ARTICLE ARCHIVES
Evolution vs. Science
Evolution is fundamentally incompatible with the scientific method. That is, if neo-Darwinian evolution is true, then there would be no rational basis for trusting in scientific procedures. Conversely, if science is a reliable tool for understanding how the universe works, then particles-to-people evolution cannot be true.
Ultima Thule
A few days ago, the New Horizon’s spacecraft flew past the small trans-Neptunian object, 2014 MU69. At a distance of over 4 billion miles from earth, MU69 is the most distant object ever visited by a manmade instrument.
The Christmas Star
What was the star that led the wise men to Christ? Was it a conjunction of planets, a comet, a supernova, a moon, an angel, or something else? Opinions abound, but many of them do not fit the details of the biblical text. What does the Bible have to say about this star?
Darwin’s Trap
When Charles Darwin wrote “On the Origin of Species” in 1859, he employed an ingenious trick to persuade people of evolution. He linked evolution to natural selection, implying that natural selection was the mechanism of evolution. This was a clever trap because when something false (evolution) is linked with something true (natural selection), people are often fooled.
William Lane Craig on Genesis
Our critic this week is Dr. William Lane Craig, a philosophy professor and Christian apologist. Although Craig defends Scripture in some areas, he adamantly denies literal (6-day) creation in favor of the big bang and secular timescale.
Understanding Bahnsen… Again
Our feedback this week once again comes from Peter who is still convinced that I have misrepresented the presuppositional method. Peter claims that (1) all forms of circular reasoning are fallacious and (2) that the presuppositional method as advanced by Bahnsen and Van Til does not involve any circular reasoning.
Bahnsen on Circular Reasoning
Our critic this week, Peter, is not a critic of Christianity. Rather, he has criticized my previous article in which I show the difference between vicious (arbitrary) circular reasoning and virtuous (rationally necessary, or “spiral”) circular reasoning. Peter has an unargued philosophical bias that all circular reasoning is wrong / fallacious, and that the presuppositional method used by Bahnsen and Van Til does not employ circular reasoning.
The Ultimate Standard
We previously covered the Münchhausen trilemma: an argument that knowledge is impossible because it can never be ultimately justified. Any (true) belief must be based on a good reason in order to be considered knowledge. But the reason is only good if it also is based on a good reason, which is based on a good reason and so on.
The Chain of Reasoning
Knowledge begins with God (Proverbs 1:7). But what is the mechanism by which we reason to have knowledge of other things? How does our knowledge that the “sun is bright” depend on revelation from God? By what chain of reasoning are we able to know anything about anything? How do we prove our most basic, foundational belief?
Biblical Epistemology
“The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and instruction” (Proverbs 1:7). The fact that knowledge begins with God and that everyone has some degree of knowledge can be used in apologetics to expose the unbeliever’s suppressed knowledge of God. The argument is powerful and irrefutable. But what exactly is knowledge?
Biblical Authority Apologetics
What is presuppositional apologetics? The word ‘apologetics’ refers to giving a rational defense of the faith – in this case, the Christian Faith. It is a way of demonstrating that Christianity is true, and refuting allegations to the contrary. But how should we defend the faith? What method should we use?
The Canon
The books that comprise the Bible are referred to as the canon. But how do we know that the early Church got the canon correct?
The Bible vs. other Holy Books
The Bible claims to be written by God who moved men to pen His Word. We have seen that we have every reason to accept this claim. But we must eventually ask about other so-called holy books: non-biblical books that also claim to be inspired by God. In particular, what about the Quran or the book of Mormon? Are these also the Word of God?
Origin of the Bible: Part 3 – Accurate and Divine
We have seen that the Bible has been meticulously transmitted and accurately translated so that what we hold in our hands today is extremely faithful to the original texts. But how do we know that the original texts are true? And how do we validate the Bible’s claim that it is the Word of God?
Origin of the Bible: Part 2 – Translations
In terms of the number of manuscripts and the shortness of the time between the writing of a biblical book and its discovery, the Bible is more authentic than any ancient text by far. But the Bible’s uniqueness and authenticity do not – by themselves – prove that the Bible is true or that it is the Word of God. And what about the Bible’s translation? Can we trust that our modern English translations are faithful to the original?