Why defend Genesis when so many people don’t even believe in Jesus? Why not concentrate on defending the big issues, like the Gospel and the deity of Christ? Considering all the problems we have in society, should we really be focused on apologetics, rather than trying to change our culture? It takes time and effort to learn to defend biblical creation. Wouldn’t that time be better spent defending the important Christian doctrines, and fighting abortion, “gay marriage”, racism, and other social ills?

In part 1, we saw that information can be defined as an encoded, symbolic message entailing an expected action and intended purpose. And we looked at several examples and how they fulfill each of the four requirements. We here examine the laws of nature that pertain to the origin and transmission of information.

Modern science has confirmed biblical creation and challenged Darwinian evolution in many ways. One of the most powerful yet simple lines of evidence is in the field of information theory. This branch of science deals with the origin and transmission of information and is absolutely devastating to evolution. When we study information theory, we will find that particles-to-people evolution cannot occur because it would actually violate a law of nature.

We saw previously that the Bible can make sense of laws of logic and their properties, and that the three laws of thought are rooted in the nature of God. However, non-biblical worldviews cannot make sense of laws of logic or their properties.

Laws of logic are the rules of correct reasoning. They reflect the way God thinks and the way we must think if we are to think correctly. Laws of logic are also called “rules of inference.” Correct reasoning can never violate a law of logic. There are many laws of logic. But three are considered the most basic or primary.

Christians have a tendency to use certain “religious” terms that are either directly from Scripture, or which are used as shorthand to describe a biblical principle (such as the ‘Trinity’). There is nothing wrong with this. However, it can be a problem in communicating with unbelievers.