Here’s the full version of this month’s question… “Why are we even talking about creation?  Shouldn’t we just focus on Jesus?”

I wish I had a million dollars for every time I’ve had someone ask me this.  (Yes, I know I’m supposed to say something more like “I wish I had a nickel for every time”, but I’ve worked the numbers and it turns out that I would be a lot wealthier if it was a million dollars, so that’s what I’m sticking with!)

The larger context of this question is that many Christians think that people get too caught up in debating creation vs. evolution and it causes too much division and argumentation, and ultimately distracts from the most important point in the Bible… the Gospel message.  How can you argue with that?  What Christian in their right mind would not want to focus on Jesus?  I personally think it is VERY important to focus on Jesus, but I also think that many Christians are not taking this focus far enough.  This brief article attempts to explain why.

You can ask yourself, “Who is Jesus?”  Well, He’s the Son of God and the Savior of the world.  That’s true.  However, long before He was Savior, He was our Creator!  We learn of this from the first chapters of John, Colossians and Hebrews:

“All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.” (John 1:3)

“For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth… All things were created through Him and for Him.” (Colossians 1:16)

“by His Son… through whom also He made the worlds.” (Hebrews 1:2)

Logically, if we are truly going to “focus on Jesus,” we should take His acts as Creator as seriously and we do His sacrificial act as our Savior.

When dealing with someone who feels we shouldn’t be too concerned about Genesis and just focus on Jesus, I often take them through the following series of questions (in which I am also including their typical answers):

Q: “What is the gospel message?”
A: “That Jesus died, was buried and rose again.”

Q: “But why did he do that?”
A: “To pay for the sins of the world.”

Q: “Why was that necessary?”
A: “Because we are all sinners.”

Q: “Why are we sinners?”
A: “Because Adam sinned.”

Q: “What difference did that make?”
A: “It brought death into God’s perfect creation and Jesus’ death was the payment for our sins.”

Q: “So Adam was a real person?”
A: “Sure, I guess so.”

Q: “So you believe there was a real garden with real people and that Adam’s actions made it necessary for Christ to die for us?”
A: “Yes.”

Q: “So if Genesis is not literal history, how does that affect the Gospel message?”
A: “I guess it would seem to take away the significance of Jesus dying on the cross.”

Q: “So it seems like the Gospel message and Jesus are tied directly into the Genesis creation account?”
A: “Now that you mention it, yes, I guess they are.”

Q: “Do you see now why it is actually very important to defend the historical accuracy of the Genesis creation account?”
A: “Yes, but I had never thought about it that way before.”

Many times, skeptics seem to have a better grasp on the importance of the creation narrative than some Christians.  Not that the skeptics believe the account… they just understand that without it, Christians lose the basis for their faith. Here are two example responses from atheists regarding Christians who attempt to reconcile the Bible and evolution by saying that evolution is a fact and that Genesis is not meant to be taken literally:

Richard Dawkins (world renowned atheist and ardent evolutionist, formerly from Oxford):

“Oh, but of course, the story of Adam and Eve was only ever symbolic, wasn’t it? Symbolic? So, in order to impress himself, Jesus had himself tortured and executed, in vicarious punishment for a symbolic sin committed by a non-existent individual? As I said, barking mad, as well as viciously unpleasant.” [Dawkins, The God Delusion, p. 287]

G. Richard Bozarth (Atheist)

“Christianity has fought, still fights, and will continue to fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus’ earthly life was supposedly made necessary.  Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the Son of God. If Jesus was not the redeemer who died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing.”  [‘The Meaning of Evolution’, American Atheist, p. 30. 20 September 1979.]

I think that Christians would do well to understand the gravity of these two statements.

Now, I will be the first to admit, we can easily take any subject, good or bad, significant or not, and get out of balance with it.  There certainly are those who are all wrapped up in the creation/evolution debate and just like to argue and prove others wrong.  This is not a very gracious or biblical approach and many times, these well-intended Christians never even get to the Gospel message… they just want to refute evolution. Again, to that I say, it is not balanced and certainly not effective.

So, should we focus on Jesus?  Yes, but we need to have the “big picture” in view when we do, keeping in mind that Jesus’ death was necessary because of the historical accuracy of the Genesis creation account, which serves as a foundation for virtually every major doctrine we hold as Christians.
If you have any questions related to this month’s article or any other issue, contact us any time. We’d love to hear from you! You can even arrange a FREE ENGAGEMENT or seminar at your church, school, conference or camp.

Author: Jay Seegert (Co-Founder & Principal Lecturer, Creation Education Center)

We are led to believe that evolution is all about facts and science, but creation is just a religious belief, making it completely faith-based. Many Christians are somewhat intimidated by such a scenario and don’t know exactly how to respond. We have addressed this situation from various angles in previous articles, but I would like to add one additional aspect that I feel is very important when countering this allegation. It is very simple, non-technical and is crucial to having a meaningful conversation related to the creation vs. evolution debate.

If someone asks you to give some scientific evidence for creation (as opposed to simply telling them what the Bible says about origins), it is imperative that you first ask them a key question before attempting to share any examples: “What would you accept as scientific evidence for creation?” In other words, in their mind, what would count or qualify?

Here’s a real-life example of why this question is so important. A few months ago, I had a weekend engagement at a church and during the Sunday evening session, I presented my talk entitled “Evolution: Probable or Problematic?” The premise of this talk is that even though some aspects of evolution seem plausible on the surface, when you “peak under the hood” so-to-speak, you see that it is practically speaking, impossible. Another way of stating it is that it doesn’t take much imagination to envision one kind a creature, such as a lungfish, slowly changing a little at a time, until it’s fins are longer and stronger, turning into legs and it is eventually able to crawl up on land and live out of the water (having evolved into a something like a newt). However, when you look at what would have to happen on the inside, specifically in the DNA, you see that the evolutionary stories just don’t cut it scientifically. In fact, the evidence is so diametrically opposed that it renders evolution virtually impossible.

