Category Archives: presuppositional apologetics

The Confusion of Catholicism

Posted on by
5

It will be a shock to no one that the Reformed Church and Roman Catholics disagree about authority. While the Reformed Church accepts the revelation of the Almighty in the Bible, the Roman Catholics hold to a splintered authority structure that gives the Magisterium/Vatican, Catholic traditions, and the Bible to have equal authority over matters of faith and practice.

This difference was highlighted in the fall of 2025 when the Bishop of Rome, Leo XIV, addressed a question about rewarding an American Democratic Senator, who has a notorious record for supporting the murder of unborn children. Rather than chastising the supposedly Catholic senator for pushing a platform that is obviously against the teachings of the Vatican, Roman traditions, and the Bible, the Pope completely capitulated to Leftist ideology by answering: “I think that is very important to look at the overall work that this Senator has done during…40 years of service…Someone that says they are against abortion but says they are in favor of the death penalty is not really pro-life.” Ignoring the fact that the Pope equivocated the just punishment of a criminal with the unjust murder of the unborn, the Pope’s comments (correctly) raised the hackles of many self-professing Catholics, who do indeed hold to a pro-life position.

This brings up the crux of the disagreement between the Reformed and the Roman: By what standard can a Catholic disagree with the Vatican? If the person that they believe is God’s Vicar on Earth (or any priest/bishop/cardinal in Roman Catholicism) makes a declaration that is in disagreement with the Bible, how can a mere Catholic disagree?

I asked a very knowledgeable and well-spoken Catholic this question on X, and this is his response:

Let’s analyze this response to see if it is valid or confusion:

  1. “I know a bishop or priest is in error when he contradicts the teaching authority of the Church”
    • Unfortunately for Catholics, the bishops/priests/cardinals ARE the representatives of the Roman Catholic Church. A Catholic has no authority to which to appeal to criticize the teaching authority of Rome because the bishops and priests ARE the teaching authority of the Vatican. In this case, the bishop of Rome (Pope) is (according to them) Christ’s vicar on Earth. They believe he is the supreme authority over the Roman Catholics because he is supposed to be the representative of Christ Himself. So, if a Catholic doesn’t like something that the Pope says – too bad! They have nothing higher to appeal to than Christ’s representative. If they believe that the pope is mistaken (according to their OWN beliefs), they need to change themselves, because the pope represents the church and Christ Himself. To disagree with the Vicar of Christ is to reject their own beliefs
    • In the never ending debate between the Reformed and the Romans, SOLA SCRIPTURA is brought up. As a Reformed Christian I recognize and yield to the authority of God’s Word as the preeminent authority over matters of faith and practice. The Catholics inevitably say: “Scripture doesn’t interpret itself. You just believe your own interpretation of the Bible”. For sake of argument, I’ll just accept that assertion in this case, but I will push back on their own presuppositions. The reason that the Catholic gives for having a “better” epistemology is that they have the local priest/bishop to correct their private interpretation. I’m sure you noticed the problem: The Catholic in the screenshot above reserved the right to criticize bishops and priest as being in error, but they rely on the bishops and priests to correct the private interpretations of the Bible. It’s circular confusion. They can’t “know a bishop or priest is in error” since it is the bishop or priest on whom they rely to correct private interpretations. Confusion reigns for these poor Catholics.
  2. “The church has two thousand years of consistent teaching”
    • Regarding the claim that Rome has had two thousand years of consistent teaching, I will point out that the Roman Catholics have a consistent tradition of adding new traditions:
      • Purgatory 1274 AD (2nd Council of Lyon)
      • Indulgences 1415 AD (Council of Constance)
      • Papal Infallibility 1870 (1st Vatican Council)
      • Mary Queen of Heaven 1954 AD (Pope Pius XII)
      • Today, the Roman Catholics aren’t known primarily for their commitment to the gospel of Jesus. They are instead known for their trendy traditions: Mariology, indulgences, purgatory, and focus on the Pope (including papal infallibility). These traditions are obviously not found in the Bible, but Rome continues to add these manmade traditions to their religion as if they have the same authority as scripture itself. In this situation with the pope capitulating to the leftist’s mantra about “you can’t be pro-life if you support the death penalty”, who is to say that this isn’t a new tradition that the current bishop of Rome is adding? In the same week, the Pope was roundly panned for blessing a block of ice at a pagan global warming ceremony. Who’s to say that blessing ice or supporting globalist initiatives won’t be new traditions of Roman Catholics? Certainly not Catholics, who might dislike the optics or the new direction of doctrines. They have no consistent standard to question (in their beliefs) “The Vicar of Christ on Earth”!!!
      • If the pope refuses to stand against abortion by the authority of the church against the state (in this case, a Senator), what good is his supposed authority? It was for such a time as this that the pope could rightly condemn a state representative for heretical views. Senator Durbin claims to be under the authority of the Vatican, yet he has persistently and callously voted for the continuation of child murder (abortion). Isn’t the pope Catholic? Why won’t he exhort (in the strongest possible terms) the political support by Senator Durbin of the genocide of the unborn?

What About Protestants?

The second half of Aaronaeus’s post was to ask about the protestants. How do protestants determine what is the right interpretation of scripture?

