The Origins Debate

Questions:


1)  Dr Lisle quotes Dr Lee Spetner as saying that "All point mutations that have been studied on a molecular level turn out to reduce genetic information not increase it."  Why do you think evolution is so widely accepted today regardless of the fact that it ignores what we observe in genetics and information science?

2)  Dr. Lisle describes a rescuing device as an objection designed to protect a particular worldview from outside objections.  Can you think of a time when someone employed a rescuing device while you were sharing the Biblical worldview with them?  When have you used a rescuing device when someone questions you about your faith?

3)  As we talked about in class the origins debate is a debate over competing worldviews.  What are some ways you can think of that we can challenge unbeliever's worldviews to make a case for Biblical Christianity?

Let's have some great discussion.
-Mike

Why Evidence is not enough

Here's a great place to have some discussion about what we are learning in class.  Feel free to comment directly on anyone's comments and let's remember to be respectful to each other.

As I was taking down tables and chairs yesterday after watching the Case for Christ video, I asked Laura Walton what she thought of the film.  A little hesitantly, she told me that it was interesting, but that it would not convince her Atheistic/Skeptic friends.  I agreed.  She listed a number of objections that they would rattle off to combat the evidences displayed in the film.  As I mentioned prior to our watching the Case for Christ, this film is evidential in it's approach, meaning it looks at the many evidences that support the historical reliability of the Bible and says, "See, I told you the Bible is true".  The problem that Laura pointed out is that unbelievers look at this same evidence through their "lens" or worldview and they would call the video "Christian propaganda" and argue (without a rational basis by the way) that most of the evidence in the film has been distorted or made up. 

Why does Evidence fail?
Evidence fails to convince because every person already has an ultimate standard that forms their worldview and all people interpret facts, evidence, science, everything in light of their worldview.  When Noah, the "preacher of righteousness" was building the ark I bet his neighbors thought he was a madman because their worldview could not accept his preaching that a worldwide flood was imminent.  The reason evidence fails to convince a Biblical skeptic is that skeptics will employ the use of a rescuing device.  A rescuing device is an excuse people use to explain away a certain piece of evidence or dismisses it altogether.  Evidences like those portrayed in the Case for Christ are helpful and edifying for believers, but will very rarely convince skeptics of the truth of the Biblical worldview. 

What do we do now?

This leads us into talking about the strongest kind of apologetics known as "Prepositional Apologetics".  We recognize that people PRESUPPOSE their worldview, or take it at face value.  They then interpret everything in light of that worldview.  The ultimate question is:  Which worldview is truly aligned with reality.  I believe the Biblical worldview is correct and the last part of our class will deal with defending this "presupposed worldview" and learning how to give an internal critique of the unbelievers worldview.  To understand this idea of presuppositions a little more please watch the following 15 minute video by Dr. Jason Lisle of Answers in Genesis.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyUFnSRn7IQ


Feel free to ask some questions...