After my presentation, many people gathered around our ministry table to purchase our resources and ask further questions. During this time, I noticed a college-aged student standing back a ways and just listening to everyone else’s questions. Eventually, most of the other people had gone and there were just a few other individuals left, including this student who had now approached me at the table. I shook his hand and asked if he had a question. He said to me, “You believe in creation, but I just don’t see any scientific evidence.” I was a little caught off guard, because I had just finished a 45 minute session in which I discussed cutting-edge information about DNA, genes, chromosome, natural selection, mutations and other scientific concepts, quoting only two Bible verses during the entire presentation. I asked him, “What was it then that I just presented in the lecture tonight?” He looked at me and said, “Yeah, but I don’t see any scientific evidence?” I then asked him a very important question… “What would qualify in your mind as scientific evidence for creation?” He just stared at me, so I asked again, “What would count in your mind? For example, if you saw ‘A’, ‘B’ or ‘C’, that would qualify. Please help me understand.” He continued to stare and finally shrugged his shoulders saying, “I don’t know.”

I responded by saying, “If you don’t even know what would count, how do you know that you didn’t just see scientific evidence in my lecture? If you have no criteria as to what would count and what wouldn’t, then we can’t really even have a conversation about it. Until you come up with some criteria, there is no objective way to determine what qualifies and what doesn’t. You could very easily just continue to say, ‘No, that doesn’t count. Nope, that doesn’t either, and so on.’”

He seemed to understand my point and was frustrated by it, even though I worked very hard to communicate in a very gracious manner, not wanting to just argue, showing that he was wrong and I was right (not a very effective or winsome apologetic).

If someone were to have some criteria, then you obviously have something to work with, although you first need to determine whether or not the criteria is reasonable or sensible. If they said, for example, that if they saw a tattoo on all the cells of every creature stating “Created by God”, that would count, you could easily dismiss that as being silly and not logical or reasonable. (This is an extreme example and I am not implying that anyone would actually posit this; I am just trying to make a point.)  If you need any help in this area, we’d be glad to assist you!

I went on to ask him some further questions. I ask if he believed that my laptop was designed. He said, “Yes”. I asked how he knew that. He then talked about its complexity and that things like that don’t happen by accident. I said, “So you see highly sophisticated, highly specified, interdependent parts all working together in just the right way as to produce an intended outcome.” He said, “Yes”. I continued, “So if something was intricately designed, you would expect to see something along these lines… highly sophisticated, highly specified, interdependent parts all working together?” Again, he said, “Yes”. I then reviewed some highlights from my talk, which actually blow away anything we see in modern computer technology. I also asked him, “Don’t you see the parallel here? Using your own logic, this would be evidence for design.” Well, you know what happened next, right? He fell to his knees, repented of his sins and accepted Christ as his savior. Right? Wrong! (I only wish.) In reality, he just responded that he still didn’t see it. I have been speaking on Christian apologetics too long to be surprised by his reaction. This is ultimately a spiritual issue and not simply an academic one. I wish it was as easy as sharing some key facts and then having everyone place their faith in Christ, but that’s not how it works.

I continue to pray for this young man and trust that God will put others in his path who can aid in his journey toward an eternal relationship with his Creator (through a personal relationship with Jesus Christ).

I could easily share many examples of “scientific” evidence for creation, but that was not the intention of this particular article. The main point is that before anyone can even consider scientific evidence for creation, they need to define what that would look like. Otherwise, no matter what you share, they will simply state that it doesn’t count.

In the meantime, I would encourage you to check out our powerful resources that will greatly strengthen your faith and better position you to share the Gospel message with those God places in your life.

If you have any questions related to this month’s article or any other issue, contact us any time. We’d love to hear from you! You can even arrange a FREE ENGAGEMENT or seminar at your church, school, conference or camp.

Author: Jay Seegert (Co-Founder & Principal Lecturer, Creation Education Center)

You’ve probably heard the argument before… “You can’t take the Bible seriously when it comes to the creation account, because the Bible is not a science textbook!” I’ve personally not only heard skeptics make this claim, but even many Christians. The assumption is that since the Bible was not written in a scientific fashion, it isn’t accurate when it comes to origins or was never intended to convey truth about the beginning of the universe.

First, let’s first address an initial question. Is it true that the Bible is not a science textbook? My answer would be an emphatic “yes!” Are we then justified in believing that it is not trustworthy in all that it conveys? My answer to that question would be an emphatic “no!”

Galileo, quoting Cardinal Baronius (1598) stated that, “The Bible was written to show us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go.” That sounds very witty and poignant, but is it really true? I would not argue that the primary message of the Bible is how to restore our broken relationship with our Creator through repentance of our sins and placing our trust in the shed blood of His son, Jesus Christ. However, if we can’t trust the Bible’s history (which is the backdrop for the Gospel message), then how can we trust its spiritual message? Even Jesus stated, “I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?” (John 3:12) Jesus took the Genesis creation account literally. He also stated, “If you would have believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me.” (John 5:46) Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible, including Genesis. If Moses did not accurately record history, what makes us confident that any of the other biblical writers are trustworthy? It does not make sense that the Holy Spirit could inspire Daniel and the John to accurately prophesy about events hundreds or thousands of years in the future, but was unable to help Moses get it right when conveying details about the past, including the creation of the world.

Secondly, it’s actually a good thing that the Bible is not a scientific textbook, because they have to be updated and corrected continually as new information is discovered! Not only that, people already struggle with reading the Bible as much as they should… I can’t imagine how much harder it would be for most people if it were highly scientific in nature.

Thirdly, even though the Bible is not a science textbook (giving us all the details), it does provide us with a general framework that helps us properly understand astronomy, geology, biology, etc.

Let’s look at just a few examples very briefly.

Astronomy

The Bible tells us that God created the Earth on day one and the sun, moon and stars on day four. While this does not give us much detail as to how God created these objects, it does rule out certain possibilities, such as the Big Bang, which posits just the opposite order (i.e. the sun first and millions of years later, the Earth).

Also, because God supernaturally created the universe and stars, we wouldn’t necessarily expect that stars just form naturally on their own. In reality, we’ve seen many deaths of stars (i.e. novas and super novas), but we have never truly seen the formation of even a single star. (Some scientists will occasionally refer to the formation of new stars, but all they are seeing is swirling gases and the laws of physics actually mitigate against their natural formation.)

Long before we had modern science and telescopes, the Bible stated that the stars are uncountable (Genesis 15:5 & Jeremiah 33:22). What is interesting is that the total number of stars visible to the human eye at any single point on the Earth is about 3,000, so that’s what Moses and Jeremiah would have been able to see at the time they wrote these verses. What they wrote goes against what their senses were telling them. Today, however, with the invention of high powered telescopes, we know that the number of stars is truly uncountable. Scientists estimate there may be about 10 billion billion stars (that’s a 1 with 25 zeros after it!). Imagine trying to count them… getting up to 1,285,621 and then someone distracts you and you have to start all over!