  1. Perspicuity of Scripture – This concept that comes from the Bible itself tells us that the Bible is clear. It can be understood. Does that mean that EVERY single passage of scripture is easily understood on its first reading? No. The doctrine of perspicuity is “that the central message of the Bible is clear and understandable and that the Bible itself can be properly interpreted in a normal, literal sense.” In 2 Peter 3:16, the apostle tells us that some things are hard to understand. Immediately following, Peter tells his audience to grow in grace and knowledge. How does one grow in grace and knowledge? Proverbs 2:6 says that knowledge comes from the mouth of the LORD (the Bible). Psalm 119 “Teach me knowledge and good judgment, for I trust your commands” (the Bible). Reformed Christians can also gain knowledge from faithful teachers of the Bible in their Bible-believing church. And we should listen to those, who have worked hard spending time building a faithful Christian worldview based on the Bible. Let God’s word, through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, give you knowledge from the mouth of God. As Christians, we should be studying God’s word and letting the faithful preaching of the word in the Bible-believing reformed church change our lives for the better. Someone might bring up 1 Corinthians 2:14 which says that the unspiritual person CANNOT understand the things of the Spirit. This is true, but this is not the claim of the Catholic. Those, whose hearts have been regenerated by the Holy Spirit DO have access to guidance by the Holy Spirit in matters of understanding God’s revelation.
    • Deuteronomy 6:6-7
    • 2 Timothy 3:14-15
    • Psalm 19:7
    • Psalm 119:130
    • Romans 3:21-22
    • I Corinthians 14:33
    • Matthew 28:19-20
  2. Denial of Pervasive Interpretive Pluralism – Implicit in Aaronaeus’s post is the idea that ANY and ALL protestant interpretations are equally faithful to the biblical text. I deny interpretive pluralism. While there are extremely minor acceptable interpretations within Christendom, the post-modern reinterpretations of the Bible to accommodate worldliness, modern paradigms, sexual perversion, and prosperity “gospels” are rejected because they are internally inconsistent.
  3. SOLA SCRIPTURA – When God speaks, that is the authority. SOLA SCRIPTURA has been shown to be the authoritative structure by which Christians should live, so I won’t duplicate the effort of Christian philosophers who’ve done the work before me.
  4. Acts 17 – When the Bereans were faced with what they thought might be a new gospel from the apostle Paul, they did not call the supposed pope (Peter) to confirm whether it was ok for them to accept the arrival of the Messiah in Jesus. They went to the scriptures to test. The highest authority was what God had revealed in scripture, and when they tested Paul by them, they were commended by God. This is proof that the scriptures have greater weight than an ecclesiastical structure to which Roman Catholics yield.
  5. God’s ability to communicate > than man’s ability to communicate. God has spoken through his word, and by God’s grace, we have the ability to read it. Under guidance by the Holy Spirit, the Christian is able to discern God’s Word. What the Catholic church teaches, is that lay people CANNOT discern God’s Word; they must get the infallible interpretation based on Rome’s manmade traditions mixed with the Vatican’s ever-changing interpretation. The Catholics say that you must listen only to what Rome says. Only Rome’s interpretation matters. I’ve asked Catholics several times where I can find the infallible interpretation of every verse in the Bible, so that I would know what Rome’s infallible interpretation is, but they can never provide it. The Catholic will be tempted to say: “whose interpretation is valid?” Firstly, it is not the entity that teaches Mariology, indulgences, and blesses ice. Secondly, the faithful Christian will strive for the best and most consistent application of using scripture to interpret scripture. While the scriptures are generally perspicuous, there are passages that need deeper study. So, we use the plain to interpret the obscure. We know from Luke 24:27 that ALL of scripture is about Jesus, and with this general principle in mind, we can (with the help of the Holy Spirit & faithful pastors/teachers) discern the correct interpretation. If there is dispute, we reason from the scriptures (the highest authority) to have consistency.
  6. Distraction fallacies
    • Sweeping generalization: The sweeping generalization fallacy is: since most everyone disagrees about most things, then everyone disagrees about everything. For Catholics it takes the form of: “There are 40,000 protestant denominations.” One of the worst and most common misrepresentations from Catholics about protestants is that when people reject the Vatican that everyone splinters into irreconcilable denominations. Firstly, this is a hypocritical claim because the Catholic church has many denominations…perhaps as many as 250. These Catholic denominations have been deceived by the things of the world. Secondly, just because some protestants have a disagreement about some doctrine is NOT proof that everyone disagrees about everything in unreconcilable divisions. It’s fallacious.
    • Hasty generalization: A hasty generalization is taking a small sample size and applying it universally. So they fallaciously say: “private interpretation leads to snake handling because there’s a protestant sect that lets snakes bite them, so all protestant doctrine is false.” Catholics believe that since A protestant denomination misinterpreted the biblical text, then ALL protestants have misinterpreted the biblical text. It’s fallacious.
    • Equivocation fallacy: “The Catholic church as 1 single interpretation given to them from the Pope, so protestants must too”. It’s a perspective that views tribe as important rather than the biblical text itself. This is covered in the section below
  7. Another implicit claim of the Catholics regarding the debate between the authority of Rome’s traditions vs. the authority of scripture, is TRIBE. For the Roman Catholics, it’s not so much about which doctrine or which interpretation speaks most consistently, it is “Are you a part of my theological tribe (Roman Catholicism)?”. They get the idea that there’s a Catholic tribe and a protestant tribe, so they think that the protestant tribe is both wrong (since it’s not in the Catholic tribe) and internally splintered since there are so many interpretations. I’ve already shown why Catholicism itself is wrong, but their belief that there is a single protestant tribe is also incorrect. Christians, who are reformed, don’t consider membership in a particular “tribe” to be what’s important. We consider what the text actually says/means to be what’s important for doctrinal faithfulness. Consistency and faithfulness to the text itself is what defines reformed Christianity rather than membership in a tribe as Catholics believe.

So Aaronaeus’s question is not applicable. Faithful Christians sit under the authority of elders in a Bible-believing church that holds to the authority of the the faithful Christian creeds/confessions. If an elder in the local body of believers acts outside the boundaries of Biblical doctrine, a Christian can appeal to scripture (the highest authority) to correct him. If a creed/confession is shown to be unbiblical, then a Christian can appeal to scripture. The Catholic has no such authority to which to appeal. They must obey the teachings of their priest, bishop or cardinal because that person IS their highest authority

Contrast Biblical Worldview vs. Evolutionary Worldview

Posted on by
10

In an online discussion I was asked to provide the answers to these questions:

  • How do new species appear on Earth?
  • Why design cancer?
  • Were tapeworms on the Ark?

Before elucidating the biblical answers to these questions, sometimes it helps to highlight the contrast between what those who believe in evolution teach and those who believe the Bible.

For the evolutionist, they believe that at one time LUCA did not have the genetic code necessary to form legs, wings, lungs, feathers or teeth. So, to get those traits, random mutations had to accumulate over billions of years. It’s never been observed, but all of evolutionary biology is built upon this mysterious unobserved assumption. As Dr. Michael Behe notes from the longest-running evolutionary experiment to date: “After 50,000 generations of the most detailed, definitive evolution experiment ever conducted, after so much improvement of the growth rate that descendent cells leave revived ancestors in the dust, after relentless mutation and selection, it’s very likely that all of the identified beneficial mutations worked by degrading or outright breaking the respective ancestor genes.”

Darwin Devolves – Dr. Michael Behe p179

So although never observed and is not realistically possible, evolutionists assume a “bottom-up” path from extremely limited variability within genetic code to variability-rich genetic code (humans, octopus, bats…). In this worldview, there’s no reasonable place for morals, justice, sadness, or evil. As Dawkins said of a materialistic universe: “There is at bottom no design, no purpose, no evil, no good. Nothing but blind pitiless indifference.”

Conversely, Christians, who consistently trust what God revealed about creation in the Bible, accept that God created everything “very good” with no death or suffering or thorns.

It was only after the sin of mankind that the curse of sin brought all of creation into a state of fallenness

With this foundation we can now address the questions stated from the beginning of this post:

“How do new species appear on Earth?”

From Genesis 1, we see that God created distinct kinds of creatures that reproduce only with each other. From that we can infer that all of the genetic variability for that kind was pre-loaded into the original kinds. You might be tempted to respond with the common retort “A kind is not a scientific term. What is a kind?” This is not a problem since the Bible is not intended to be a science textbook with hierarchical categories. But it’s very likely that a kind could be reasonably synonymous with the Order or Family. So, in stark contrast to the evolutionary story, which is a bottom-up view, the biblical worldview is a top-down. One of the easiest ways to see this in action is the variability that has expressed itself in canids. From wolves only a few hundred years ago, we now have hundreds of distinct breeds. This variability has been present in wolves this whole time, but it wasn’t until artificial selection that we have been able to see all of the wonderful creativity that the Creator imbued into his creation. A limited example is shown below in dog breeds with hair length

Speciation is the result of a LOSS or splintering of the genetic information that was originally programmed into the kinds by the Creator.

Another example would be the equine kind. While modern classifications identify horses, donkeys, and zebras as different species, they are clearly of the same kind because they can interbreed. There’s great variability within the kind, but the zebras have lost much of the variation of horse through both natural and artificial selection.

To summarize on question 1, evolutionists (contrary to the evidence) assume that the information stored in genetic code has been accidentally aggregated by natural selection acting on random mutations. It takes billions of years to accumulate enough variability to view the categories that we now call species. Bottom up.

Biblical creationists accept the revelation of God that He programmed the information stored in genetic code was purposefully imbued into the kinds. In a short time, information is observed to be lost and splintered into what we now designate as species. Top down.

Why design cancer?

God did not design cancer as part of the pre-fall creation. When the created order fell under the curse of sin because mankind’s rebellion, mutations and disease became part of the “creation in bondage to decay”. Like death and thorns, the suffering that comes along with cancer only entered creation because of the sin of Adam. God promised to bring an end to the curses of sin and restore order to creation. Isaiah 11 and Revelation 21-22

Were tapeworms on the Ark?

