene to save good people or young children when disaster strikes? The aftermath and utter devastation caused by Hurricane Helene has many questioning, “Where is God when things go wrong”? What is the best way to address these questions and how can we find God and meaning for life in the midst of these tragic events?

Life has been especially hard for those in the western part of North Carolina since Hurricane Helene struck last week, leaving residents without access to food and water, and claiming the lives of countless victims due to unprecedented flash flooding and fallen debris. During this week’s podcast episode, Frank sits down with Dr. Clay Jones (instructor of the upcoming OCC course ‘Why Does God Allow Evil?‘) and Dan Hodges (CrossExamined Board Director and Hurricane Helene survivor) to discuss the problem of evil and some of the heartbreaking stories emerging in light of the recent storm. Frank, Clay, and Dan will answer questions like:

  • What led Clay to write one of Frank’s all-time favorite books on evil, ‘Why Does God Allow Evil?‘
  • How can ordinary people commit extraordinary evil?
  • What’s the difference between being “good” and being “nice”?
  • Why do difficult times often bring out the best in people?
  • What did Dan see and experience after the storm in WNC and how can we help the survivors and volunteers?
  • Why didn’t Jesus save 7-year old Micah who was swept away by floodwaters? What did his aunt say about that?
  • How has Clay’s personal battle with cancer impacted his writing and teaching on this topic?
  • How can you help victims with physical and spiritual needs?

 

There will undoubtedly be tough days ahead for Helene survivors as they move forward and try to pick up the pieces. This is a sobering episode, but we trust that it will not only bring hope to those who are in a dark season right now, but also remind us of the good news of the Gospel when we inevitably encounter hardships in our own lives. We know you’ll benefit from hearing even more of Dr. Clay Jones’ insights on the problem of evil, so consider signing up for the PREMIUM online course ‘Why Does God Allow Evil?‘ which kicks off soon on 10/23!

Did you enjoy this episode? HELP US SPREAD THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY BY SUPPORTING THE PODCAST HERE.

Resources mentioned during the episode:

Micah’s Story (New York Post article): https://bit.ly/3Yb4JU3

Clay’s Online Course: Why Does God Allow Evil?

Clay’s Book: Why Does God Allow Evil?

Give to Samaritan’s Purse: https://www.samaritanspurse.org/

Download Transcript

/by

Dealing with Hurt and Trusting God: Biblical Tips for Overcoming Pain

Life presents numerous trials and challenges, many of which result not from our own actions but from the behavior and transgressions of others. Betrayal, injustice, or rejection can inflict profound emotional pain and distress. The overwhelming nature of the suffering, particularly when caused by another individual, prompts natural questioning of how an omnibenevolent God could permit such affliction during the darkest moments.

I can tell you from my own personal pain that it’s tough to be at peace in life after being wounded and betrayed by someone you trusted. The emotional pain can leave you feeling as though you cannot trust God and forgive others. However, it’s essential to recognize that this pain does not reflect the absence of God’s love or presence in our lives. Instead, it offers a profound opportunity for spiritual growth and deepening our faith.

The Scriptures remind believers that God intimately understands human grief. The writer of Hebrews reminds us that “we do not have a High Priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses” (Hebrews 4:15). The prophet Isaiah’s description of Jesus as “a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief” (Isaiah 53:3) serves as a powerful testament to the compassion of the Lord, who willingly bore the depths of human pain. This understanding of human suffering underlines Jesus’s invitation for individuals to seek comfort in Him.

“Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.” Matthew 11:28-30

When facing emotional pain, it’s understandable to grapple with anger and thoughts of retaliation. However, it’s important to address our circumstances with a spiritual perspective. As Ephesians 6:12 reminds us, our challenges encompass not only the physical and emotional but also the spiritual.

