The next section of I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist deals with the design of life. It focuses particularly on the most difficult problem of all for Darwinists – where did the first life come from?

The authors point out that the first problem when talking about evolution is in its definition. Darwinists make no distinction between microevolution and macroevolution, and thus use the evidence for micro to prove macro. Microevolution has been observed (changes within species), but it can’t be used as evidence for macroevolution, which has never been observed (the evolving of one organism into another kind of organism). Natural selection, the device Darwinists say that powers evolution, has never been observed to create new types.

There are five reasons the authors list to explain why natural selection can’t create new life. For one thing, there seems to be genetic limits built into basic types of animals. For example, dog breeders create different kinds of dogs, but the dogs always remain dogs. Secondly, the change that occurs within types of animals appears to be cyclical rather than directed toward the development of new life forms. The two authors use an example of Darwin’s finches, which were noted as having varying beak sizes depending on the weather. No new life forms came into existence; only the beak sizes changed in these birds. The third reason involves something called irreducible complexity. Living things are filled with molecular machines that are irreducibly complex, meaning that all the parts of each machine have to be completely formed and in the right places and in the right size in the correct operating order at the same time for the machine to function. The authors use as an example a car engine, which needs so many systems to operate together for success. These complex biological systems could not have developed in a gradual Darwinian fashion because intermediate forms would be nonfunctional. All the right parts must be in place in the right size at the same time for there to be any function at all. A fourth problem with natural selection is the non-viability of transitional forms. The authors use as an example the Darwinian assertion that birds evolved gradually from reptiles. Such a change would necessitate a transition from scales to feathers, but how could a creature survive that no longer has scales but does not quite have feathers? A creature with the structure of half a feather has no ability to fly. Finally, the authors discuss molecular isolation. If all species share a common ancestor, the authors indicate we should expect to find proteins sequences that are transitional from fish to amphibian, for example. That’s not what is found. Scientists have discovered that the basic types are molecularly isolated from one another, which seems to preclude any type of ancestral relationship.

But Darwinists say the fossil record supports their position – does it? It actually lines of better with supernatural creation. There aren’t missing links – there’s a missing chain. Nearly all the major groups of animals known to exist appear in the fossil record abruptly and fully formed in strata from the Cambrian time period. This is been called the Cambrian explosion or biology’s Big Bang. This, of course, is completely inconsistent with Darwinism. There’s no evidence of gradual evolution but of instantaneous creation instead.

Again, I’m going to quit at this point even though I have not finished the chapter in the book. There’s plenty here to think about.

This blog is a continuation of a summary of a powerful book, I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist by Geisler and Turek.. The last time I discussed the book I was working my way through a chapter about the complexity of life. This time I would like to finish that particular chapter, which talks about the philosophy behind Darwinism and materialism.

The authors say Darwinists have been successful in convincing the public that Darwinism represents science while those who oppose Darwinism represent bad science. However, Geisler and Turek say just the opposite. It’s the Darwinists who are practicing the bad science because their science is built on a false philosophy.

Where does Darwinism go wrong? Many Darwinists start with the idea that God is not necessary because science can explain everything. But there are all sorts of rational beliefs that cannot be proven by science: mathematics and logic (science can’t prove them because science presupposes them), metaphysical truths (for example, there are minds that exist other than my own), ethical judgments (you can’t prove by science that Mother Teresa was good because morality is not part of the scientific method), aesthetic judgments (no one can scientifically prove something is beautiful), and science itself (the belief that the scientific method discovers truth ironically can’t be proven by the scientific method itself).

The key point the authors wish to get across is that science itself is built on philosophy. So, if you have bad philosophy, you get bad science. How is it that science is built on philosophy? First, scientists use philosophical assumptions and the search for causes. For example, scientists assume by faith that reason and the scientific method allow us to accurately understand our world. You can’t prove the tools of science by some sort of experiment – the laws of logic, the law of causality, the principle of uniformity. Secondly, philosophical assumptions can dramatically impact scientific conclusions. I think right now about the debate on climate change. Many scientists are getting a conclusion that they wish to get to keep the scientific funding going.