This question is similar to the question about cancer. The inference that we get from God’s declaration of an originally “very good” creation is that creatures, which now exhibit parasitic behavior, did not hurt prior to the fall. God declared that creatures changed after the flood (Genesis 9:2) and a consistent inference from the scripture is that like humans do in rebellion, many creatures rebel against their originally created order to cause sickness & disease.

While those questions might have seemed reasonable to ask, the answers are quite easily answered with a consistent Christian worldview. But now exposed is the foundation from which the evolutionist formed the questions. There’s no rational foundation for the evolutionist to account for knowledge, or morals, or justice, or induction.

Despite the lofty claims of evolutionists, the theory of evolution continues to over-promise and under-deliver

Conversely, the Biblical worldview (creationism) has proven to be the only consistent worldview that can correctly and sufficiently explain reality.

Reason or Revelation?

Posted on by
7

How do we know things? Not just in a flippant or provisional way of knowing, but certain knowledge that has true ultimacy. Is such knowledge possible? Is so-called knowledge that is not certain really true knowledge?

These questions are debated by philosophers…and with the advent of the internet, debated by people, who do not have formal philosophy degrees. There are two principle answers to the question of ultimate authority: human reasoning or revelation from God. So, what is the ultimate and grandest authority for knowledge? Is it mankind’s reasoning or is it revelation from God? One’s epistemology (theory of knowledge) will determine many other aspects of a person’s worldview, so answering the question of how people ultimately obtain knowledge is an important question. Let’s evaluate

Is Human Reasoning the Best Epistemology?

I’ve been told by online philosophers that human reasoning is the ultimate authority. One in particular made the claim that human reasoning is the ultimate source of ALL worldviews. In his syllogism, premise 1 is true, but we will scrutinize premise 2. So, let’s look and see if human reasoning is the ultimate epistemology

To start, Christianity is imminently reasonable because it is the only worldview that can sufficiently account for reasoning and knowledge, but that’s only a by-product of God’s revelation. Christians ultimately rely on God’s revelation as the authority of our worldview, and by God’s grace we find that trusting in God’s revelation, we have a home for reason. Reasoning with Christian presuppositions now makes sense.

To directly attack Premise 2, we look to Rom 2:15 “They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them.” As image bearers of the Creator, humans have been “hard-wired” with the laws of God built-in. God has revealed his expectations within the human conscience.

Now, my interlocutor may object by saying “but you must reason to understand, decipher, and interpret the Bible itself…therefore, reasoning is more basic.” But this is not true logically, it is simply chronologically prior…not logically prior. The Bible is the *justification* for the logical primacy of God’s revelation. So, even though I may need reasoning to read the Bible, reasoning remains secondary to God’s revelation within humanity. Dr. Jason Lisle explains in more detail (bold is not included in the original):

Many beliefs are justified only after the fact. This confuses some people, and an example may clarify. We must believe that our sensory organs are basically reliable in order for us to have confidence in anything we read. When we then read the Bible, we can see that our confidence in our sensory organs was justified because God created them. The truth of the Bible is logically more foundational than the truth that our senses are basically reliable because the former justifies the latter. However, we discover the truth in the pages of Scripture (that God designed our senses) after we have already trusted our senses. Our belief in reliable senses is chronologically first, but the biblical truth that God designed our senses to be basically reliable is logically primary.

By analogy, suppose you are driving up a hill. As you reach the top, you see a house on the other side of the hill. The first thing you see is the roof because the lower portions of the house are still obscured by the hill. As you continue to round the top of the hill and descend, you then see the top story of the house, and finally the lower level as the house becomes visible. You never actually see the foundation of the house, but you suppose it is there since all houses require a foundation. So the order in which you discover the sections of the house is: roof, second story, first story, foundation.

But this is not the order in which the house was built. A roof cannot exist without the supporting walls of the second story, which cannot stand apart from the first story, which cannot stand without the foundation. Obviously, the foundation was laid first, then the first story was built upon it, and the second story upon the first. The last thing to be constructed would be the roof because it logically requires all the other structures to be already in place. So the logical order in which the building was constructed was the opposite of the chronological order in which we become aware of the building.

Likewise, there can be no doubt that human beings are aware of self and their sensory experiences long before they read in the Bible the justification for those things. Yet, the truth of the Bible is logically prior to sensory experience, since our sensory experiences are only ultimately justified by appealing to the God of Scripture. Many well-meaning Christians argue against the presuppositional apologetic due to this misunderstanding. They argue (contrary to Proverbs 1:7) that knowledge begins with self, not with God. But God is logically prior to all our knowledge of anything, and apart from His revelation we could know absolutely nothing.

While the example above mentions senses as being justified by what is revealed in God’s Word, the same is also true for human reasoning. Human reasoning has validity only because of what God has revealed in the Bible. God’s revelation is logical authoritative but chronologically successive to human reasoning.

Additionally, the foundations of Christianity cannot be reasoned to; they must be revealed. It does not mean that Christianity is unreasonable; it means that because God revealed these pillars of reality, they are irrefutably true. Here are some examples:

  • The Trinity. God is One God in three persons. It is not unreasonable, but one cannot reason to this conclusion. It had to be revealed by God (Isa 45, 1 John 5:7, Matt 28:19, 2 Cor 13:14)
  • Hypostatic union. The eternal God could be incarnated as a man. The eternal Creator, Jesus, took on human flesh (John 1:1-14)
  • Virgin birth. One does not reason to the conclusion that Jesus was born to a virgin. It had to be revealed from God.
  • Peter’s recognition of Jesus as the Messiah recounted in Matt 16. Jesus says “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.”
  • Resurrection from the dead. One cannot reason that a dead body would rise again. It was revealed to the eye-witnesses of the resurrection through their senses. And it has been revealed to us today through the scriptures of the resurrection of Jesus.
  • “Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.” – Jesus Matt 18:4. This is a concept that one does not reason to since it is counterintuitive, but it has been revealed as truthful by the Creator.

There are many others. The point is clearly that reasoning is not the ultimate source of Christianity. Consistent Christians accept what God has revealed to be true since many of those things cannot be reasoned to

Another point that should be addressed here is that the effects of sin in the world has affected the reasoning of mankind. Mankind cannot reason correctly without the help of a regenerated spirit and the work of the Holy Spirit (Rom 1:18-32, 1 Cor 2:14, Rom 7:14-25, Rom 12:2). Sometimes people refer to this doctrine as Total Depravity.

Lastly, humans are notoriously unreasonable. Were humans perfectly reasonable, we would never consume sugar, never be dishonest, exercise daily, avoid narcotics/alcohol/tobacco, never waste time, never gamble money, among many other imminently reasonable proverbs of wisdom. It is unreasonable to count on human reasoning as the ultimate source of authority.

As shown above, the claim that reasoning is the ultimate source of Christianity fails. God, who knows all things, has revealed Himself to humanity in creation, in the Bible, and in the incarnation. This is the epistemic source of knowledge. By God’s grace, He also granted humans the ability to reason. By this reasoning and with God’s revelation as the ultimate source, humans can have knowledge.

Conversely, without God, there could only be a non-reasoning source for human reasoning. Therefore, human reasoning would be untrustworthy. It’s written out by Timothy McCabe as a syllogism like this:

Without God, reasoning is unreasonable. In his autobiography Charles Darwin recognized the futility of assuming that human reasoning is trustworthy if it comes from an accumulation of accidental changes over time from lower animals for the purpose of survival

God is the starting point of all reasoning. Without God, human reasoning would be impossible.