Furthermore, it may seem easier to suppress our hurt and tell ourselves to “move on,” but this approach often leads to deeper emotional and spiritual issues. It’s crucial to acknowledge and confront the pain inflicted by others. One effective way to do this is by seeking solace in the presence of God. As David expressed in a poignant song, being in God’s presence brings a sense of completeness and joy, offering a path toward healing and restoration (see Psalm 16).

So, I say to you, dear friend, share your pain with God. Don’t ignore it or feel embarrassed. You need to accept that feeling angry about being hurt and betrayed is perfectly normal.

The next step may seem even more impossible and the most challenging: the need to forgive. A big part of finding healing and peace is to rely on God’s forgiveness. Just as God forgave us through the sacrifice of Jesus, we are called to forgive others (Ephesians 4:32, Matthew 6:14-15). Forgiveness requires the conscious choice to release the offender to God and liberate ourselves from anger and resentment rather than condoning the wrongdoing or overlooking the pain.

Trusting in God’s forgiveness can be challenging when we are hurting and struggling to understand, but it is vital for our healing process. Have faith that He can turn our pain into purpose, bring beauty from ashes, and use our suffering to shape us into the likeness of Jesus Christ himself.

In her book, You Can Trust God When Life Hurts, Amber Albee Swenson shares this promising truth,

“God is not oblivious to our situations, and he’s not unconcerned. Sometimes, he gives us a chance to remedy the situation, like the disciples in the storm. Sometimes he’s watching to monitor our reaction, like he did with Job in the Old Testament. And sometimes, like the apostle Paul on that ship, he’s sustaining us until the exact minute he chooses to end our storm.”

Acknowledging our pain, relying on God’s strength, and choosing forgiveness are all necessary for finding healing amid the hurt and can help mend a broken relationship in many cases. Those who don’t learn to deal with hurt are more likely to be consumed by it, causing them to hurt others in return. However, the more you learn to lean on God for healing, the greater strength and comfort you will gain the next time you experience hurt. It’s important to remember that healing takes time; it’s not just a process, it’s a journey. No matter how long it takes to deal with the hurt, Jesus is always beside you, ready to hold and carry you through the darkness of pain.

Recommended Resources:

Why Doesn’t God Intervene More? (DVD Set), (MP3 Set), and (mp4 Download Set) by Frank Turek

Why does God allow Bad Things to Happen to Good People? (DVD) and (mp4 Download) by Frank Turek 

Relief From the Worst Pain You’ll Ever Experience (DVD) (MP3) (Mp4 Download) by Gary Habermas

If God, Why Evil? (DVD Set), (MP3 Set), and (mp4 Download Set) by Frank Turek 

 

Jason Jimenez is President of STAND STRONG Ministries and author of Challenging Conversations: A Practical Guide to Discuss Controversial Topics in the church. For more info, check out www.standstrongministries.org.

Originally published here: https://bit.ly/4du4NCX

/by

Why Did God Put That Tree in the Garden of Eden?

God created humans in a state of sinless perfection, but all of that changed when Adam and Eve ate of the forbidden fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. “The Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it. And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, “You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die” (Gen 2:15-17 ESV). So why did God put that tree in the Garden in the first place? Not only that, He put it right in the middle of the Garden! It wasn’t in some remote corner. Was He trying to set a trap for them?

Would you rather have Dangerous Freedom or Safe Determinism?

To better understand this, you might begin by asking yourself if you would rather hear the words “I love you” from another human being or from an AI computer like Siri or Alexa. One might ask, “What’s the difference? The same audible sounds are coming your way, right?”

Of course, even a child knows and feels the difference to that question, and it touches on God’s intentions in the Garden. Simply put, God didn’t create us to relate to Him like a Siri, Alexa, or any other such robotic creation that responds from a soup of pre-arranged equations. God is love, and He wants genuine love in return (as we all do, if we’re honest). But genuine love cannot be demonstrated unless there is the freedom to choose otherwise (to hate). Hence the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Just before they ate the fruit, did God zap the tree to make it disappear? No, He did not. Could He have? Yes, of course. But that would have violated the very freedom He had given to them, and He would be kidding Himself to think that would solve their heart problem.