Geology

We see thick layers of sedimentary rock laid down all over the Earth, filled with literally billions and billions of fossils. The Bible gives us a great framework with which to understand the origin of these layers. Genesis 6-8 recounts the great flood of Noah. With an event such as this, guess what we would expect to see? Layers laid down by water all over the earth, filled with fossils (remains of death things).

Biology

Genesis 1 tells us ten times that God created life forms to reproduce “after their kind”. (e.g. Genesis 1:24) This tells us that while we could expect a fair amount of variety, creatures will always only reproduce after their same general “kind” of animal. That’s exactly what we see today. For example, dogs and wolves can actually interbreed, because they are the same general kind of animal. However, dogs and sheep cannot interbreed because they are not the same general kind. There are many other examples, but the main point is that the Bible helps us properly understand the diversity in nature, even though it doesn’t go to the level of detailing all the intricate parts of the cell or other biological aspects.

So, although the Bible was not written as a science textbook, we have seen (through many discoveries of modern science) that it does provide an accurate and trustworthy framework with which to properly understand the natural world around us.

If you have any questions related to this month’s article or any other issue, contact us any time. We’d love to hear from you!  You can even arrange a FREE ENGAGEMENT or seminar at your church, school, conference or camp.

Author: Jay Seegert (Co-Founder & Principal Lecturer, Creation Education Center)

You’ve seen them in the magazines, on television, in the museums and maybe you’ve even held one in your hands. We’re talking about dinosaur bones. A question that often arises is “How do scientists determine the age of a dinosaur bone?” That’s what we’ll briefly explore in this month’s article.

Certain things in life seem obvious. We know, for instance, that fire is hot, the moon orbits the Earth and chocolate ice cream is much better than plain vanilla. Something else that most would consider being obvious is that dinosaur bones are millions of years old. Most scientists believe them to be at least 65 million years old. That’s one of the things that make them so fascinating to most people. To be holding or looking at something that lived millions of years ago… very intriguing and mysterious!

However, have you ever asked yourself or anyone else, “What is it about a dinosaur bone that makes it so old?” In other words, what about the bone itself makes it old? I’ve asked many people that question and the response is usually a short period of silence followed by the shrugging of the shoulders.

Now, I know that we are all taught from kindergarten on up that dinosaurs roamed the Earth for 150 million years and died out about 65 million years ago. There’s no question that this is what is taught in our public schools and universities. But once again, how do we know the bones are that old? Obviously, the scientists have highly technical dating methods that they use to date the bones. They must put them in a fancy machine and then, “ding” (just like a microwave oven) the timer goes off and tells them how old they are. Right? Wrong! The scientists don’t even date the bones themselves. Wait a minute, I thought they used Carbon-14 dating. This leads me to share a quick personal story… My daughter, Tori, had a biology class last year as a Freshman. She had been raised in a Christian school, but now was in the public school system for her high school years. The topic of dinosaurs came up one day and another student asked “How do they figure out how old the bones are?” to which the teacher replied, “They use Carbon-14 dating.” My daughter, 14 at the time, raised her hand and said, “You do know that the half-life of Carbon-14 is 5,730 years, so there wouldn’t be any Carbon-14 left in the bones if they were millions of years old.” The teacher was stunned and responded awkwardly as if he knew that, but didn’t address the apparent age dilemma. He had to be thinking to himself, “How in the world does a 14 year old girl know the half-life of Carbon-14?”

So do they actually use the Carbon-14 dating method on dinosaur bones? Never, because Carbon-14 dating decays away at a rate that there wouldn’t be any left if the bones were millions of years old (as my daughter so aptly pointed out). In fact, there wouldn’t be any left if the bones were even close to 100,000 years old. However, as mentioned in last month’s article (“DNA in dinosaur bones?”), we actually do find Carbon-14 still in dinosaur bones (even after ruling out potential contamination), which would indicate they are not millions of years old.

So how do they determine the age of the bone? More specifically, where do the millions of years come from?

Typically what happens is that the scientist in the dating laboratory asks where the bone was found (i.e. what layer of the Earth). This gives them an idea of about how old the bone “should be”. How does that work? Well, if the layer is 70-100 million years old (according to their evolutionary beliefs), then the fossils they find in it should be somewhere in that range. But how do they know how old the layers are? Good question! Scientists often tell how old the layers are by determining how old the fossils are that they find in them! Wait a minute… that’s circular reasoning! You’re right, but that doesn’t stop them from using this logic. It’s even in school textbooks. One page will tell about how old the fossils are, using the age of the layers and then a few pages later, state that the age of the layers are determined by the age of the fossils contained in them!

Here’s another approach. Before we had any radiometric dating techniques, ages were assigned to the layers (in the geologic column). This became the standard for determining ages for all the fossils.

If the layer where the fossil was discovered is claimed to be somewhere between 70-100 million years old (based on the previously “assigned age”) then the fossil must be in that range as well. So now that we actually do have radiometric dating, do they then date the rock in which the fossil was found? Seems logical, but the answer is “no.” Fossils are found in sedimentary rocks which cannot be dated by radiometric techniques. So what do they do? They typically date nearby igneous rocks that are above and below the sedimentary layer where they found the fossil. However, what often happens is that the various methods they use (Uranium-Lead, Potassium-Argon, Rubidium-Strontium, etc.) yield widely ranging dates. Remember, the fossil “should be” somewhere between 70-100 million years old (according to their pre-established ages for the geologic column). Perhaps the Uranium method yielded an age of 1.2 billion years. Wow, way too old! That can’t be right. Maybe there was some contamination or something. We can ignore that date. Then the Rubidium method yields 340,000 years. Wow, way too young! Something must have gone wrong with the equipment, so we can throw that date out too. Then, the Potassium method yields 72 million years and they say “See we were right! We thought it was between 70 and 100 million years, we dated it with Potassium-Argon and found it to be 72 million years old.” Then they publish their findings (leaving out the mistaken dates) and the world stands in awe!

This is a clear case of evolutionary bias constricting scientists’ openness to what would seem obvious to most other people… that the bones are not really millions of years old. There was another example regarding an incredible discovery of thousands of dinosaur bones in northern Alaska that were almost completely “fresh”, meaning that there was hardly any fossilization (permineralization). The discoverers did not even report it for 20 years, because they had the look and feel of old cow bones and assumed they were probably just bison, not dinosaurs! (They were thinking that they couldn’t be dinosaur bones, because after millions of years, they would be completely fossilized, but these seemed fairly “fresh”.)

