Apologetic Non-Starters: Arguments to Avoid in Defending Christianity

8 thoughts on “Apologetic Non-Starters: Arguments to Avoid in Defending Christianity”

  1. I don’t agree with your conclusion about Darwinism being scientific. Origins scenarios are always either historical (i.e. witness testimonies) or forensic, but both YEC and Darwinism have forensic evidence. Only one has the historical testimony.

  2. I understand the argument, we should not oversimplify things. A lack of evidence in a particular area does not automatically invalidate a theory. The Bible has been attacked in the past because there was a temporary lack of evidence to support a particular detail. However, the theory of evolution ought to meet certain minimal standards of scientific inquiry if we are to take it seriously. There ought to be solid evidence to support its assertions, and everything that I have read says that this evidence is lacking (see Darwin on Trial, for example). Further, the theory is inconsistent with natural laws (biogenesis, the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics). Moreover, since the evidence collected using the Hubble Telescope shows us that the universe is expanding, we can infer that the universe is not eternal. This leaves the theory of evolution with a gaping wound. It cannot explain the beginning of the universe or of any living thing naturalistically. And what is even more astounding is how the theory is sold to the public as a done deal.

  3. Another one is “Christianity is a relationship.” While if Christianity is true this is a unique truth, it is not a unique claim among religions. And too many Christians have adopted “relationship” as the shibboleth of the faith, instead of “faith.”

  4. What I find interesting about #3 is that that type of argument plays of what some sceptics will say about (scientific) truth. I’ve heard and read many who claim that the only truth is scientific truth and that all scientific truth is repeatable/observable. Basically, #3 plays off of the sceptics’ own (false) understanding of what science is.

    I think perhaps a better way to use this kind of argument is, “Based on your own definition of ‘science,’ your own view, Darwinism, isn’t science. And, given that only scientific truth is true, Darwinism isn’t true.”

    Honestly, I couldn’t care less about Darwinism. It’s a non-issue to me. I prefer to leave discussions of origins out of my apologetics discussions.

    1. 16le235109Hdlao there, just became alert to your blog through Google, and found that it is truly informative. I’m going to watch out for brussels. I will appreciate if you continue this in future. Many people will be benefited from your writing. Cheers!| 15a

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s