The authors say the bad science of Darwinists essentially comes from their false philosophy of naturalism/materialism. Geisler and Turek have five reasons why materialism is not reasonable. First, there is specified complexity in life that cannot be explained materially. Think about the DNA message. Secondly, human thoughts and theories are not comprised only of materials. How much does love weigh? Third, if life was simply material, then we could take these materials and make a living being. But we cannot do that. Fourth, if materialism is true, then all people of human history who had spiritual experiences have been completely mistaken. That’s hard to believe considering the list of those who have had such experiences – think of Abraham, Moses, Kepler, Newton, Pascal, Gandhi, Martin Luther King, and Jesus Christ. Fifth, if materialism is true then reason itself is impossible. Why? If mental processes are nothing but chemical reactions in our brains, why should we believe that anything is true? Chemicals don’t reason, they react. We would be doomed to conclusions based on chemical reactions rather than reason.

Well, that’s a lot of heady material to consider, and it deserves further thought. But I think it’s pretty powerful.

I have been blogging on a book that our class at church will be reading together–I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist by Geisler and Turek. For this entry I want to cover what is probably my favorite section of the whole book. It involves the argument from design, also called the teleological argument. It looks like this: every design had a designer; the universe has highly complex design; therefore, the universe had a designer. In the last few years science has uncovered so much evidence of complexity in the universe that argues powerfully for the existence of God.

For one thing, the universe is specifically organized to enable life to exist on earth. Think about just the solar system–no other place is able to sustain life. We live, like Goldilocks, in a just-right position, neither too hot (Venus) or too cold (Mars).We have around us scores of improbable and interdependent life-supporting conditions that make earth a perfect home in a hostile universe. These highly precise environmental conditions go by the term “anthropic principle.” The universe looks fine-tuned to support human life here on earth.

What are some of these conditions that are exactly right? I’ll just list some, skipping the details, but the book explains each more fully: the percent of oxygen in the atmosphere, the transparency of our atmosphere, the moon-Earth gravitational interaction, the amount of carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere, the gravitational force in the universe, the expansion rate of the universe, the velocity of light, the level of water vapor in the atmosphere, the precise location of Jupiter in the solar system, the thickness of the Earth’s crust, the rotation of the earth, the tilt of the Earth’s axis, the rate of lightning in the atmosphere, seismic activity on the earth. There are something like 122 of these conditions both on earth and throughout the universe that have to be precisely right for us to exist.

The authors quote a Nobel Laureate, Arno Penzias, who has this to say after examining the conditions like the ones in the previous paragraph: “Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing and delicately balanced to provide exactly the conditions required to support life. In the absence of an absurdly-improbable accident, the observations of modern science seem to suggest an underlying, one might say, supernatural plan.”

The skeptic’s response comes in several flavors. One popular one today is called the Multiple Universe Theory. This theory says there actually is an infinite number of universes in existence, so it’s no wonder that at least one looks like the one that we are in. There are significant problems with this explanation. First, there is no evidence for it. Secondly, an infinite number of finite things like universes is an actual impossibility. Third, even if there were other universes, they would need fine-tuning to get started just as ours did.

This chapter in Geisler and Turek’s book discusses design of the universe, but there is much more to this design argument. The other area of design that is so powerful today has to do with the microscopic level. Design that went unnoticed in Darwin’s day is being revealed in exiting ways. I’ll cover those in the next blog.

I want to return to an important book called I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist by Geisler and Turek. The first couple of chapters dealt with arguments for the existence of truth. The authors move to a new chapter in which they attempt to prove that God exists. Their first argument is called the Cosmological Argument.

t\They start with a story of Albert Einstein. It was in 1916 when Einstein’s calculations revealed the universe had a definite beginning. This upset Einstein as well as other physicists who wanted the universe to be static and eternal. Why should they care about the beginning of the universe? Because it allowed for God as creator.

Einstein’s work hinted at the possibility of God for a simple reason. His theory of General Relativity supported one of the oldest formal arguments for the existence of a theistic God — the Cosmological Argument. It sounds complicated but it’s very simple. In logical form, the argument looks like this: everything that had a beginning had a cause; the universe had a beginning; therefore, the universe had a cause. This cause came to be called the Big Bang.

The authors give five reasons to prove the universe had a beginning with this Big Bang. First, the Second Law of Thermodynamics, also called the Law of Entropy, says that nature tends to bring things to disorder. We see that the universe still has some order left with some usable energy, so the universe cannot be eternal. Secondly, we have found over the last 75 years that the universe is expanding; if we could watch a video recording of the history of the universe in reverse, we would see everything in the universe collapsing back to point. Another piece of scientific evidence is the cosmic background radiation, which is actually light and heat left over from the initial explosion of the Big Bang. A fourth clue was the discovery of slight variations in the temperature of the cosmic background radiation. These temperature ripples enabled matter to congregate by gravitational attraction into galaxies. A fifth supporting fact is Einstein’s theory of General Relativity, which shows that time, space, and matter are interdependent; you can’t have one without the others. This theory demands an absolute beginning for all three.