Much more could be said about this, but the moral of the story is that what we are taught about dinosaurs, especially how old they are, doesn’t fit well at all with what we actually observe using good science. What we actually observe, however, fits very well with the biblical account of creation. No surprise to those of us who believe in the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture!

If you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to contact us!

We’d love to hear from you! Contact us any time. You can even arrange a FREE ENGAGEMENT or seminar at your church, school, conference or camp.

Author: Jay Seegert (Co-Founder & Principal Lecturer, Creation Education Center)

The movie Jurassic Park (1993) was premised on the idea of cloning dinosaurs, which entailed finding dinosaur DNA in mosquitoes embedded in “ancient” amber.  This article isn’t a critique of the movie or an explanation of cloning, but rather, focuses on the question of the existence of dinosaur DNA.  One of the reasons we have not been able to clone a dinosaur is that it does require the presence of intact dinosaur DNA.  (It also would require an egg from a living dinosaur, which is another huge problem in and of itself.)

Recently, however, scientists believe they may truly have discovered intact dinosaur DNA! (See reference 1 below)

This is very exciting news, but also very, very surprising for evolutionists (and others, including some Christians) who believe the Earth is billions of years old and that dinosaurs became extinct some 65 million years ago.   Here’s the enigma… DNA is known to degrade fairly rapidly and it cannot be imaged to last for hundreds of thousands or millions of years.  The best testing done so far indicates that it may only last for approximately 10,000 years.  Yet, here are dinosaur bones, thought to be at least 65 million years old, and they contain intact DNA!  Some scientists thought that maybe the DNA was actually from recent bacteria and not from the dinosaur itself.  However, the testing that has been done so far indicates that it is not from external bacteria and is most likely actual dinosaur DNA.  We’ll have to keep a close watch on this one to see what the final conclusion turns out to be.  If it’s legitimate, it will come as quite a shock to those in the evolutionary community as well as any others who also believe dinosaurs lived millions of years ago (but not to those who accept the historical six-day creation account in Genesis).

There are also other scientific reasons to believe dinosaur bones cannot possibly be millions of years old.

Fact #1

We have discovered dinosaur bones that are still “fresh”, meaning they haven’t even had enough time to fossilize.  If they were at least 65 million years old, they would have turned into a fossil a long, long, long time ago!

Fact #2

We have discovered carbon-14 in dinosaur bones!  The half-life of carbon-14, which is radioactive (unstable) and wants to decay back into nitrogen-14, is 5,730 years.  What does that mean?  It means that at the decay rate we currently measure, it would only take 5,730 years for half of a given amount of carbon-14 to decay away.  Every 5,730 years, half would be gone.  At this rate, it would only take maybe about 80,000 years or so for there to be so little carbon-14 left that we cannot even measure it anymore.  There certainly wouldn’t be any left after 65 million years!  (In fact, even if you had a mass of carbon-14 the size of the Earth, it would only take 1 million years for every carbon-14 atom to be gone!)  So the carbon-14 levels of the dinosaur bones would indicate only a few thousand years, not millions.

Fact #3

In 1997 they discovered red blood cells and soft tissue in dinosaur bones!  At first the discoverer (Mary Schweitzer) didn’t believe it. After all, she reasoned, we know the bones are millions of years old!  After further research, it was undeniable… she had discovered real blood cells and soft tissue.  Scientists feel that because of the fragile nature of red blood cells, they would not last un-decomposed for millions of years. In reality, they may only last approximately 10,000 years under typical expected conditions.  This is very similar to the situation with the discovery of what appears to be dinosaur DNA.

So do the scientists who discovered the blood cells and DNA rethink the age of the bones (which would be something logical to do)?  No, they simply conclude that there must be some unknown process which could preserve these materials for multiplied millions of years!  (This is truly a statement of faith on their part, since there’s nothing in science to support such a view.)

This reminds me of a joke (which I think isn’t all that funny) but it serves to illustrate a point.  A man is fully convinced that he is dead, and no one can convince him otherwise.  After weeks of frustration, his wife finally takes him to the doctor, figuring he could deal with him.  The doctor asks a lot of questions and uses a lot of good arguments, but the man remains unconvinced.  Eventually, the doctor thinks he’s got him.  He says, “George, give me your hand,” to which George complies.  The doctor pricks his finger and he starts to bleed.  Then the doctor asks, “George, do dead men bleed?” to which he replies, “Wow, I didn’t think so, but I guess dead men really do bleed!”

Some people will not change their minds about certain things no matter what.  For most scientists, the general public and even many Christians, dinosaurs being millions of years old is one of those things.  We learn from kindergarten on up that dinosaurs became extinct 65 million years ago and it seems as clear as day.  Anyone who would question it is obviously not living in the real world. (That’s the impression most people have.)

So how do they come up with these ages of 65 or 100 million years for the dinosaur bones?  That’s a great question and we will address that in next month’s “Question of the Month”.  (Sorry to make you wait!)

If you have any questions in the meantime, please don’t hesitate to contact us!

Reference 1:  Schweitzer, M. H. et al. 2013 Molecular analyses of dinosaur osteocytes support the presence of endogenous molecules. Bone. 52 (1): 414-423.

We’d love to hear from you! Contact us any time. You can even arrange a FREE ENGAGEMENT or seminar at your church, school, conference or camp.

Author: Jay Seegert (Co-Founder & Principal Lecturer, Creation Education Center)

Every year our extended family celebrates the birth of my niece, Jessica, on Christmas day.  Why would we pick that day of all days?  Certainly we could have picked a day that wasn’t so busy and significant in and of itself.  We do so because she was actually born on December 25, so it actually makes a lot of sense.

So why do we celebrate the birth of Jesus on December 25?  Most people assume it is because that is when Christ was born.  However, most people are quite unaware that Jesus was most likely NOT born on that day!

I have often told people that I do not really consider myself to be a “religious” person, which surprises them.  I then go on to say that there’s a big difference between “religion” and “Christianity”.  In short, religion is all about what people think about God; who He is and what He expects from us.  Christianity, on the other hand, is solely focused on what “God thinks about God” and our relationship with Him.  Religion is often caught up in traditions of men and not always concerned enough about that the Bible actually says.  We are wise to always check everything against what God’s Word (the Bible) actually says, rather than just blindly accepting what someone else tells us or something that we have just “always believed”.