It’s a Bug, Not a Feature

Posted on by
9
Photo by Kevin Ku on Pexels.com

In software designer circles, a “bug” isn’t an insect; it’s a problem in the code that keeps the software from performing as expected. It’s a well-known joke amongst the programmers that when a problem is discovered during the quality control (QC) process that the problem is a “feature, not a bug”. When the software breaks unexpectedly, and QC send the code back to the coders for repairs, the laughs about the “feature” devolve quickly to groans as the coders begin tracing through the code to exterminate the “bug”. It’s a tale as old as Y2K.

God-deniers have a similar bug in their thinking, but they sometimes refer to it as a feature. What am I talking about? Knowledge! What is knowledge? Knowledge is most accurately desribed as “that which corresponds to the mind of God”, but in this article and for most people the definition of “justified true beliefs” will suffice. How do we know things? Epistemology is the theory of how something can be known. Now the article I wanted to write about epistemology has already been written by Dr. Jason Lisle. He describes below the “bug” in the thinking of God-deniers:

So we are left with three equally unsatisfying options. (1) The chain of reasoning goes on forever and can therefore never be completed – making knowledge impossible. (2) The chain of reasoning terminates in an ultimate standard that cannot be justified, meaning all other beliefs (which are based on it) are ultimately unjustified – making knowledge impossible. (3) The chain of reasoning terminates in one or more ultimate standards that rely upon themselves for justification – a circular argument, which is ultimately arbitrary and unjustified – making knowledge impossible. This perplexing problem is known as the Münchhausen trilemma.

If the Münchhausen trilemma is correct, then we can demonstrate that knowledge is impossible. But, of course, this is instantly self-refuting. If we know that knowledge is impossible, then we do know something and hence knowledge is possible.

Knowledge itself is only provisional for the God-denier, because either that knowledge is reliant upon some other element of provisional knowledge into infinity or it could be refuted based on some future discovery. The bug in the thinking of God-deniers is that they can never know anything for certain. They put on a brave face by calling it a “feature” that their thinking is self-correcting upon the discovery of new evidence. But you can see that whatever they assert to know *now* is not knowledge at all. It is only provisional. It is a serious bug. It is bluster for them to claim that their enormous epistemic deficiency is a feature. This is demonstrable as anyone familiar with the history of science knows. The dominant paradigm from these time periods has been replaced by new paradigms, but if you lived in one of the time periods shown below, the gatekeepers of the dominant paradigm would try to silence dissenters the same way that those, who have faith in today’s dominant paradigm (materialistic biological evolution) censor dissenters

  • Prior to the 1500s, scientists believed and modeled that the earth was the center of the solar system. – Falsified
  • Prior to the 1600s, scientists believed in alchemy and phlogiston– Falsified
  • Prior to the 1700s, scientists believed that bloodletting and leeches removed bad blood from sick patients. – Falsified
  • Prior to the 1800s, scientists believed in spontaneous generation – Falsified
  • Prior to the 1900s, scientists taught that the universe eternal (steady state theory) – Falsified
  • In the 1970s, scientists taught impending contradictory catastrophes would destroy humanity in the subsequent decades: ice age and unstoppable heat wave. – Falsified
  • In the 1980s, scientists taught that eating mostly carbs was the healthiest way to live in a failed marketing campaign called the food pyramid – Falsified
  • In the early 2000s, scientists taught that the ice sheets at the poles would be completely melted due to global warming by the 2013 – Falsified

In his follow-up article, Dr. Lisle continues to expose the emptiness of the chain of reasoning for the God-denier

The problem with the unbeliever is not that he cannot justify any of his beliefs. Rather, the problem is that he cannot justify any of his beliefs within his professed worldview. If evolution were true, then knowledge would be impossible. But evolution is not true. Since the Bible is true, evolutionists are able to have knowledge. Their beliefs in sensory experience and rationality are ultimately justified because the Bible is true.

Because Christians and non-Christians have different epistemologies, Christians are not saddled with such a crushing burden. Christians have a revelational epistemology meaning that we accept God’s revelation in creation, in the Bible and through the incarnation. The omniscient God knows everything, and He has revealed some of his knowledge to us so that we can be certain of those things which God has revealed. So, a Christian has a sufficient grounding for knowledge. From this grounding, a Christian can reasonably engage in scientific research, engineering, hospitality, altruism, programming,

Because Non-Christians have rejected the One, who knows everything (the only Source of justifiable knowledge) he can never be (justifiably) certain of anything. An honest non-Christian can only hold a provisional level of understanding since some future discovery or new bit of evidence might change everything they think they know. The apostle Paul is right when he writes to Timothy:

In many of my discussions with skeptics online, I’ve had the skeptics tell me, “it’s a feature, not a bug”. This is usually after we have talked about someone’s ability to justify knowledge.

As a final elaboration upon the Christian revelational epistemology, I turn to Dr. Lisle again in a long quote from his third article. Please take the time to read each article as all three are worth the time it takes to read them :

Truth is that which corresponds to the mind of God. But unbelievers sometimes scoff at this definition and attempt to refute it by asking, “How can you possibly know what God thinks?” But, of course, this question is easy to answer: revelation. God has revealed some of His thoughts to us and He has done this in numerous ways. Most specifically, God used men to write a book that expresses His thoughts, namely, the Bible. Do you want to know what God thinks about something? Read the Bible!

But there are other ways God has revealed Himself. God has placed knowledge into the core of our being from our conception. For example, God’s moral requirements – His laws – have been placed into the minds of all people. Thus, even people who have never read the Bible have some knowledge of the law of God (Romans 2:14-15). We are able to have some knowledge of right and wrong even without reading the Bible because God has “written” His law on the hearts of all people. This is a type of revelation.

God has designed sensory organs, such as eyes and ears, that allow us to have knowledge of the external world. Furthermore, God has placed knowledge within us that our senses are basically reliable; so, we can have confidence that what we see and hear is a good map of reality. By our senses, we can learn true things about the world, such as “the sun is very bright.” Consider the contrary. If God had not designed our senses to be basically reliable, or if God had not given us knowledge that our senses are basically reliable, then we could never learn anything about the external world. Sure, we might see that the sun is bright. But we would have no reason to trust that what we see corresponds to the real universe.

God has also placed some knowledge of logic within us. Logic is the principles of correct reasoning – a reflection of the way God thinks. God created mankind after His image/likeness. And this includes the ability to think – to some extent – in a way that is consistent with God’s character. Thus, we are born with some degree of rationality. (It is possible to prove that some laws of logic are known without ever being learned; hence God has “hardwired” them into our being.)[3] Furthermore, God has given us the ability to improve our reasoning skills through careful contemplation using our mind and from education using our sensory organs.

In addition, God has placed some knowledge of Himself inside all people such that when we look at the natural world, we instantly recognize it as the work of God. Romans 1:19-20 states, “because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.” Thus, all people have knowledge of God.

This fact should have a profound impact on the way we do apologetics. If indeed all people have knowledge of God, then they do not require additional evidence for God. Many Christians proceed as if the unbeliever is genuinely ignorant of God. Under this mistaken belief, the Christian urges the unbeliever to trust in God by presenting new evidence for God. But according to Romans 1:18-20, all unbelievers already know God but they “suppress the truth in unrighteousness.” The presuppositional apologist therefore aims to expose the unbelievers suppressed knowledge of God.

Since all knowledge is ultimately from God, it follows that anything we know has been revealed to us by God in some way. We can know things by sensory experience, but only because God designed our senses to be basically reliable. We can know things through rational reasoning, but only because God designed our minds and has given us access to His laws of logic. Hence, the biblical God is the ultimate justification for all truth claims.