The book contains an interesting quotation from Robert Jastrow, the director of Mount Wilson and founder of NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies. He is an agnostic when it comes to religious matters, so this is not someone in the camp of Christianity. He writes, “Now we see how the astronomical evidence leads to a biblical view of the origin of the world. The details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same: the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy.” In other words, Genesis seems to give a good picture of the Big Bang.

Why does God have to be dragged into this? Couldn’t natural forces have produced the universe? Here’s the key point — natural forces, in fact all of nature, were created at the Big Bang. There was no natural world or natural law prior to the Big Bang. Something outside of nature had to do the job, and that’s where the term “supernatural” comes into the picture.

At this point, when God is suggested as the Beginner, atheists come up with an age-old question: “Then who made God? If everything needs a cause, that God needs a cause too.” But the Law of Causality does not say that everything needs a cause. It says that everything that comes into being needs a cause. God did not come into being. No one made God. He is unmade. As an eternal being, God did not have a beginning, so he didn’t need a cause.

What characteristics of God can be seen from the evidence discussed in this chapter? He must be self existent, timeless, non-spatial, and immaterial. He must be unimaginably powerful. He must be supremely intelligent. He must be personal in order to choose to convert a state of nothingness into the time-space-material universe.

The authors end the chapter with a key question: “If there is no God, why is there something rather than nothing?” Good point.

So here’s the last of several blogs in reaction to Jimmy Carter’s pronouncement that Islam and Christianity are the same in their treatment of women. That’s simply not true. I’ve gone through the New Testament’s comments on women to show how much females were raised in relation to the culture around them. For this last blog, I’d like to acknowledge some problems within the church but end on the positive things that have come about due to the high status of women the gospels and letters of the New Testament proclaim.

Yes, Jimmy Carter was on to something—there have been church leaders in the past who have denigrated women. Some people mistakenly believe these contemptuous beliefs of the church fathers are rooted in an anti-female Bible, but that couldn’t be farther from the truth. People held these wrong beliefs in spite of, not because of, the biblical teachings. Those individuals allowed themselves to be shaped by the beliefs of the surrounding pagan, anti-female culture. It’s unfortunate that some of them didn’t allow the woman-honoring principles found in Scripture to change their unbiblical beliefs. But that’s the failing of imperfect followers of Jesus, not a failure of God or the New Testament.

Let’s consider the years since then. Over and over we see the positive results of a faith that emphasizes the value of women. As Christianity spread throughout the world, its redemptive effects elevated women and set them free in many ways. The Christian ethic declared equal worth and value for both men and women. Husbands were commanded to love their wives and not exasperate their children. These principles were in direct conflict with the Roman culture, which gave a husband absolute power of life and death over his family, including the wife.

The biblical view of husbands and wives as equal partners caused a huge change in marriage as well. Christian women started marrying later, and they married men of their own choosing. This eroded the ancient practice of men marrying child brides against their will, often as young as eleven or twelve years old. The greater marital freedom that Christianity gave women eventually gained wide appeal. Today, a Western woman is not compelled to marry someone she does not want, nor can she legally be married as a child bride. But the practice continues in parts of the world where Christianity has little or no presence. Consider Islam—Mohammed married a six-year old and had sex with her within three years. How’s that for a contrast with Christian values?

Another effect of the salt and light of Christianity was its impact on the common practice of polygamy, which demeans women. Many men, including biblical heroes, had multiple wives, but Jesus made clear this was never God’s intention. Whenever he spoke about marriage, it was always in the context of monogamy. He said, “The two [not three or four] will become one flesh.” As Christianity spread, God’s intention of monogamous marriages became the norm.

Two more cruel practices were abolished as Christianity gained influence. In some cultures, such as India, widows were burned alive on their husbands’ funeral pyres. It ended when the British intervened, thanks to their Christian faith. In China, the crippling practice of foot binding was intended to make women totter on their pointed, slender feet in a seductive manner. It was finally outlawed only about a hundred years ago.

