Dr. Richard Spencer

June, 2015

True and Reasonable Faith Theistic Proofs Fourth Session

Review

• We have talked about:

– The proper use of reason (in service of truth)

– We can know that Christianity is true (not just because of “proofs” or evidences; it is a properly basic belief confirmed by the witness of the Holy Spirit)

– We presented four essential principles of knowledge:

1. The law of noncontradiction

2. The law of causality

3. The basic (but not infallible) reliability of sense perception

4. The analogical use of language (we are made in God’s image and can think his thoughts after him, even though ours aren’t identical)

Review

• We have talked about four different types of arguments for the existence of God:

– Ontological arguments (a priori) argue from pure reason that God must exist (e.g., Anselm; the greatest thing we can conceive of must exist)

– Cosmological arguments argue for a cause to explain the cosmos (e.g., whatever begins to exist has a cause; the universe began to exist; therefore the universe has a cause)

– Moral arguments argue for a cause for our sense of moral absolutes (e.g., there are objective moral facts; God is the best explanation; therefore God exists)

– Teleological arguments infer the existence of an intelligent designer from the purpose seen in creation or from the characteristics of design detected in creation (e.g., ID)

Review

• There is only 1 chance in 10164 of getting one small functional protein (with 150 amino acids) by random combinations of the 20 amino acids and only 1 chance in 1041,000 of randomly producing 250 proteins (the minimum estimated to be necessary for one cell)

• Succeeding with only 1 chance in 1041,000 would be like winning the Powerball Lottery 4,973 times in a row while buying only 1 ticket each time!

• And this ignores 90% of the information in DNA, which we now know to be just as important!

• It also ignores epigenetic information stored, for example, in cytoskeletal arrays and membrane patterns

Materialist Origin of Life Needs Infinity

• We saw that if all of the sub-atomic particles in the visible universe where interacting as fast as possible for the entire age of the universe there would only be 10141 possible combinations

• The likelihood of producing 250 proteins with this many tries is 1 in 1040,859, which would still be like winning the Powerball Lottery 4,956 times in a row while buying only 1 ticket each time

• This is why materialists need an infinite number of universes!

• Origin of life researchers have mostly given up on randomness as a valid explanation; but if a materialist worldview is correct, all you have available are fixed physical laws and random processes, which can produce beautiful crystals, snowflakes and so on, but not the specific information needed to make living organisms

It Gets Worse!

• As if the origin of life problem weren’t bad enough, the materialist worldview has at least two more equally serious problems to deal with

• Even if we assume that some simple form of biological life got started, we must ask two very difficult questions:

1. Can evolutionary processes explain how this simple life form developed into all of the biological diversity we see today? (macro evolution)

2. Can a biological machine ever become conscious and capable of making real decisions? (mind/body problem)

Micro versus Macro Evolution

• It is hardly surprising if horses can, under environmental pressures, evolve into different types of horses; that is similar to what humans achieve by breeding (micro evolution)

• But is the horse related to the horsefly biting his neck? (macro evolution)

• We will briefly look at two arguments against macro-evolution:

– The Cambrian Explosion (Stephen Meyer: Darwin’s Doubt)

– Irreducible complexity (Michael Behe: Darwin’s Black Box and The Edge of Evolution)

• The strongest evidence for macro evolution is homology, the similarity seen in the anatomy and DNA of organisms; but such similarity is equally valid evidence for a common designer!

Homology and the Tree of Life

• Meyer makes a number of strong arguments against the idea that there exists a “tree of life” showing that different organisms have all come from a common ancestor; for example,

– With very few possible exceptions, the fossil record does not show intermediate forms (the branching points), but only the distinct branches

– Trees drawn using anatomical studies and genetic studies differ greatly from one another, and using different genes or molecules also yields wildly different results

– The sudden appearance of fully formed body plans followed by slight diversification (as in the Cambrian fossils) is a “top down” picture; the exact opposite of the “bottom up” picture you would expect any gradual process to produce

Changing Body Plans is Difficult

• Meyer notes,

Animal development is a tightly integrated process in which various proteins and cell structures depend upon each other for their function, and later events depend crucially on earlier events. As a result, one change early in the development of an animal will require a host of other coordinated changes in separate but functionally interrelated developmental processes and entities downstream. This tight functional integration helps explain why mutations early in development inevitably result in embryonic death and why even mutations expressed somewhat later in development commonly leave organisms crippled.