Of course, even people who have never read the Bible do have knowledge. But this is because the Bible is true. Unbelievers learn things through sensory experience and rational reasoning just like believers. But in order for their beliefs to be justified, they would require some reason to trust their sensory organs, and their thinking process. If the Bible were not true, there would be no reason to trust in such things.[4] Hence, all beliefs based on those assumptions would lack justification.

We can have knowledge only because God exists and has revealed Himself in exactly the way the Bible teaches. God, as revealed in the Bible, is the ultimate foundation for all human knowledge. If the Bible were not true, we could know nothing. We might have beliefs, and some of them might even be true, but they could never be justified apart from the biblical worldview.

The Deductive Proof of Christianity

Posted on by
9

Deductive proof? That sounds pretty strong. There are dozens of arguments for the truth of Christianity. My friends at Theologetics have We already know that revelation from God is irrefutable. And we know that all evidence corroborates what God has revealed, but a deductive proof for Christianity might be seen by some to be beyond the ability of Christians to declare.

First, let’s start with some definitions. What is deductive reasoning?

Deductive reasoning does not rely on generalizations as opposed to Inductive reasoning, which can only present a probable conclusion based on the particular evidence given. Deductive reasoning gives an argument that provides a conclusion that is certain if the premises are valid and true.

Eli Ayala recently hosted Jon Kaus from Christ Church Twin Cities on his YouTube channel and Jon Kaus briefly explained his work on the deductive proof of Christianity in part 1 and part 2. After watching this video, I searched out Jon Kaus’s videos on his Christ Church Twin Cities website. I was able to find where Kaus presented his arguments in 8 conference sessions with affiliated slideshows. These slideshows are available as links on the respective YouTube videos in the link below

Based on Mr. Kaus’s work, his slideshows, and presentations, here is an organized representation of the axioms, theorems, and conclusion.

Most (if not all) of the work that Kaus has done is based on the work of Cornelius Van Til and Greg Bahnsen. It has been an awesome experience learning what Kaus has been able to put together and I hope you too enjoy this fantastic work

Calling the Bluff 2.0

Posted on by
6
Photo by cottonbro studio on Pexels.com

In yesterday’s post, I discussed several ways to expose the fallacies that God-deniers sometimes use to keep from being exposed when they claim:

“being an atheist simply means that there’s not sufficient evidence for your sky daddy“

It’s not uncommon for them to try to bluster their way to an online argument victory. So listen to their claims and hold them to account for their assertions. When they have to “show their cards”, it’s unsuited 3, 5, 6, 9 and an Uno card. Now sometimes, the God-denier will off an assertion something a little more outrageous like:

“There’s absolutely no evidence for your sky daddy” – AggregateOfInternetAtheists

Let’s look at the serious problems with this incomprehensively lazy assertion:

  1. God-deniers have no slot in their epistemology for absolutes. For God-deniers, in a cosmos made only of matter, there are no absolutes – there’s only particles and aggregations of particles
  2. Those who deny God cannot account for the preconditions necessary for the concept of evidence.
  3. Is this atheist aware of ALL evidence in the cosmos such that she could assert that “there’s no evidence for God”? The honest atheist would have to admit that they are not privy to all evidence in the cosmos. Conversely, God IS privy to all knowledge/evidence in the universe and He has revealed some of that evidence so that Christians can be certain of those things
  4. Now here’s the really important point: What does evidence for God look like? For someone to say “There’s no evidence for a cobra” – they would have to know what a cobra is like. How would you describe a cobra so that you could definitively say “There’s no evidence for a cobra.” In the same way, for someone to declare “There’s no evidence for God” they would have to know what evidence for God looks like. Press the atheist on this because they are bluffing. As soon as they realize that they cannot sufficiently formulate what evidence for God is like, their bluff is blown.

Don’t be afraid to call the God-denier’s bluff. They are not holding any good cards, and by God’s amazing grace Christians most definitely are. Call their bluff, but do so with gentleness and respect

Be sure to check out the links (blue text) that are saturated throughout this post as most of the “leg-work” was completed by people much smarter than me…for whose work I am very grateful!

Calling the Bluff 1.0

Posted on by
33
Photo by cottonbro studio on Pexels.com

“I’ll raise it $5000“

Those around the table exchange approving glances with the thought: “He must be holding the 2 diamonds needed to complete that flush.”

He sounds assured of himself to add 5 large to the pot, but I’m skeptical…first, because I’VE got two consecutive diamonds to complete the straight flush, and secondly he claims to be an atheist. I think he’s bluffing, and I’m going to call him on it

“Wait just a cotton-pickin’ minute! What does being an atheist have to do with poker?”

It’s an analogy. Bear with me.

This analogy sounds very much like dozens of conversations I’ve had with professing atheists:

  • ApoloJedi: “As an atheist, how do you know that there’s no God?”
  • God-Denier: “That’s NOT what atheist means!!!”
  • ApoloJedi: “What do you think atheist means?”
  • God-Denier: (smuggly) “It simply means that there’s not sufficient evidence for your sky daddy” (I raise $5000)
  • ApoloJedi: (Hints at calling bluff) “What kind of evidence would you consider sufficient evidence?”
  • God-Denier: (Less certain) “Well…if your sky daddy were real, she would know what evidence would be enough to convince me“

Before we work on calling the bluff of this generic and common God-denier, let’s discuss a couple of things:

  1. He makes a definitive knowledge claim for which he is responsible: “there’s not sufficient evidence”. This can also take the form “I don’t believe in your God because there is a lack of evidence”, but it is still a definitive knowledge claim for which he must provide justification. It’s likely that God-denier is only minimally familiar with the overwhelming case for God’s existence. And it is assured that the God-denier is completely unfamiliar with the Transcendental necessity of God’s existence for knowledge, morality, and induction. In our analogy, Christians hold the unbeatable royal flush
  2. When the apologist pushes back a little and asks the very reasonable question “What is sufficient evidence?” the god-denying interlocutor will almost ALWAYS deflect the question fallaciously by moving the goal-post: “God knows what would convince me, and since I’m not convinced there’s a God, then He must not have shown me enough evidence.” The form of the question that the apologist asks can also be “By what standard do you determine something to be sufficient?”

Unfortunately, the God-denier has derailed the conversation with his fallacious answer, and the intrepid apologist can “call the God-denier’s bluff” by holding the interlocutor to their claims: “What is sufficient evidence?” AND “How do you know the evidence is insufficient? Do you have access to ALL evidence? How do you account for evidence at all in your worldview?“

Their bluff is multi-layered and we can call their bluff by pointing out the following (what follows is both the calling of the bluff and the answer to the question above about what does this have to do with the bluffer being an atheist):

  1. The atheist has a worldview that cannot account for knowledge. They are epistemically unconscious. The God-denier has no path to knowledge
  2. They have not analyzed ALL evidence, nor do they plan to, nor can they view evidence as anything more than provisional/contingent (because of their worldview as shown in item 1 above)
  3. Even if they could possibly have access to all evidence (which would make them the omniscience God), they have arbitrarily declared that the provisional evidence to which they do have access is “insufficient”. When the apologist presses them for the standard by which they determine sufficiency, the God-denier is exposed and must argue fallaciously since they cannot account for transcendent standards.
  4. It is irrational to demand laboratory evidence of the transcendent Creator.
  5. Lastly, God HAS provided sufficient evidence for the judgment of all humans. Romans 1:18-20 tells us “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.” ALL evidence (because it is upheld and sustained by God’s mighty power (see Col 1:16)) is evidence for God’s existence

Don’t be afraid to call the God-denier’s bluff. They are not holding any good cards, and by God’s amazing grace Christians most definitely are. Call their bluff, but do so with gentleness and respect

Be sure to check out the links (blue text) that are saturated throughout this post as most of the “leg-work” was completed by people much smarter than me…for whose work I am very grateful!