As a result of Jesus Christ and His teachings, women in much of the world today, especially in the West, enjoy more privileges and rights than at any other time in history. It takes only a cursory trip to an Arab nation or to a Third World country to see how little freedom women have in countries where Christianity has had little or no presence. It’s the best thing that ever happened to women, despite the pronouncements of Jimmy Carter.

I’d like to do a further blog on Christianity and the role of women, thanks to alarming comments by Jimmy Carter, who suggested Islam and Christianity have a similar outlook on women—seeing them as second class. That’s far from the truth. Let’s take a look at Paul’s comments in the New Testament, which, unfortunately, many have seen as insulting to women.

One passage by Paul which has stirred controversy is found in 1 Timothy 2:11-14 where the author seems to tell Timothy that women should be in submission to men and should keep quiet in church. But is that what he really said? His remarks may have been for that culture, not ours because in other places Paul talks about greeting each other with a holy kiss and the necessity for head coverings, practices which are now nonexistent. So that’s one possibility. Then you have to see another passage (Titus 2) where Paul encourages older women to teach younger women—so apparently it was OK for women to talk and teach others. In addition, the verb in the original is different from what we usually see –“I do not permit” actually is “I am not permitting at this time.” That’s a big difference. There may have been a particular issue of confusion and noise that Paul was dealing with in one particular church.

Then there’s 1 Timothy 3:1-4 where Paul gives requirements for overseers in the church. It seems like he’s excluding women here because he uses the male pronoun. But again, if you look at the original Greek, it says “If a man or woman desire” to indicate either sex could qualify.

Take a look at 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, in which Paul seems to tell women to keep quiet in church. However, go back a couple of chapters in the same letter and see 11:5 where Paul tells women how to go about praying or prophesying. So it looks like it was OK for women to talk in church. Paul probably is speaking here about disorderly talking rather than any talking.

Keep in mind several things here. These passages were all from pastoral letters rather than general theological letters. Paul was addressing particular needs in particular churches in a particular culture. Secondly, our translations may not reflect clearly the original Greek. Finally, we have to balance these statements with others that definitely support equality—see Galatians 3:27-28 and Ephesians 5:21.

So Paul may be getting hit unfairly with charges of hostility to women. It strikes me as ironic how some very conservative church leaders can use these verses in an attempt to shut out women yet rely on these same women to teach Sunday school, lead music, and head up many programs at church. You can’t have it both ways—either keep the women from any role in the church or allow them to speak and teach.

Did Jimmy Carter get it right? Does Christianity share Islam’s disregard for women? I don’t think so.

In my last blog, I reacted to Jimmy Carter, who was quoted recently as saying all religions have treated women badly. I wanted to set the record straight—Christianity has done much to elevate the significance of women. I covered the way Jesus dealt with women. This time I’d like to turn to Peter and Paul to see how they viewed women.

Peter encouraged women to consider themselves as valuable because God saw them as valuable. His call to aspire to the inner beauty of a trusting and tranquil spirit is staggeringly counter-cultural, especially in today’s world where women are seen as objects. He writes, “Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as braided hair and the wearing of gold jewelry and fine clothes. Instead, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God’s sight. For this is the way the holy women of the past who put their hope in God used to make themselves beautiful.”

Equally staggering is Peter’s call to men to elevate their wives with respect and understanding: “Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers.” Consideration, respect, fellow heirs—these were concepts totally alien to men of Peter’s generation.

The biggest criticism of Christianity and its view of women is due to statements by Paul. He is often accused of being a misogynist, one who hates and fears women. But Paul’s teachings on women reflect the creation order and high value God places on women as creatures made in his image. Take a look at what he had to say in Ephesians 5–he challenges men to love their wives in the self-sacrificing way Christ loves the church. In a culture where a wife was nothing but property, Paul elevates women to a position of honor previously unknown in the world.

Paul also provided highly countercultural direction for the New Testament church. Consider the Jewish synagogue–women had no place and no voice in worship. In the pagan temples, the place of women was to serve as prostitutes. The church, on the other hand, was a place for women to pray and prophecy out loud (1 Cor. 11:5). Spiritual gifts used to build up the church are given to women as well as men. Older women are commanded to teach younger ones. The invitation to women to participate in worship of Jesus was unique in that day.

Maybe next time I can look closely at a couple of passages that critics especially love to point out as representative of Paul’s distrust of women.