Stephen Meyer, Darwin’s Doubt, Harper One, 2013, pg 261

• Think about building different cars as an example …

Irreducible Complexity

• The next argument against macro-evolution is based on the idea of “irreducible complexity”; namely, that many things cannot be produced in a step-by-step process (you can again think of the car example)

• In spite of the picture typically presented, many evolutionary biologists agree that the neo-Darwinian view is incapable of explaining large morphological changes (see Meyer’s book Darwin’s Doubt) and Darwin himself wrote

“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species, p. 158

Irreducible Complexity • The Bacterial Flagellum

Example of Evolution: Malaria

• Let’s consider one final argument against macro evolution from Michael Behe’s book The Edge of Evolution

• One of the classic textbook examples of evolution is the malaria parasite

– With DDT spraying for mosquitoes and the use of Chloroquine (a synthetic drug similar to quinine) to treat the disease, there was talk of eradicating malaria in the 1950s

– But, by the 1980s chloroquine-resistant strains of malaria and DDT-resistant mosquitoes were the norm, so evolution seemed to be working as one would expect

• The numbers of parasites are astounding:

– malaria has been around ~10,000 years

– there were about 247 million cases of malaria worldwide in 2006, resulting in about 881,000 deaths (World Health Organization)

– an infected person produces roughly one trillion parasites in a few days

– Therefore, malaria should be an evolutionary powerhouse!

• But, notice the limitations of evolution: – malaria can’t develop in the mosquito host at significantly

lower temperatures (restricted to above 68° F)

– malaria has been unable to overcome sickle-cell disease, which is a single change to one gene in human hemoglobin

– Where is the power?

Example of Evolution: Malaria

The Mind/Body Problem

• In a materialistic worldview everything, including living organisms, is strictly governed by the laws of nature describing the interactions of matter and energy in our universe; in other words, there is no other dimension of activity (e.g., spiritual)

• The laws of physics are either:

– Purely deterministic (e.g., Newton’s laws)

– Probabilistic (quantum mechanics)

• But no combination of fixed laws and randomness can produce a mind capable of making and carrying out real decisions

The Materialist View

• Marvin Minsky, a professor at MIT, wrote:

According to the modern scientific view, there is simply no room at all for “freedom of the human will.” Everything that happens in our universe is either completely determined by what’s already happened in the past or else depends, in part, on random chance. Everything, including that which happens in our brains, depends on these and only on these:

A set of fixed deterministic laws.

A purely random set of accidents.

Minsky, The Society of Mind, pg. 306

• Conclusion? No real choices, no moral accountability, no intrinsic value or purpose to human life, just molecules in motion

A Partial List of Other Evidence

• There are many other lines of argument open in support of Christianity being true, for example:

– The historical evidence (e.g., the empty tomb)

– The evidence of fulfilled prophecies (e.g., Cyrus, Tyre)

– The evidence of miracles (e.g., the resurrection)

– The history of the Jewish people (especially relative to, e.g., the Edomites, Philistines and others)

– The preservation of the Word of God (e.g., the number and accuracy of ancient manuscripts, internal consistency)

– The transformation of individual lives

– The growth of the Church in the face of serious opposition

Apologetics

• We are commanded to share our faith, which should also be natural for anyone who has been born again

You are the light of the world. A city on a hill cannot be hidden. Matt 5:14

But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect 1 Peter 3:15

go and make disciples of all nations Matt 28:19

• But, how are we to share our faith, and what role, if any, can evidence play?

Van Til’s Apologetic

• He wrote,

Apologetics is the vindication of the Christian philosophy of life against the various forms of the non-Christian philosophy of life. Christian Apologetics, 2nd Ed, P&R Pub, 2003, pg 17

• The issue is one of authority, or ultimate standard; is the ultimate standard our reason? Or God’s Word?

• Satan’s tempting was directed at this point:

When Satan tempted Adam and Eve in paradise, he sought to make them believe that man’s self-consciousness was ultimate rather than derivative and God-dependent. He argued, as it were, that it was of the nature of self-consciousness to make itself the final reference point of all predication. Ibid, pg 118

Point of Contact

• How would you share with someone who speaks a different language than you do?