Naturalism And Paganism in Modern Media

Posted on by
8

Let me start by saying that I REALLY like the Marvel Avengers story arc (from Iron Man to the Spider-Man: No Way Home). The production quality, the humor, the coherent story arc, the heroism, the casting, the writing, the defeat of the fictional evil that is manifest in reality as the radical environmentalists – ALL are of the highest order. The Marvel movies (if they are not already) will be the defining saga of this generation, in the same way that the original Star Wars movies (A New Hope, The Empire Strikes Back & Return of the Jedi) were the defining stories of the end of the 20th century.

Having said all of that, there are worldview assumptions buried in the midst of these movies. The worldviews are both naturalism and paganism. And with an unskeptical eye, viewers can adopt these worldviews as basic to the way one sees the universe rather than what God has revealed. My purpose in analyzing these movies for worldview implications is not to bash the stories. Instead, I want my readers to begin to watch movies with the recognition that media creators are NOT unbiased. They put out creative material, but there is always an underlying worldview through which they desire their consumers to see the world. It’s ok to enjoy modern fictional stories, but always be careful to recognize the “message” of the author. It’s not just the Marvel movies, the teaching of naturalism and paganism has become ubiquitous in modern media, but a short analysis of the stories with which most people are familiar should be a good start. As a bonus there are some extra movies/shows beyond the Marvel franchise from which I added a few thoughts.

NOTE to fathers: You are responsible for the content that enters your home. If you allow secular movies into your home, be sure to preview movies before your kids have access and make sure to point out the underlying motivations and worldviews expressed in these movies. There’s a great place for art and entertainment, but be sure that the message of the world is subjected to the revelation of God because of your influence on the messaging in your family.

Now on to the reviews. Any bold, underline or italics is not included in the original. These features are used to highlight what I recognize as the key elements in the worldview being promoted. The original quotes are in red with my thoughts in black immediately beneath the quote

The Amazing Spider-Man

  • Cross-species genetic integration. This is just a note that the authors simply assume that because humans and arachnids are related via a continuum along the “tree of life” that spider DNA can simply be added to humans to provide spider-like qualities. The assumption of a common ancestor drives the narrative
    • Tree of life – the assumption of common ancestry is now assumed by the media
    • “Many of these wonderful creatures are so brilliantly ADAPTED that they can regenerate entire limbs at will.” – Osborn
    • It’s sad that rather than properly giving credit for the design of creatures to the Almighty, movies now are attributing the integrated systems that were designed by God to random mutation and the powers of evolution
    • “This (scientific advancement) is no longer about curing ills, this is about finding perfection” – Osborn
    • This is both a pagan assumption and a naturalistic assumption. Humanity does rightly seek perfection. But because we are sinners, perfection can only be found by grace through faith in Christ alone. The modern academic paradigm (which some call science) cannot bring perfection to humanity.

Shang-Chi

  • The Great Protector deity is portrayed as a dragon. The is not JUST paganism, but Satanism and it is not an accident. The war between the Creator, Jesus, and the serpent/dragon in scripture is not just a benign allegory. For the writers of Shang-Chi to replace Yahweh with the dragon is disrespectful at best and blasphemy at worst
  • “Names are sacred. They connect us not only to ourselves but to everyone who came before”
  • There is an element of ancestor worship (paganism) in this quote
  • “We have cities…rich with culture and history. Thousands of years ago, our people lived in peace and prosperity.”
  • The assumption is that mankind lived for generations in a Utopia and that mankind is basically good. While this may sound like the Biblical story of the garden of Eden, the distinction would be that in reality the original couple (Adam/Eve) disobeyed God almost immediately. People did not live in peace and prosperity for generations. Adam’s sin brought corruption/death/suffering into the universe that God originally created as God (Romans 8), and since that time, humans have been born into sin. But thanks be to God that because of what Jesus has done (fulfilled scripture, perfectly kept the law, died for the sins of the repentant, rose again) there is hope for abundant life in Him.

Iron Man

  • There is glorification of rampant sexual immorality in the opening scene (12 for 12 with cover models) – the consistent conclusion of naturalism is either hedonism or nihilism. Tony Stark embodies both of these unholy worldviews. The soldiers in the Humvee think that Stark’s hedonism is worthy of praise
    • Glorification of gambling
    • Glorification of sexual immorality
  • “Thank you for saving me” – Tony Stark to dying assistant. Only Jesus saves
    • “I know in my heart that it’s right” – Tony Stark
    • The only way to know whether something is TRULY right is not how it feels in someone’s heart. Only by revelation from God, who is perfect and has revealed his expectations for humanity, can someone know what is TRULY right. Isaiah 45:19

Iron Man 2

  • “Technology holds infinite possibilities for mankind, and will one day rid society of all its ills.” – Howard Stark
  • Transcendent power has been attributed to mankind through science/technology. As Romans 1 tells us, if we are not thankful to God, we will inevitably worship something lesser/created…in this case: technology
  • “I will serve this great nation at the pleasure of myself. And there’s one thing that I’ve proven – it’s that you can count on me to pleasure myself.” – Tony Stark (to loud applause)
  • More glorification of hedonism
  • “If people could make God bleed, people will cease to believe in Him” – Vanko
  • Because the Avengers story arc is at base naturalistic, there is no God and the superheroes stand in the place of the Almighty. So in this case, when the villain is able to make the little deities bleed, he feels he has displaced the “god” of the time
  • “Everything is achievable through technology” – Howard Stark
  • More false attribution of omnipotence to human ingenuity. If the skeptical viewer extrapolates this thinking outward, Stark is deifying humans. That’s idolatry
  • In the movie, Tony Stark creates a new element with powerful lasers and some “elbow grease”. Creating a new element is portrayed as simply a “matter” of some effort and advanced technology. This is a minor point, but many people believe in naturalistic chemical evolution, and this is a just a continuation of that idea that matter/energy is all that is. And the cosmos was able to create itself in a process of continued chemical evolution
  • Secondly, Tony Stark was able to save himself from his degenerative condition. This is a common theme in today’s movies: that with enough focused effort, denial of desires (Buddhism), & extremely hard work a person can save themselves. The gospel of Jesus is that we are completely unable to pay our sin debt. But by grace through faith in Christ alone, there is forgiveness for sins and abundant life. Praise God that He does not rely on human effort to save us. If I was responsible for my own salvation, it would be an utter failure.
  • Was it a coincidence that Elon Musk, the prime advocate of uniting humanity with technology, appeared in this film that advocates the uniting of humanity with technology? While I appreciate Musk’s innovations in batteries, cars, and space travel, his goal is to achieve human consciousness immortality with technology rather than by grace through faith in Christ alone.
  • Making of Bonus Feature: “That we can imbue it (making of IronMan 2) with a sense of humanity and naturalism” – Robert Downey Jr.
  • Robert Downey admits the aim of the films is exactly what I am warning against. Watch with a skeptical eye

Thor

  • “Magic’s just science that we don’t understand yet…If there is an Einstein Rosen Bridge then advanced beings could have crossed it. A primitive culture like the Vikings may have worshiped them as deities”
  • You’ll recognize this inherent push to naturalize everything. With enough time/discovery then everything will be seen to have a naturalistic explanation. The Bible identifies God as the Revealer of mysteries (Daniel 2:47), but the Marvel universe puts technology/discovery and ultimately humans in God’s rightful place.