So was Jesus really born on December 25?  What does the Bible say?  It actually doesn’t tell us!  While it is not impossible for it to have been this date, it is very unlikely.  One of the reasons is that we learn from the Bible that the shepherds were “abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night.” (Luke 2:8)  This would be very unlikely in wintertime.  It would also have been very difficult for Mary to have made the 70 mile trip from Nazareth to Bethlehem.  Many believe that Jesus was “conceived” around December 25, placing his birth in late September the following year.  Some believe that he was born on September 29, which is the date of the Jewish Feast of Tabernacles celebration.

So how did we end up with December 25?  In short, the Catholic Church selected that date.  There was an annual pagan festival on that date, celebrating the return of the sun. December 21 is the winter solstice (the shortest day of the year).  Pagans saw the sun as the “giver of life” and December 25 was the first day after the 21 that the days were clearly getting longer (i.e. the daylight portion).  Therefore, they had their pagan celebration on this day.  The Catholic Church (which dominated the “Christian” world at that time) chose the 25th to commemorate the birth of Christ in an effort to overshadow the pagan association and practices.

So is this all part of some massive religious or satanic conspiracy?  Some people actually think so.  I am not of that persuasion.  In short, the Bible does not tell us exactly when Jesus was born and if we wish to celebrate it each year, it helps to pick a date on which to do so.  It certainly makes it easier to agree on a particular date and celebrate it universally.  We would be well advised to heed the admonition of Colossians 2:16-17, which states, “So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival [i.e. a holiday or holy day] or a new moon or sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ.”

Here are a few other interesting traditional details regarding the birth of Christ that aren’t necessarily biblical:

• Mary riding on a donkey into Bethlehem.  The Bible does not say this; it only mentions that she traveled with Joseph.  Maybe on a donkey, maybe not.  We don’t know.
• Mary giving birth the night she arrived.  Again, the Bible does not state this.  She may have been there for weeks before giving birth, which actually makes more sense.
• Jesus born in a stable.  The Bible only states that Jesus was born in a manger, but says nothing about where this manger was.  It does tell us there was no room in the inn, but doesn’t say where the manger was.
• Three Kings present at birth.  This is one of the most common misconceptions regarding the nativity scene.  The Bible does not speak of three kings or three of anyone.  It simply mentions “magi” (wise men) which is a plural term in Greek, so it would have been at least two.  It does mention that three gifts were given (Matthew 2:11).  Also, they would not have been there at the birth, but much later, because Scripture refers to Jesus at this time as a “child” and not a “baby”.  He could easily have been walking and talking, but probably under two years old, because we know that King Herod had issued a decree for all male children two and under to be put to death in order to subvert the perceived threat Jesus posed as the “newborn King” (Matthew 2:16).

So what’s the point with all of this?  The point is that we need to be like the Bereans who continually searched the Scriptures to see if what they heard was true. (Acts 17:11)  Secondly, have a great time celebrating our Lord and Savior – JESUS CHRIST!

If you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to contact us!

We’d love to hear from you! Contact us any time. You can even arrange a FREE ENGAGEMENT or seminar at your church, school, conference or camp.

Author: Jay Seegert (Co-Founder & Principal Lecturer, Creation Education Center)

Bob: “How are you getting to the football game tomorrow?”
Dan: “Pete said he could pick me up at 6:00.”
Bob: “Do you know for sure he’s giving you a ride?”
Dan: “Yes, he said he would.”
Bob: “But do you know 100% for certain that he will take you?”
Dan: “Well, I can’t say I know for sure, but I certainly think so.”

In this example of a typical conversation, Dan initially states that he knows something for sure, but then later admits that in reality, he’s not 100% certain.  He may be very confident and very hopeful, but he cannot claim to know absolutely for sure that Pete will give him a ride to the game.  After all, Pete might forget or he might get sick and have to cancel.  He might be delayed because of an accident.  He may change his mind and decide not to go to the game at all or he might tell someone else to fill in for him.  Any number of scenarios are possible, so there’s just no way of knowing for sure.

What’s the point with all of this?  It leads us to ask, is there ANYTHING we know for certain?  Is it even possible to know anything with absolute certainty?

Most people (including skeptics and atheists) when pressed will admit there’s nothing they know for sure.  Fairly often, however, it may take some time before they realize this.  For instance, you may ask them if there’s anything they know for sure… anything they are absolutely certain about and they may say, “Yes, I am absolutely sure that I am standing here right now.”  You could ask, “How do you know you are not just dreaming it?”  “Because, I can pinch myself and feel the pain,” they might respond.  “But how do you know that you aren’t just dreaming that you pinched yourself and dreaming that is hurts?”  They might say, “Because I can use my brain to logically figure out the difference.”  “How do you know you can trust your thoughts?  How do you use your logic to verify that your logic is accurate?”

You could also approach this another way. You could ask, “What percentage of all knowledge do you think you possess?  Do you think you know 10% of everything there is to know?  How about 1%?  Maybe just 0.0001%?” They will most likely convey that their personal knowledge represents a very, very small percentage of the total amount of knowledge in the entire universe.  You could then ask, “Is it possible that something within the realm of knowledge outside of what you think you know might actually show that what you think you know is wrong?”  If they say “No”, you could ask them to give you an example of something they know for certain could not possibly be wrong.  Logically, they won’t be able to defend any example they might give.  Most likely they will concede that it is possible that things unknown to them would indicate they are wrong about what they believe.  Therefore, they would have to admit that it is possible everything they believe is wrong.  It’s at least a possibility.  You could then say, “So you admit that you can’t know anything with absolute certainty.”  They may respond by emphatically saying, “Yes, I admit that, but you can’t know anything for certain either!”  You could then ask, “Are you absolutely certain about that?”  They just admitted that they can’t know anything for certain, so logically they can’t possibly know for sure that you can’t know anything for sure.  In fact, they can’t even know for certain that they can’t know anything for certain!  (You may have heard some claim that there is no such thing as “absolute truth”!  You could ask them, “Are you absolutely sure?”) These kinds of conversations can easily become kind of crazy (and even frustrating) but the logic is sound and we need to be aware of this when discussing our faith with those around us.

If your head isn’t spinning just a bit, then maybe you weren’t reading this close enough.  So where does this leave us?  As of right now, it looks like we’re no better off than an atheist, because we’ve just concluded that neither of us can know anything with absolute certainty.  This is what many have concluded and subsequently decided that we shouldn’t be making a big deal out of our beliefs, because ultimately no one can truly know anything.  Therefore, Christians shouldn’t be sharing their faith, because they’re in no better position than anyone else.  End of story!