Fast forward a few years to the first murder when Cain killed his brother Abel. Before the tragedy, God approached Cain and warned him — pleaded with him — to not do it. “Sin is crouching at your door, but you must master it” (Genesis 4:7). Sadly, we see that Cain did not heed the warning. But couldn’t God have zapped the weapon (or whatever means) Cain used just prior to the murder? Sure. But if that had happened, do you think Cain would have given up on his intentions? Human nature makes it quite plausible to surmise that he would have continued looking for another weapon nearby since the murder had already taken place in Cain’s heart. If God had interfered with the scenario, He would have been taking away the very gift He has given to all humans: the freedom to choose.

Freedom to Love Includes Freedom to Hate

If we want to sing “all we need is love” then we must be willing to accept that this is not possible without room to hate. God’s gift of freedom must have a means of testing (e.g., the tree in the Garden). Otherwise we’re back to a “Siri, tell me you love me” relationship. In this life there will always be those who will reject love alongside those who accept it. Despite our best efforts, no amount of social reform can erase these extremes. This is not to say that we should not be involved in social reforms. Quite the opposite! Love compels us to seek the welfare of those around us. But it is frivolous when we see ourselves as the solution and that one day evil can be erased if we just try harder or pass enough laws. The only way out of this mess is to recognize the need to appeal to a higher power – to God Himself. It is pure hubris to think we humans can do this on our own strength. We cannot. And because God gave us the freedom to choose or reject Him, He will not force us to ask Him for help (though He desires us to ask). To do so forcefully would violate His own nature. And so we see the continuation of both love and hatred, as it has been since the Garden.

In one bit of news there are moments of incredible selfless beauty, followed immediately by stories of gross abuse. And yet our penchant is to tell ourselves that we’ll eventually overcome hate by our own strength. Deep down nobody really believes that at the gut level. Do you really think jealousy and envy will be gone forever with enough social reform? That never again will someone curse another in their heart? No, only a total transformation of our hearts can overcome this. Thank God He has given us a Rescuer through His Son, Jesus (Acts 4:12). His publicly attested death, burial & resurrection from the grave prove that He has power over sin & death. But here’s the rub: He leaves it up to you to freely accept or reject His gift (hence John 3:16). As CS Lewis said in the The Great Divorce:

“There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, ‘Thy will be done,’ and those to whom God says, in the end, ‘Thy will be done.’ All that are in Hell, choose it. Without that self-choice there could be no Hell. No soul that seriously and constantly desires joy will ever miss it. Those who seek find. Those who knock it is opened”
– C.S. Lewis, The Great Divorce, in The Complete C. S. Lewis Signature Classics, HarperSanFrancisco 2002, pg. 340.

Divine Restoration Through Christ Alone

God’s heart is always bent on restoration. If that weren’t the case He’d have destroyed us in the Garden. But He didn’t. Death came through Adam, but restoring life has come through Jesus. Now that’s great news! “For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life” (Rom 5:10). So which tree do you choose? The tree in the Garden that exalts yourself as ruler, bringing eternal enslavement and death? Or the tree on which Jesus hung and bled that brings you eternal freedom and life? So simple, yet so costly