Captain America

  • At the end end of the movie, Captain America is “flash frozen” in Artic waters. The assumption is that because humans are simply a collection of particles, life, mind, consciousness can simply be frozen and thawed in a continuum. Rather than recognizing that humans have spirits as we are told in the Bible, the writers would have us believe that like the monster of Frankenstein, technology can revive the aggregation of human particles from death

Avengers

  • Consciousness is simply a product of the correct aggregation of matter. When Loki is “transferred” through the portal from one end of the universe to earth, it is implied that he was reconstructed particle by particle (like Star Trek’s beaming process) to retain his consciousness/memories/behavior/powers after reconstruction. This is a very naturalistic idea: “humans are just a collection of particles”
    • “The Tesseract has shown me so much. It’s MORE than knowledge. It’s truth”
    • Whether accidentally or purposefully, Jesus has been dethroned from his rightful place in the Marvel movie franchises. Jesus said “I AM the way, the TRUTH, and the life”. Colossians 2:2-3 says “all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hidden in Christ.” Neither knowledge nor truth can be known without revelation from the One, who knows everything: God Himself.
    • “These guys are basically gods” -Agent R
    • There is only one God (Isaiah 45). On a positive note, Captain America responds: “There’s one 1 God maam, and I’m pretty sure He doesn’t dress like that”
    • “How much dark energy did the Allfather have to muster to conjure you here.” – Loki.
    • Is Loki referring to some dark energy from the Marvel Universe, or the mysterious dark energy floated around science communities as a significant component of the material cosmos? It is not clear, but it is humorous that they attempt to tie the concept of dark energy which is science fiction in the science world to science fiction in the science fiction world.
    • There are all kinds of alien life forms in the Avengers movie. The assumption is that life must have evolved all over the universe because of the assumption that life evolved on earth. As if evolution is ubiquitous even through there’s not 1 shred of evidence in favor of evolution.
    • “I thought humans were more evolved than this.” – Thor
    • Again the assumption that humans simply evolved from lower forms of life. Thor’s assumption was that humans should be more empathetic, but evolution cannot explain empathy. Evolution has never been observed, but the Marvel franchise assumes it as basic throughout

Iron Man 3

  • Without direct quotes of naturalism, there was the continuation of assumptions that evolution throughout the universe (through aliens) persists. Also the idea that humans are just a collection of particles that can be manipulated rather than body/spirit created in the image of God is a strong theme throughout

Thor: Dark World

  • “Long before the birth of light, there was darkness. And from that darkness came the dark elves. Millenia ago, the most ruthless of their kind sought to transform our universe into 1 of eternal night.”
  • There are origins stories in all sagas. This origins story further dilutes the true origins story that God revealed in the Bible: In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth
  • When Frigga (Thor’s mother) dies, it is inferred that her spirit is released from her body to be reabsorbed by the cosmos (pantheism)

Captain America: Winter Soldier

  • 1:16:11 The consciousness of the German scientist from CA was uploaded to a primitive computer as if consciousness is simply a function of the correct assemblance of ones and zeros. This is a very naturalistic assumption. Remember Elon Musk (and his desire to upload human consciousness to the internet) appearing the Iron Man 2? Interesting
  • “I am not a recording, Fraulein. I may not be the man I once was. The captain took me prisoner in 1945. But I am alive. First correction, I am Swiss. Look around you. I have never been more alive. Science could not save my body. My mind, however, that was worth saving, on 200,000 feet of databanks. You are standing in my brain.”
  • Given naturalism, brains are just an highly organized aggregation of particles, and the Marvel writers push this assumption as if it is just a lack of technology holding humanity back from experiencing eternal life through unity with technology.

Guardians of the Galaxy

  • This is not an identification of paganism, just a terrible plot hole: After 26 years of traveling around the universe, where did Star Lord find AA batteries for his walkman? And how did magnetic tapes on which the music was stored fight off the forces of friction and entropy to provide such excellent sound quality?
  • “I’m going to be totally honest with you. I forgot you were here.” – StarLord
  • Pink-skinned female is dismissed as being just a sexual tool for StarLord. Hedonism
  • 14:00 blood sacrifice (pagan). There is something about blood which pagans recognize. While the blood of Jesus cleanses us from all sin, pagans try to dilute the meaningfulness of Jesus’ sacrifice by showing it in the context of horror and ritual
  • From Wikipedia – “Taneleer Tivan (The Collector) is one of the Elders of the Universe and is close to his fellow Elder En Dwi Gast (the Grandmaster). He apparently came to self-awareness billions of years ago”
  • “Before creation itself there were 5 singularities. Then the universe exploded into existence. Then the remnants of these systems were forged into concentrated ingots. Infinity Stones.”
  • Even naturalists recognize the need for an infinite root cause for the universe. Rather than accepting God’s revelation that He is the source of the universe, life, morality, consciousness, truth, goodness, justice, minds, beauty, information…they would rather assume an infinite universe, or self-aware stones. It’s a ridiculous origins story, but if you reject God’s word, one is left only with ridiculous origins stories and absurdity.
  • This bullet point is not so much about naturalism, but paganism: In the western world, it is not just rare but unheard of that someone be named after a villain in the Bible: Judas, Cain, Herod, Pilate, Satan…but the heroine of this story is Gamora, which sounds exactly like Gomorrah. They are de-stigmatizing the wickedness of Gomorrah by naming the heroine after that wicked place.
  • Speaking of de-stigmatizing abnormalities, we are seeing more and more abnormalities being accepted as normal. The Guardians of the Galaxy is filled with abnormal humanoid skin colors, abnormal attire, abnormal behaviors, feminization of men (Collector)…all in an effort to dilute God’s created or

Avengers: Age of Ultron

  • In the movie, one of the infinity stones combines with a computer program (Jarvis) to bring technology to life. The idea that artificial intelligence can be enveloped and/or created by the correct arrangement of atoms is naturalistic. Naturalists do not realize the abiogenesis is like a perpetual motion machine – impossible
  • The idea that consciousness could escape through the internet as if electricity defines minds is extremely naturalistic
  • “The human race will have every opportunity to improve (evolve in the face of selection pressure)” – Ultron
  • Improve? By what transcendent standard does Ultron consider improvement? Towards what eternal goal defines said improvement? Ultron has made a claim for which his limited understanding cannot account
  • “There were a dozen extinction level events before even the dinosaurs got theirs.” – Ultron
  • Assumptions abound here, but this is the worldview of the naturalist. From God’s eternal word, we know that there has been only 1 extinction-level event: The Worldwide flood of Noah’s day.
  • “When the Earth starts to settle, God throws a stone at it” – Ultron
  • This is petty and sarcastic as though rather than God’s work being to restore his creation through Jesus, the naturalist views God as a mythical character of hate
    • “We have to evolve. There’s no room for the weak.” – Ultron
    • While I know that evolution is false, THIS is a consistent understanding of evolution. Those atheists and naturalists, who want to be consistent, must think like Ultron. The weak and unfit should be euthanized to protect the overall gene pool if the theory of evolution is true. This is contradictory to the Christian worldview, which holds that humans have dignity because we are created in God’s image.
    • “Who decides the weak?” – SpeedGuy
    • “Life. Life always decides” – Ultron
    • Again, naturalism is the idea that everything came about without God. And Ultron declares this fable that natural selection determines what’s right. It is a baseless claim and essentially a tautology: “the survivors survive. Whoever/whatever survives is right”
  • “I think a lot about meteors. The purity in them. Boom! The end! Start again. The world made clean for the new man to rebuild. I was meant to be new. I was meant to be beautiful. The world would have looked to the sky and seen hope. Seen mercy. Instead they’ll look up in horror because of you. You’ve wounded me and I give you full marks for that. But like the man said: What doesn’t kill you just makes me stronger (Neitzke)” – Ultron
  • Naturalists like to talk about asteroids a lot: “An asteroid collision with the earth created the moon…an asteroid collision with the earth killed the dinosaurs…” None of those things are valid, but believed on faith nonetheless.
  • “I am” – Vision
  • Taking the words of the Almighty for himself, Vision’s character is blasphemous