Fortunately for Christians, the story does not end here and here’s why.  The only way that it would even be logically possible to have absolute knowledge about something is if there was an all-knowing God who conveyed absolute truth to us in a way that we could know for certain.  If this God is all-knowing and all-powerful, this would not be a problem with Him whatsoever.  This is exactly what Christianity teaches, that not only does this all-powerful, all-knowing God exist, but He has also chosen to communicate absolute truth to us through the Bible.  God Himself is abstract (i.e. non-physical), unchanging and universal (i.e. the same everywhere).  He created laws of logic for us to use that themselves are abstract, unchanging and universal (reflecting His character).  So while atheists and Christians alike use logic in defending their beliefs, only Christians can account for the existence of such laws.  In an atheistic world, there are no mechanisms to account for the existence of such laws.  Physical matter and energy are incapable of creating such non-physical entities, yet everyone believes they exist (and uses them everyday).  So where did they come from?  It only makes sense in a theistic worldview.

Wrapping this up (before I lose too many more readers), people who believe in God are the only one’s who have a rational basis for claiming the ability to know anything for certain.  All others must admit they could be wrong about everything they believe.

I fully realize that this type of discussion leads to numerous other questions and in essence opens up a proverbial “can of worms”, but I can only address this initial question briefly in this type of an article.  I am planning on addressing related issues in future articles.

If you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to contact us!

We’d love to hear from you! Contact us any time. You can even arrange a FREE ENGAGEMENT or seminar at your church, school, conference or camp.

Author: Jay Seegert (Co-Founder & Principal Lecturer, Creation Education Center)

A recent news article claimed that advances in modern science are making belief in God virtually unnecessary. Natalie Wolchover stated that, “Over the past few centuries, science can be said to have gradually chipped away at the traditional grounds for believing in God.” (“Will Science Someday Rule Out the Possibility of God?”, LiveScience.com, September 18, 2012). The article also stated that, “there’s good reason to think science will ultimately arrive at a complete understanding of the universe that leaves no grounds for God whatsoever.”

While it is true that science has revealed more and more of how our universe operates (which is to be expected), it has not truly uncovered naturalistic answers as to how it got here in the first place. A biblical view of our universe conveys that its origin is definitely supernatural, while its daily operation follows the established laws that God created. As an example, I have noticed that when I place a glass of water in the freezer and leave it in there long enough, the water becomes solid. However, I don’t believe for one second that when I shut the freezer door, God magically enters in and miraculously causes the liquid to change states, producing the solid mass I observe later. We have discovered regularities in nature that account for such phenomenon. We call them laws of science. They do a great job of accounting for what we observe happening today. We don’t need to resort to any supernatural powers to explain these occurrences. We also don’t need the supernatural to explain how the light goes off when you shut the freezer door either! But does the light really go out? We may never know. That’s one of the great mysteries of the universe! (Just a little humor and sarcasm.)

We know how water freezes, but where did it come from in the first place? The known laws of science cannot account for that in the same way that they account for its solidification at or below 32° F. Ah, but all you have to do is combine hydrogen and oxygen the right way and you can get water! Alright… where do you get hydrogen and oxygen? Well, hydrogen was produced in the Big Bang and then later, the explosion of stars produced heavier elements such as oxygen. Nice story, but what material was involved in the alleged Big Bang that could create hydrogen and where did that material come from? Most people don’t have a response to this, but theoretical physicists do. The problem is that their answer is solely theoretical and far removed from the type of science that gave us laptops and cell phones (i.e. “operational science”). It is also so deep that the average layperson (and high school or college student) thinks it must be correct, because they can’t understand it and they heard it from a scientist!

It reminds me of a joke I heard years ago. (Some of you probably already heard this so you can just go out to the kitchen and make yourself a sandwich and come back when I am done.) I am telling this, not because it is so funny, but because it makes a good point.

A group of scientists figured out how to create life on their own and feel there is no need for belief in God anymore. Furthermore, they decide to let him know he is no longer necessary. They tell God what they’ve been able to do and God say, “Alright, let’s have a little ‘man creating’ contest.” The scientists say, “Sure, you go first.” God reaches down, scrapes up some dirt, breathes into it and creates a living human being. The scientists say, “Not bad, but now it’s our turn.” One of the scientists reaches down to the ground, but before he get’s any farther, God says, “Hey, you get your own dirt!” Semi-funny, but you get the point.

According to Alex Filippenko (astrophysicist at the University of California, Berkeley), “The Big Bang could’ve occurred as a result of just the laws of physics being there. With the laws of physics, you can get universes.” Let’s think about this. This states that the laws of physics produced our universe. Therefore, the laws were here first. So that leads me to an interesting question… “Where did the laws of physics come from?” Laws are not tangible things. What do I mean by that? They are not physical entities. You cannot take a law of physics into a laboratory and weigh it or measure it or chop it up into five pieces, etc. They are simply abstract. Scientists do not believe that physical matter can generate things of a non-physical nature. We certainly have never observed this nor can we get this to happen in the laboratory. So if physical matter and energy cannot create non-physical entities… where did these laws come from? Were they just floating around in nothing hoping and praying that someday there would be “stuff” around they could rule and reign over? It makes much more sense to believe that God created both the physical universe and the various laws by which it now operates.

A number of scientists believe that everything came from nothing. This topic is too big to tackle seriously in just the remainder of a brief article, so I will only offer a few passing comments. I remember hearing an audio lecture years ago in which the scientist (who I believe was from an Ivy League school) grappled with this question. His response was that there’s a difference between nothing and absolute nothing. He went on to say that if you actually had “nothing” you might be able to get a universe from it, but if you had “absolute nothing” you obviously could not get anything from that! Really??? Tell me again how that has anything to do with science.

I will close with some wisdom from the web. There’s a lot of great information out on the web, but there’s also a lot of misinformation as well (and way too much that is morally reprehensible) so we need to be very careful when using this source. However, the quote I am going to share is not from the world wide web, but rather, from Charlotte’s Web!

“What do you mean less than nothing? I don’t think there is any such thing as less than nothing. Nothing is absolutely the limit of nothingness. It’s the lowest you can go. It’s the end of the line. How can something be less than nothing? If there were something that was less than nothing, then nothing would not be nothing, it would be something – even though it’s just a very little bit of something. But if nothing is nothing, then nothing has nothing that is less than it is.” (Charlotte’s Web, E.B. White)

You don’t need a degree in theoretical physics to figure that one out, but you will probably need one if you are desperate to eliminate God from the picture.