​

Recommended Resources Related to this Topic

If God, Why Evil? (DVD Set), (MP3 Set), and (mp4 Download Set) by Frank Turek
Why Doesn’t God Intervene More? (DVD Set), (MP3 Set), and (mp4 Download Set) by Frank Turek
Why does God allow Bad Things to Happen to Good People? (DVD) and (mp4 Download) by Frank Turek
Hell? The Truth about Eternity (MP3 Set), (DVD Set), and (Mp4 Download Set) by Dr. Frank Turek
Short Answers to Long Questions (DVD) and (mp4 Download) by Dr. Frank Turek
Was Jesus Intolerant? (DVD) and (Mp4 Download) by Dr. Frank Turek
Oh, Why Didn’t I Say That? Is the Bible Historically Reliable? by Dr. Frank Turek DVD, Mp4, Mp3 Download.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Kent Suter was raised in Atlanta, GA and earned his Bachelor’s degrees in Biblical Studies and in Christian Education from Bryan College in Dayton, TN (2002). From there he attained a Master’s degree in Christian Apologetics from Southern Evangelical Seminary (2008) where he served as student assistant to his late mentor and friend, Dr. Norman Geisler. Following his time at SES, he moved back to Atlanta and served as Youth Pastor for middle and high school students for 15 years at Cornerstone Bible Church. Today he and his wife of 20 years, Brook, and their four children reside in Orlando, FL, where he now serves as a financial advisor with OneAmerica Securities. You can read more about Kent’s story at ksuter.com.

 

/by

What Does it Mean That “God Won’t Let You Down?”

,

We often hear in popular Christian songs and from pulpits that “God is never gonna let me down!” or “God hasn’t failed me yet!” Besides the tragedy of grammar (I mean, how does God not fail you yet?), what does that mean? What does the Bible actually say about this? Does God actually make all things possible for you? What does it mean when people say that He won’t fail you (yet) or let you down?

What DOESN’T it mean?

First, I want to say what it isn’t. This does not mean that we expect or demand God to do what we think He should do. It doesn’t mean that God is required to give you what you’re having all the faith in the world for. This might be hard for some people to accept but hear me out and let me hash this out more.

Even David in the Old Testament did everything he could possibly do, begging God, fasting, and believing that his son would live. Sadly, God did not give him what he asked for. God didn’t heal David’s son. One of my favorite stories in the Bible is Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. They refused to bow their knee to the idol, and when threatened with death, they said that God could deliver them. But even if He doesn’t, they won’t bow to the mob. God delivered them, but they knew that in God’s sovereignty, that might not have been the case. Many people in the Old and New Testaments didn’t get delivered. Does this mean God let them down? Did God fail them? No. It means we understand our place and limited power, and we trust God even if He doesn’t give us what we think He should.

Many times I’ve seen people assume that God made them a promise or that God spoke to them when in reality, this wasn’t the case but an assumption on their part. They move forward with making decisions in their life, thinking that God’s stamp of approval is on it because they think, He’ll never let me down! He won’t fail me! He wants this because I can feel it! Then they’re crushed when it doesn’t happen and might assume that God has failed them or let them down. God not letting us down doesn’t mean we won’t feel pain, get hurt, make mistakes, or that He won’t let bad things happen to us.

What DOES it mean?

What it does mean is that even when bad things happen or things don’t go as planned, you are always in His hands as a child of God. There’s no better place to be when things go wrong. It means that He is faithful even when life is kinda terrible. He goes through it with you. I think of Paul and the disciples in the early church and the torture and pain they endured. I think of the Christian martyrs around the world that are in hiding every day and sometimes killed. I think of the Mom or Dad who has lost a child, a horrendous experience that they have to live through every day. I think of the person who is having doubts about their faith or the prodigal child who’s out to have a good time. The thing that sets the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob apart from all others is that He’s with you in it. He walks alongside you, not leaving you alone and abandoned. He endures it with you and never leaves you or forsakes you. Compare this with how God describes other idols in the Bible:

 “Like scarecrows in a cucumber patch, their idols cannot speak. They must be carried because they cannot walk. Do not fear them, for they can do no harm, and neither can they do any good.” Jeremiah 10:5 (NIV)

 

“Their idols are silver and gold, made by human hands. They have mouths, but cannot speak, eyes, but cannot see. They have ears, but cannot hear, noses, but cannot smell. They have hands, but cannot feel, feet, but cannot walk, nor can they utter a sound with their throats. Those who make them will be like them, and so will all who trust in them.” Psalm 115:4-8 (NIV)