Jimmy Carter has done it again. In today’s Drudge Report he says much of the discrimination and abuse suffered by women around the world is attributable to a belief “that women are inferior in the eyes of God.” Carter said such teachings by “leaders in Christianity, Islam and other religions” allow men to beat their wives and deny women their fundamental rights as human beings. Once more he sees a moral equivalency between Christianity and Islam where it doesn’t exist. He needed to explain that Christianity has elevated the status of women. So, for the next couple of blogs, I’d like to explore that idea further in hopes of clarifying what our “beloved” former President has said.

What would be the status of women in the Western world today if Jesus had never been born? Let’s compare their status in the West with that of women under the control of Islam. In most present-day Islamic countries, women are still denied many rights that are available to men, and when they appear in public, they must be veiled. In Saudi Arabia, for instance, women are even barred from driving an automobile. In many Arab countries where the Islamic religion is adhered to strongly, a man has the right to beat and sexually desert his wife, all with the full support of the Koran.

This command is the polar opposite of what the New Testament says regarding a man’s relationship with his wife. Paul told the Christians in Ephesus, “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her.” And he added, “He who loves his wife loves himself.” Jesus loved women and treated them with great respect and dignity.

The New Testament’s teaching on women also wasn’t found in the Greco-Roman culture of Jesus’ time. In ancient Greece, for example, a respectable woman was not allowed to leave the house unless she was accompanied by a trustworthy male escort. A wife was not permitted to eat or interact with male guests in her husband’s home; she had to retire to her woman’s quarters. Men kept their wives under lock and key, and women had the social status of a slave. Girls were not allowed to go to school, and when they grew up, they were not allowed to speak in public. Women were considered inferior to men.

The status of Roman women was also very low. Roman law placed a wife under the absolute control of her husband, who had ownership of her and all her possessions. He could divorce her if she went out in public without a veil. A husband had the power of life and death over his wife, just as he did his children. As with the Greeks, women were not allowed to speak in public.

Even the Jewish faith, from which Christianity grew, failed to give women a high status. Jewish women were barred from public speaking. The oral law prohibited women from reading the Torah out loud. Synagogue worship was segregated, with women never allowed to be heard.

Now, consider how Jesus interacted with women–what a difference. Let’s look at the story of his encounter with a Samaritan woman at a well in John 4. How he dealt with her was extremely unusual, even radical. He ignored the Jewish anti-Samaritan prejudices along with prevailing view that saw women as inferior beings. He started a conversation with her—a Samaritan, a woman—in public. The rabbinic oral law was explicit: “He who talks with a woman [in public] brings evil upon himself.” Another rabbinic teaching prominent in Jesus’ day taught, “One is not so much as to greet a woman.” So we can understand why his disciples were amazed to find him talking to a woman in public. Today we read this story unaware of what a powerful statement Jesus is making here regarding the rights and dignity of women.

There are many other ways Jesus demonstrated his regard for women. Mary, Martha and Lazarus entertained Jesus at their home. He allowed Mary to do what only men had been allowed to do, namely, learn from Jesus’ teachings. Mary was the cultural deviant, but so was Jesus, because he violated the rabbinic law of his day [about speaking to women]. By teaching Mary spiritual truths, he violated another rabbinic law, which said, “Let the words of the Law [Torah] be burned rather than taught to women. In addition, women followed Jesus, a highly unusual phenomenon in first-century Palestine. This behavior may not seem unusual to us today, but in Jesus’ day it was highly unusual. Scholars note that in the prevailing culture only prostitutes and women of very low repute would follow a man without a male escort. Another example is that of Jesus’ resurrection scene. The first people Jesus chose to appear to were women; not only that, but he instructed them to tell his disciples that he was alive. In a culture where a woman’s testimony was worthless because she was worthless, Jesus elevated the value of women beyond anything the world had seen.

Does anyone see anything like this concern for the status of women in other religious movements, especially Islam? Nope. Let me continue this in a future blog. In the meantime, enjoy the colorful comments of Jimmy Carter as the fiction which they are.

In the middle of April I will be giving a presentation to the post-college group at our church on the topic of the uniqueness of Jesus. I’ve been doing some research on the topic–it’s amazing how many different ways Jesus stands out from other religious leaders.

First, the sources of information about him are unique. They are much closer to his time than any source for other religious leaders. Plus, there are so many of them – roughly 5000 Greek manuscripts survive. In addition, these sources are written by eyewitnesses or by those who talked to eyewitnesses, so there’s a great authenticity to what is reported.