“The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.” (Psalm 14:1)

“For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.” (I Corinthians 3:19)

For much, much more information on this subject, I would highly recommend my book, Let There Be Light, the second edition of which is to be released this month (Oct 2012). We are offering great discounts on the first edition, which is not even two years old yet! Click here to order the first edition.

DISCOUNTED RATES ON FIRST EDITION:
$7.50 – single copy (50% off retail)
$5.00 – when purchasing 5 or more copies (67% off retail)

In the meantime, if you have any questions, we’d love to hear from you! Contact us any time. You can even arrange a FREE ENGAGEMENT or seminar at your church, school, conference or camp.

Author: Jay Seegert (Co-Founder & Principal Lecturer, Creation Education Center)

Recently, Bill Nye (from the popular PBS children’s television show “Bill Nye the Science Guy”) posted a YouTube video in which he belittles those who say they deny evolution.  This month’s question will be a partial response to a few of his comments.  It would take a lot more space to do it justice, so I am only going to focus on a few key statements.

In order to appropriately address this issue, we must first define what we mean by “evolution”.  We are not merely referring to “change” in life forms.  We see this all the time and it is a part of reality.  The “evolution” I am referring to is the concept that non-living molecules randomly combined (i.e. without any outside intelligent intervention) to form a living single-celled organism which subsequently, over a few billion years, spawned every other life form on the planet.  We call this “molecules-to-man” evolution.
`
One statement Nye made was,

“People still move to the United States. And that’s largely because of the intellectual capital we have, the general understanding of science. When you have a portion of the population that doesn’t believe in that, it holds everybody back, really.”

This exhibits the logical fallacy of “equivocation,” in which two different things are assumed to be the same.  In this case, he is conveying that idea that “evolution” and “science” are one in the same.  In reality, science is a body of knowledge regarding the physical world gained through observation and experimentation.  Evolution, on the other hand, is a story about the past, involving guesses and assumptions about what supposedly occurred over the alleged millions and billions of years of Earth’s history.  In his mind (and many others) to deny evolution is paramount to denying “science” which has given us wonderful advancements such as laptops and cell phones.  Who in their right mind would want to deny science?  “Oh, so you don’t believe in evolution?  I suppose then that you also don’t believe in that cell phone I saw you using just a few minutes ago?”  They want you to think you can’t reject one without rejecting the other.  However, we are talking about two types of science at this point.  Firstly, “Observational Science” which typically involves things we do in a laboratory and has led to some great advancements in technology.  The concept of evolution, on the other hand, falls into the category of “Historical Science”, which deals with events that happened in the unobserved past; events that cannot be repeated or recreated and are not directly testable.

Another statement made was as follows,

“Evolution is the fundamental idea in all of life science, in all of biology. It’s like, it’s very much analogous to trying to do geology without believing in tectonic plates. You’re just not going to get the right answer. Your whole world is just going to be a mystery instead of an exciting place.”

Bill Nye (an engineer) says that evolution is fundamental to all biology.  Really?  That is very interesting considering the following quote from Dr. Marc Kirschner (founding chair of the Department of Systems Biology at Harvard Medical School – no dummy):

“In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all.”  (As quoted in the Boston Globe, 23 October 2005)

Not only that, but belief in evolution has actually been a great detriment to science in many instances.  Rather than believing everything has a purpose (i.e. was designed), many things are viewed as left over junk from random evolutionary processes.  At the time of the infamous Scopes “Monkey” trial (1925), there was a list of no less than 180 “useless” organs in the human body, thought to be left over from evolution.  A good example was the appendix.  For years, doctors were quick to remove this organ if there were any issues, believing it served no purpose to begin with.  Fortunately, modern science has since discovered that it plays an important part in our immune system. In fact, the original list of 180 has now dwindled to virtually zero!  Good science exposed the rotting fruit of a bad theory.

Then we have the whole mythical concept of “junk” DNA.  Evolutionists believe that much of our DNA is really just “junk”… not useful to the functioning or propagation of life.  This conclusion was solely based on the assumption that evolution is true.  Today, we know better.  Not only are these supposed “junk” areas of the DNA useful, they are more complex than ever imagined!  Regarding the idea of “junk” DNA, Dr. John Mattick (Garvan Institute of Medical Research, PhD in biochemistry) stated:

“…the failure to recognize the implications of the non-coding [i.e “junk”] DNA will go down as the biggest mistake in the history of molecular biology.”

Let’s look at another of Nye’s statements.  He claims that one’s…

“world just becomes fantastically complicated when you don’t believe in evolution.”

In reality, just the opposite is true.  I’ve often said that I don’t have strong enough faith to believe in evolution.  When you learn of the intricacies of life, including DNA, you see how astronomically impossible the odds are that random forces of nature created such amazing specified complexity.  It was Sir Fred Hoyle (world renowned astronomer and atheist for most of his life) that calculated the chances of life forming by random processes in all the time of Earth’s alleged ancient history.  He said there would be one chance, not in a million or even in a billion, but one chance in a 1 followed by 40,000 zeros!  You want to say that number?  You would say the word “billion” 4,444 times in a row.  And yet, he wants us to believe it’s all just an accident. My life becomes “fantastically complicated” if I try to believe that life is nothing but the product of random forces or nature!

Nye further states,

“The idea of deep time, of this billions of years, explains so much of the world around us. If you try to ignore that, your world view just becomes crazy, just untenable, itself inconsistent.”

For many people, what makes the initially “unbelievable” a little more palatable, is the idea of “deep time” or millions and billions of years.  Sure, many things seem impossible… but if you had enough time… anything can happen, right?  That’s how the reasoning goes.  We don’t have time or space to elucidate too much here, but in reality, time is not “the hero of the plot”, as one scientist stated.  It actually makes things worse, as things tend to run down and wear out over time… not get better.  I would agree, however, if you deny “deep time” (or reject it based on solid scientific and biblical principals) “your world view just becomes crazy, just untenable, itself inconsistent” (if you are an evolutionist.)  Yes, evolution (as a worldview) requires a lot of crazy, untenable, inconsistent thinking!

We’ll end this article with one final quote from Nye:

“And I say to the grownups, if you want to deny evolution and live in your world, in your world that’s completely inconsistent with everything we observe in the universe, that’s fine, but don’t make your kids do it because we need them. We need scientifically literate voters and taxpayers for the future. We need people that can – we need engineers that can build stuff, solve problems.”