It’s about love

I once read in a book about world religions that, in the author’s opinion one of the biggest differences between the Christian God and all other false gods could be summed up in one word: love. God became a human, His own creation, to redeem us when we did not deserve or even want it. The maker of the universe was broken for the sins of the earth. He continues to draw us to Him, wanting us to repent and follow Him. This doesn’t mean we don’t go to Him with our requests or prayers. We should ask in boldness and faith. It should mean that our love for Him isn’t contingent on whether He gives us what we want or not. He’ll never let us down because He is Good, the Great I AM. He’ll never fail because He has promises in Scripture about His character and identity.

To sum it up, God not letting you down has more to do with Him than with us. It’s about knowing His nature, knowing who He is, and the wonders of His glory and character. He is the standard of goodness, love, power, holiness, justice, wisdom, and grace. It’s worshipping a God that is in control, knowing that we can believe and have faith and ask God for anything. But then, letting God be God and trusting that for the believer, for His children, His ways are perfect. That no matter what, He’s our perfect Father.

Recommended Resources Related to this Topic

If God, Why Evil? (DVD Set), (MP3 Set), and (MP4 Download Set) by Frank Turek
God wants you well, or does He? A Closer Look At the Health Gospel (MP4 download) by John Ferrer
Why Doesn’t God Intervene More? (DVD Set), (MP3 Set), and (MP4 Download Set) by Frank Turek
Why does God allow Bad Things to Happen to Good People? (DVD) and (MP4 Download) by Frank Turek
Relief From the Worst Pain You’ll Ever Experience (DVD) (MP3) (Mp4 Download) by Gary Habermas
When Reason Isn’t the Reason for Unbelief (DVD)(Mp4) by Frank Turek

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Melissa Dougherty is a Christian Apologist best known for her YouTube channel as an ex-new ager. She has two associate’s degrees, one in Early Childhood Multicultural Education, and the other in Liberal Arts. She also has a bachelor’s degree in Religious Studies at Southern Evangelical Seminary.

 

/by
The Darwin Tales

The Darwin Tales

, ,

By Terrell Clemmons

It’s Time to Remit Darwinian Storytelling to the Annals of History.

Stephen Meyer was a young geophysicist working in the oil industry in Dallas, Texas, in 1985 when he saw that an interesting science conference was coming to town and he decided to drop in. During a panel discussion on the origin of the first living things, Charles Thaxton, a highly credentialed chemist, noted that the information stored in DNA could not be explained by chemical evolutionary processes. This was generally known already and uncontroversial. But Thaxton ventured a step further by suggesting that the information could point to an intelligent cause. This was a reasonable inference, Thaxton said because, in our regular human experience, we know that information is typically attributable to intelligent causes.

This struck Meyer as both intuitive and plausible. But what really piqued his interest was the heated reaction of some of the other scientists at this suggestion. They got really personal. Some criticized Thaxton’s intellect; others, his motives, as if he’d broken some unwritten convention. What was with all this emotion? Meyer wondered. He’d always thought scientists were objective professionals who coolly looked at data and followed the evidence. This was an interesting problem.

The encounter led to some follow-up discussions with Thaxton and a burning new question, which Meyer would take with him to Cambridge University a year later: Could this idea of intelligence—or intelligent design—be made into a rigorous scientific argument?

But during his first year there, an after-lecture social gathering brought home a sobering reality. Everyone at Cambridge was openly atheistic. In fact, atheism was so preemptively the assumed worldview that theism was not even on the table. Meyer not only believed in God; he was a Christian. Clearly, this could be a lonely work environment, and the widespread atheism around him could present obstacles to collaborations on this question. But he took heart in remembering the great scientists of history whose science had been specifically driven by their Christian worldview.