• In speaking with an unbeliever we must ask what point of contact we can have with them given their worldview

• Most apologists think the point of contact is reason; we are to reason with the unbeliever by, for example, giving arguments for the existence of God and evidence for the truth of the Christian worldview; but this implies we agree with his ultimate standard!

• This view also ignores the fact of total depravity; their thinking has become futile, their hearts are darkened and they are suppressing the truth; they know God exists

• There are no “brute facts” and the dead cannot be made alive by argumentation alone – they must be born again from above

Epistemology

• Van Til gives a great example of the difference in approach when discussing Roman Catholic evangelism:

Romanism assumes that God and man stand in exactly the same sort of relation to the law of contradiction. To think and know truly, it is assumed, both must think in accordance with that law as an abstraction from the nature of either. … Hence man’s dealings in the realm of truth are not ultimately with God but with an abstraction that stands above God, with Truth as such. Ibid, pg 33

• In other words, Aquinas and others fail in their apologetic method because they assume the same ultimate standard for truth, which is fatal

Point of Contact

• Van Til wrote,

The point of contact for the gospel, then, must be sought within the natural man. Deep down in his mind every man knows that he is the creature of God and responsible to God. Every man, at bottom, knows that he is a covenant breaker. But every man acts and talks as though this were not so. Ibid, pp 119-120

the Reformed apologist must seek his point of contact with the natural man in that which is beneath the threshold of his working consciousness, in the sense of deity that he seeks to suppress. Ibid, pp 126-127

Van Til’s Apologetic

• Van Til’s apologetic is a two-step process:

– Negative: Show the unbeliever that his worldview is wrong (his presuppositions are wrong – the emphasis on ultimate standard is why Van Til’s method is called presuppositional)

– Positive: Present the gospel as a full-blown worldview that makes everything intelligible

• Van Til uses the metaphor of driving in opposite directions on a freeway, then meeting the person at a gas station …

Negative Apologetics

• The non-Christian worldview is irrational and we need to make that point clear

• Van Til wrote,

On his assumption his own rationality is a product of chance. On his assumption even the laws of logic that he employs are products of chance. The rationality and purpose that he may be searching for are still bound to be products of chance. So then the Christian apologist, whose position requires him to hold that Christian theism is really true and as such must be taken as the presupposition that alone makes the acquisition of knowledge in any field intelligible, must join his “friend” in his hopeless gyrations so as to point out to him that his efforts are always in vain. Ibid, pg 132

Negative Apologetics

• Van Til does not use the following line of argument, but it seems to me to be completely consistent with his view that we show an unbeliever how radically irrational it is to believe:

– That the universe popped into existence out of nothing

– That life popped into existence from non-living things with no intelligent designer

– That a purely materialistic world allows for the possibility of volitional creatures

Negative Apologetics

• We can also address the unbeliever with regard to morality

• Van Til wrote,

It is therefore the business of Christian apologetics to challenge the non-Christian view of morality and to show that unless the will of God be taken as ultimate, there is no meaning to moral distinctions. Ibid, pg 37

Positive Apologetics

• We must present the Christian worldview as a comprehensive whole

• This implies that we must know theology!

• Study and know an outline of the gospel

1. We must all die and face judgment

2. We are all sinners and deserve hell

3. Only Jesus can save us from our sins

4. Jesus is the eternal Son of God, became a man, lived a perfect life, died as a sacrifice, was raised from the dead and is seated at the right hand of the Father as our advocate

5. We must repent of our sins and trust in Jesus Christ alone

Positive Apologetics:

• We will often have to defend the Christian worldview against attacks that are based on wrong assumptions about the nature of God, creation, or God’s purposes

• Van Til wrote,

To understand God’s general revelation in the universe aright, it was imperative for man that he see this revelation in relationship to a higher revelation with respect to the final destiny of man and the universe. Ibid, pg 137

• For example, note how this affects our understanding of the “problem” of evil; i.e., how can a good and omnipotent God allow evil to exist?

Positive Apologetics

• The gospel is not just an extra piece of information that an unbeliever needs to be saved – he needs to be born again, which is a radical change in his fundamental commitment, i.e., his presuppositions and is something that only God can do

• Evangelism is impossible without the Holy Spirit

– We need the Holy Spirit to enable us to boldly present the gospel and to live in a way that adorns the gospel

– The Holy Spirit must work to cause the person we are speaking with to be born again or he will not be saved

– So pray for the Holy Spirit to fill you, and to work with you