I wish Mr. Nye would show us one example of a skyscraper, a cell phone, an automobile, a nutritional supplement or even a cure to a disease that was berthed out of a belief in evolution.  Science and engineering proceed stunningly without a required belief in evolution.  It may be true that many scientists believe in evolution, but most of them carry out their day-to-day work without any reference to evolution whatsoever.

Much more could be said in regard to Bill Nye’s comments (and others like him).  I really don’t even want to “pick on him”, because he is just one of many purporting the same humanistic worldview.  It just so happens that he has a lot of notoriety which means that the general public pays great attention to what he says.

I am unashamed to say that I am a “de-Nye’r” of evolution. (just a little play on words, meant only for subtle, creative humor and not meant to be demeaning or disrespectful.)  True science always comports with God’s Word.  However, those who have denied Him (God) will always come to the wrong conclusions about the origin and meaning of life, because their worldview (starting point) is off to begin with. (Romans 1: 18-22)

For much, much more information on this subject, I would highly recommend my book, Let There Be Light, the second edition of which is to be released this month (Sep 2012).  We are offering great discounts on the first edition, which is not even two years old yet!  Click here to order the first edition.

DISCOUNTED RATES ON FIRST EDITION:
$7.50 – single copy (50% off retail)
$5.00 – when purchasing 5 or more copies (67% off retail)

In the meantime, if you have any questions, we’d love to hear from you!  Contact us any time. You can even arrange a FREE ENGAGEMENT or seminar at your church, school, conference or camp.

Author: Jay Seegert (Co-Founder & Principal Lecturer, Creation Education Center)

An atheist is someone who says “There is no God!”  Hold on, not so… at least not according to the American Atheists (founded in 1963, www.Atheists.org). They are quite adamant about not letting others define who they are, which is very understandable, but one can’t help but see a contrast between what they officially state they believe and what they say in conversation and post on websites.

Taken directly off of Atheists.org:

“Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.”

“The only common thread that ties all atheists together is a lack of belief in gods and supernatural beings.”

“…we contemplated god in its many forms and decided it just doesn’t make an ounce of sense. This isn’t a choice, it’s fact – a logical proof. We are simply too logical to believe God is anything more than fantasy.”

They initially said that they are not denying “god” or “gods” exist, they only lack belief is such a being.  What?  Later, they state that belief in god doesn’t make an ounce of sense and is just pure fantasy.  So doesn’t that mean they don’t believe in a god (or “gods”)?  If they don’t believe in a god, does that not mean they disbelieve in a god?  But they said they don’t disbelieve in god.

Even with all that confusion, I will be taking this in a completely different direction.  We could ask official atheist organizations to define as specifically and accurately as possible exactly what they believe.  But maybe a better idea is to get fifty of the world’s leading psychologists to study the atheists over a period of ten years, then write a series of books and publish articles in the leading psychological research journals.  That would certainly tell us what they believe, right?  Well, I have an even better idea yet.  Why don’t we ask God what He thinks?  After all, He knows everything, right?

Since I am writing this from a Christian perspective, I do not feel, as a fallen human being, that I am in a position to tell God what parts of the Bible He actually inspired and which ones He didn’t.  I accept as my starting point (my presupposition) that God exists and all of Scripture is inspired, as is indicated in 2 Timothy 3:16.  Therefore, I believe that all the Bible conveys is true.  I know the atheist does not accept this, but this is my starting point and everything that I personally believe must be rooted in, and consistent with, God’s Word. With that in mind, what does it tell us about the atheist?  After all, what I might personally think about atheists may be of some interest to others, but ultimately my own opinions and philosophies really don’t matter… only what God tells us can be trusted with any real certainty.  Here are a few things God says about the atheist:

• “The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.” (Romans 1:18-20)  These verses tell us that everyone knows Gods exists, including the atheist, because God has made it plain to them.  However, they have chosen to suppress the truth.  Again, we could read every philosophy book that exists on atheism and conduct survey after survey in effort to determine what the atheist really believes and why, but God Himself is telling us that they know He exists.  This should be our starting point.  I’m not saying atheists admit He exists (they obviously don’t), but God says they actually do know.
• “The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.” (Psalm 14:1)  This is not name-calling.  God is simply stating that those who say there is no God are thinking foolishly.  Yes, they claim that God does not exist, but we just learned from Romans 1 that they know the truth, but are simply suppressing it.
• “Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.” (Romans 1:22)  They claim great enlightenment (e.g. “we’re just too logical”), but they truly are foolish.
• “For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God.” (I Corinthians 3:19)  Even the most brilliant atheist on the Earth knows nothing compared to God.
• “But the natural [unsaved] man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” (1 Corinthians 2:14)  The skeptic cannot on his own understand the things of God, because they are spiritually discerned.  The issue of God’s existence is ultimately a spiritual battle and not simply an academic argument.
• “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and instruction.” (Proverbs 1:7)  If appropriate reverence for God is the beginning of knowledge, then the atheist hasn’t really even begun to learn anything yet.  If they are also fools (which is what Scripture states) then we also learn from this verse that they “despise wisdom and instruction”.

So, are there people on this planet who claim to be atheists?  Yes.  Are these people atheists in reality?  No… not according to God who knows better than we do, because He created everyone to begin with and He tells us that “as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.” (Isaiah 55:9)

With this in mind, does it make sense for us to attempt to use science to prove to an atheist that God exists?  Does God even ask us to defend His existence?  The answer to both of these questions is “no”.  Ultimately, we need to share the truth of God’s Word with those who say they do not believe in God, including what God says about their position.  We also need to share the Gospel message or we will have nothing of any real substance to offer.  We must also keep in mind to do all of this “with gentleness and respect” (1 Peter 3:15) and to “speak the truth in love” (Ephesians 4:15).  God promises us that His Word will not return void, meaning that it will accomplish all that He wishes (Isaiah 55:11). It’s up to us to share and up to the Holy Spirit to convict (i.e. it is not all about us winning arguments, which is usually nothing more than an exercise in futility, anyway).

Much, much more could be said about all of this and perhaps we will cover more in this area in future articles.  In the meantime, if you have any questions, we’d love to hear from you!   Contact us any time.  You can even arrange a FREE ENGAGEMENT or seminar at your church, school, conference or camp.

Author: Jay Seegert (Co-Founder & Principal Lecturer, Creation Education Center)