The Closed Darwinian Circle

Science writer Tom Bethell, who had arrived at sister university Oxford about twenty-five years prior, experienced a similarly disappointing revelation. He’d arrived at Oxford “naively imagining that philosophy taught us the meaning of life.” It didn’t.

But Bethell later came to see its usefulness. Many problems in philosophy had flourished, he discovered, because the words used to formulate theories weren’t clearly defined. Sometimes, he further realized, the vagaries seemed to be intentional. Bethell would go on to a long career as a philosophically astute journalist, brilliantly clarifying and parsing some of the most crucial enigmas of public life and history.

Case in point: Charles Darwin’s central postulate said that the diversity of biological life on earth could be explained by natural selection operating on random variations. Herbert Spencer, a contemporary of Darwin, summarized this notion as “survival of the fittest.” The phrase stuck, and today, Darwin’s postulate reigns as the grand unifying theory of established science.

But was there an inherent problem with it, philosophically, from the very start? “Doubts about evolution first arose in my mind when I looked at the title page of The Origin of Species,” Bethell wrote.

I read, and then reread that page:

On the Origin of Species

by Means of Natural Selection

or the

preservation of favoured races

in the struggle for life

by Charles Darwin, M.A.

1859

The words ‘preservation’ and ‘favoured’ stood out. Was there any way of knowing what ‘races’ (meaning species, or individual variants) were favored other than by looking to see which ones were in fact preserved?

This was no pedantic quibble. For if there truly is no way of determining what is “fit” other than by seeing what survives, then Darwin was arguing in a self-confirming circle: the survival of the survivors. In rhetorical terms, this is what’s called a tautology—a statement that is true by definition, due to the construction of the language by which it is expressed. In effect, Darwin’s proposed mechanism—natural selection—rested on the observation that, “Survivors survive.” To which any clear-thinking middle-school student might say, “Well, duh.”

Curating History

Beginning with this observation, Bethell’s latest book examines the dialogue that has taken place among scientists since the publication of The Origin. But rather than giving us a chronological point-counterpoint synopsis of it, Bethell presents a kind of “tour” of the topics over which the debate has been hashed out—the “rooms,” if you will, of the 150-plus-year-old house of Darwin: common descent, natural selection, the fossil record, information theory, evolutionary psychology, artificial intelligence, the growing intelligent design movement, and more.

The upshot of it all is captured in his title: Darwin’s House of Cards: A Journalist’s Odyssey Through the Darwin Debates. Darwinism is an idea past its prime, he concludes, one whose collapse is inevitable and is in fact already demonstrably underway.

Examining a Theory and Its Theorist

He states that forthrightly, but also backs it up with characteristically sound logic—examining, like a museum curator, Darwin’s various claims in light of both mounting new evidence against them and the ongoing lack of evidence supporting them. Room by room, he shows how evolutionary theory today is being propped up by logical fallacies, bogus claims, and outdated empirical evidence that has all but disintegrated under the weight of new discoveries.

In addition to covering the high points of the scientific discussion, Bethell also delves into the man Darwin as he revealed himself through his personal writings. While Darwin was in his own right a legitimate scientist, his theorizing was influenced, inordinately as it turns out, by three ideas of his day: Malthusian economics, Progress, and philosophical materialism.

  • Malthusian Math: Political economist Thomas Malthus had speculated that when population growth outstrips food supply, then death by starvation would result in some sectors of society but not others. Darwin had read Malthus, and he simply transferred the calculus of overpopulation to the plant and animal kingdom. “It at once struck me that under these circumstances favorable variations would tend to be preserved, and unfavorable ones to be destroyed. The result would be the formation of new species.” Darwin had no evidence of the formation of any new species, though. That was pure extrapolation.
  • Progress: Capitalized to denote the philosophy as it existed in his day, “Progress” was the reigning metanarrative in post-Enlightenment England, the all-encompassing, assumed a trajectory of reality. It was “as difficult for him to escape as the air he breathed,” wrote Bethell, and Darwin was a confirmed believer. The word “evolution” doesn’t actually appear in The Origin. He referred rather to improvement, progress, and perfection, in the end, writing that “all corporeal and mental endowments will tend to progress toward perfection.”
  • Materialism: Darwin himself was a full-blown materialist, but he avoided outwardly confessing the extent of his belief. He’d worked out his theory by 1837, but didn’t go public with it for more than twenty years, partly because the 1830s climate of opinion was highly unfavorable to materialism. Even at publication in 1859, he still didn’t deploy it consistently in The Origin, but rather strategically and progressively invoked it over the course of six editions.