Jesus is also unique in the prophecies made about him and the fulfillment of these prophecies. I won’t take the time here to list all the Bible references, but throughout the Old Testament there are passages that relate to the coming of the Messiah – his lineage, the tribe he will belong to, when he will be born, where he will be born, the type of birth he will have, his childhood in Egypt, the purpose of his death, the method of his death, and, finally, a resurrection.

Events surrounding the life of Jesus were unique as well. His birth, his miracles, and his exorcisms all were unique when compared to other religious leaders. Something that is particularly special for a Jewish man was his acceptance of worship from his followers. No Jew was supposed to be worshiped; this was reserved for God.

What Jesus said was unique. Instead of being a typical rabbi who tried to explain the law, Jesus reinterpreted it, taking the role of God himself (“. . . but I tell you”). He made startling claims about his divinity, his existence, his ability to forgive sins, his future role as judge of all. Besides this, he made promises for his followers then and now – if they believed in him, he would grant them eternal life. Can you imagine someone at work telling you, “I am the way . . . I am the resurrection and the life”?

What friends said about him was unique. Peter called him Messiah, Thomas exclaimed “My Lord and my God,” and John said Jesus existed with God before the world began and was responsible for creating everything. No other religious leader had his/her followers saying anything like this.

What his enemies said about him was also unique. Jewish leaders of the time accused him of blasphemy because they knew he claimed to be God. In the Jewish Talmud, written after Jesus ascended to heaven, references are made to his supernatural powers, which are credited to satanic influence. But note that this Jewish source does admit Jesus performed miracles. Plus, there are Roman historians, no friends of Jesus, who talk of him receiving worship reserved for the gods.

Jesus is also unique because of his positive impact on the world. No other religious authority has done so much to improve the human race. Women were esteemed more highly, hospitals were founded, universities were set up, capitalism and free enterprise came about, civil liberties were proclaimed, modern science got its start, the common individual was elevated, life was considered more precious – all in the name of Jesus.

Finally, his relationship to the religion he founded was unique. All other religious leaders can be taken out of their religions. For example, Islam functions perfectly well with or without Mohammed. So does Buddhism, Mormonism, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Christian Science, Scientology, and all the others. But this is not the case with Christianity. Take Jesus out of Christianity, and the entire structure collapses. The old cliché is true: “Christianity is a relationship, not a religion.”

When we look at all of these points, we have to make a decision. Jesus has to be one of four things – liar, lunatic, legend, or Lord. But Jesus doesn’t exhibit characteristic traits of a liar. In addition, his teaching does not suggest a disturbed mind. But what about Jesus as legend? That’s not a good option either because very little time elapsed between the events of his life and the writings of the Gospels. Much more time is required if legend is to creep in. So, were left with one choice – Jesus is Lord.

This is a quick blog today dealing with similar ideas obtained from two different sources.

The first is from Greg Koukl, a great source of wisdom and practical knowledge about all apologetics issues. He’s on the radio every Sunday from 2-5 p.m. on KBRT-AM 740. If you can’t listen to him, go to his web site (str.org) for downloads and great articles.

He was talking to someone about the issue of morality. He claims atheists can be moral, but they have no grounding (ultimate reason) for their morality. He ended the conversation by saying something simple but profound. Atheists and evolutionists can talk a good morality line, but they fail at a key point. Evolution is descriptive—it tries to tell what happened. But morality is prescriptive—it tries to tell what we ought to do.

These are two very different things. They don’t overlap. You can talk all you want about how things came about, but you’ll never be able to say why we should obey the rules that you say have evolved.

The second reference to this concept came about from a CD I’m listening to. It’s The Lamb and the Fuhrer by Ravi Zacharias, an imagined discussion between Jesus and Adolf Hitler. This question came up: “How can you make moral judgments in a world without moral laws?” We see this today—people refuse to say things are truly immoral because they have jettisoned the idea of moral laws, existing beyond the whims and opinions of fallible human beings. If there is no higher morality and it’s all a matter of taste, then we can’t judge anything as immoral.

But it’s impossible to live this way, so we hear people complaining of true moral issues (“the war is wrong,” “that’s immoral,” he’s guilty of genocide,” etc.). We need to call them on it. If they have turned their back on the existence of a God who has standards of morality, they can only say they don’t like the issue at hand. Morality becomes an issue like flavors of ice cream—we like some and dislike others.

Those who say God doesn’t exist don’t want to do this, so they act as if there is true morality in their issues. They have smuggled in Christian morality while rejecting the God who established the standards. Again, we need to remind them of their double-mindedness.