Darwin’s metaphysical outlook was not a deduction from his science, though, but was influenced by his theology. He raised theological issues in several of his writings, and Bethell devotes an entire chapter to his evolving religious views. Two points are worth mentioning here. In his autobiography, Darwin mentioned being “heartily laughed at” for quoting the Bible while on the H.M.S. Beagle. We can only speculate about the psychological effect of this incident, but it obviously affected him enough to write about it forty years later. Afterward, he reconsidered the Bible’s place in his view of the world and concluded it was “no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindoos, or the beliefs of any barbarian.”

In addition, like many in insulated societies, he took issue with God over the problem of evil and suffering, ultimately deciding that the concept of an all-loving and all-powerful God could not be reconciled with the reality of misery in the world. “Thus disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate, but was at last complete.”

More a product of their theorist and the zeitgeist, then, than of science, Darwin’s postulates found easy acceptance among an elite intelligentsia predisposed to believe in materialism and Progress. Sadly, liberal clergy went along without objection or concern.

Straightening Out Bad Philosophy

Molecular biologist Jonathan Wells concurs with Bethell that Darwinian evolution is one long argument bolstering an a priori metaphysics. In Zombie Science: More Icons of Evolution, he gives three common definitions of science: (1) empirical science is the enterprise of seeking truth by formulating hypotheses and testing them against evidence; (2) technological science comprises the advances that have enriched modern life; and (3) establishment science consists of professionals conducting research. These can all be legitimate uses of the word.

In addition, though, he notes, some people have come to define science as (4) the enterprise of providing natural explanations for everything. But this would more accurately be called methodological naturalism. And while it is true that the methods of empirical science limit the causal explanations, it can confirm or disconfirm to the material realm, to go further and assume that only material causes exist is to assume an unstated claim about metaphysical reality. Furthermore, to do so and call it science constitutes fraud.

Metaphysical Storytelling & the Judgment of History

Fraud aside, it also compromises science. When priority is given to proposing and defending materialistic explanations over following the evidence, materialistic philosophy is running the show. Where this happens (and it does), Wells calls it zombie science. “Evolution is a materialistic story,” he writes, “and since the materialistic story trumps the evidence, it is zombie science.”

Listen to biologist-turned-filmmaker Randy Olsen’s explanation for why he knowingly passed off falsehood in his 2007 film Flock of Dodos: The Evolution-Intelligent Design Circus: “Scientists must realize that science is a narrative process, that narrative is story; therefore science needs story.” This is stunning! What Olson is saying here is that metaphysical storytelling should override accuracy in science reporting.

Returning to Meyer at Cambridge, during his first year, he was granted a second telling revelation when his supervisor offered some unsolicited advice. “Everyone here is bluffing,” the kindly old school don said. “And if you’re to succeed, you must learn to bluff too.”

Fortunately, Meyer opted for personal integrity and legitimate science over bluffing and storytelling and then left it to others to sort things out. Imagine the exhibit in some future Museum of Science and History: Everyone believed the Darwinists, boys, and girls until a few brave scientists concerned with data and following evidence came along and called their bluff.

That, ladies and gentlemen, is a science story worth telling.

 

Terrell Clemmons is a freelance writer and blogger on apologetics and matters of faith.

This article was originally published at salvomag.com: http://bit.ly/2z72XqW

/by