Antman

  • “The laws of nature transcend the laws of man. And I have transcended the laws of nature” – YellowJacket
  • It is unusual for naturalists to speak of transcendence as transcendence makes no sense in their worldview where “matter is that is or was or ever will be (Carl Sagan)”.
  • “Solenopsis mandibularis known for their bite, the fire ants have evolved into remarkable architects” – Pim
  • Again evolution is reified as if it is a creative force that can produce “remarkable architects”. In real life, evolution cannot even account for the software needed to produce anything, but the writers of the Marvel series embed their worldview into the franchise

Dr. Strange

  • “There is no such thing as spirit! We are made of matter and nothing more! You’re just another tiny, momentary speck within an indifferent universe!” – Dr. Strange
  • This is the mantra of the naturalist. Dr. Strange’s monologue sounds very familiar to the one from the eminent biologist, Richard Dawkins:
  • “This universe is only one of an infinite number. Worlds without end. Some benevolent and life giving. Others filled with malice and hunger. Dark place where powers older than time lie ravenous and waiting. Who are you in this vast multiverse, Mr. Strange?”
  • The multiverse is an unscientific rescue device devised by those who have faith in naturalism. Because this universe exhibits obvious and irrefutable teleological fine-tuning, naturalists have postulated an infinite number of universes all with different laws and parameters. They think that we just happen to live in lucky universe where all of the laws/parameters are JUUUUUST right for life, mind, consciousness, justice, love, beauty, symbiosis, water cycles, sodium cycles, continental plate tectonics…It’s a completely unscientific proposal as it’s both unfalsifiable and unobservable. It’s a silly story
  • “The language of the mystic arts is as old as civilization. The sorcerors of antiquity called the use of this language spells. But if that word offends your modern sensibilities, you can call it a program. The source code that shapes reality. We harness energy drawn from other dimensions of the multiverse to cast spells. To conjure shields and weapons. To make magic.”
  • I realize that this is science fiction. But in an effort to push their naturalistic worldview, they pull from what they view as scientific and throw it into their story as basic. It can never be known if there were a multiverse. It is ridiculous to call it scientific
  • “But the dark dimension it’s a place beyond time. This world doesn’t have to die. This world can take it’s place along side so many others as part of the One. The great and beautiful One. We can all live forever.“
  • This is paganistic pantheism: Everything is just part of the unified deity of nature. Paganism
    • “Really? What do you have to gain out of this New Age dimensional utopia?”
    • “The same as you. The same as everyone. Life. Eternal Life. People think in terms of good and evil when really time is the true enemy of us all. Time kills everything.”
    • God defines good/evil. Naturalists do not want to recognize goodness or evil, so it’s not a surprise to see them vilify time. It’s also contradictory that although time is the hero for evolution, but here they recognize that time is an enemy for naturalists.
    • “What about the people YOU killed?”
    • “Tiny. Momentary specks in the within an indifferent universe. You see what we are doing. The world is not what it ought to be. Humanity longs for the eternal. For a world beyond time because time is what enslaves us. Time is an insult. Death is an insult. Doctor. We do not seek to rule this world. We seek to save it to hand it over to Dormammu, who is the intent of all evolution the why of all existence.”
    • To naturalists, humans are just “momentary speck” so there is no real injustice for humans to be unjustly killed. The speaker promptly switches from naturalism to paganism by honoring a false deity

Thor: Ragnarok

  • Thor praying to his ancestor: “Odin, I bid you take your palace in the halls of Valhalla. Where the brave shall live forever. Nor shall we mourn but rejoice for those who have died a glorious death.”
  • Ancestor worship is pagan.

Guardians of the Galaxy II

  • “I’m what you call a celestial, sweetheart. Like a God? Small ‘g’ god”
  • There is only 1 God.
  • “I don’t know where I came from exactly. The 1st thing I remember is flickering. Adrift in the cosmos…utterly and entirely alone. Over millions of years I learned to control the molecules around me. I grew smarter and stronger. And I continued building from there. Layer by layer the very planet you walk on now. But I wanted more. I desired meaning. There must be some life out there in the universe besides just me. I thought. And so I set myself to task to find it. I created what I imagined biological life to be like. Down to the most minute detail. I wanted to experience what it truly meant to be human. Until I found what I sought. I was not alone in the universe after all.”
  • While science fiction, this character describes what many believe happened in reality: “over millions of years, molecules organized themselves into more and more complex arrangements, until finally, some collections of particles came to life. And some of those particles began to create movies and demand justice. It is taught in schools and universities that like this “divine” character, and despite evidence & universal laws, life has evolved smarter and stronger over time.
  • “Over the millions and millions of years of my existence, I’ve made many mistakes Peter, but you’re not one of them.”
  • Like almost every nature documentary, this science fiction show shouts the mantra: “over the millions and millions of years”. It’s part of the dogma of naturalism and it is being taught as though it were fact in almost all media.
  • “Only we can remake the universe. Only we can take the bridle of the cosmos and lead it where it wants to go”
  • Both pagans and naturalists think that humans can control the cosmos and give the purposeless cosmos some sort of subjective purpose

Black Panther

  • “Millions of years ago a meteorite made of vibranium, the strongest substance in the universe struck the continent of Africa. When the time of man came, 5 tribes settled on it and called it Wakanda”
  • Most every nature documentary begins exactly the same way: “millions of years ago”. Just like above when we talked about how naturalists love asteroids…again, they propose an asteroid as the source of “meaning”. It’s more hilarious than anything
  • “Praise the ancestors” 21:50
  • Pagan ancestor worship
  • “TChaka (dead king) we call on you to come to your son”
  • More pagan ancestor worship
  • Not pagan but actual wisdom and an accidental recognition of reality: “If you let the refugees into Wakanda, they bring their problems with them, and then Wakanda is just like everywhere else.”
  • “Don’t scare me like that colonizer (to white man)”
  • Wokeness has infected everything. As if all white people are racist and colonizers, the writers added that bit of poison to the movie.
  • “Didn’t all life start right here on this continent (evolutionary Out of Africa theory), so aren’t all people your people?”
  • The evolutionary story teaches that all humans emerged from the continent of Africa after a small group of homonids evolved enough traits to make them human. That story is in direct contradiction with the Bible, which reveals that humans are all related through both Adam and Noah after being created in God’s image.
  • “Everybody dies. It’s just life around here“
  • A consistent naturalist/atheist will be a nihilist as they declare that there is no purpose or meaning in the cosmos
  • “We got spies embedded in every nation on earth. I know how colonizers think. So we’re gonna use their own strategy against them. We’re gonna send vibranium weapons out to our War Dogs. They’ll arm oppressed people all over the world, so they can finally rise up and kill those in power. And their children. And anyone else who takes their side. It’s time they know the truth about us. We’re warriors. The World’s gonna start over (Build Back Better), and this time, we’re on top. The sun will never set on the Wakandan empire (Marxism)”
  • Again, we see the same seeds that the World Economic Forum are planting: critical theory. Sadly, there is a strong movement in today’s world to kill and destroy society, so that it can be rebuilt in the image of those, who feel “repressed”.
  • “Soon it will be the conquerors or the conquered (Marxism)”
  • “I call upon the ancestors. I call upon the Bast. I am here with my son, TChalla. Heal him
  • Pagan ancestor worship
  • “Praise the ancestors! Praise the ancestors!”
  • More Paganism

Avengers: Infinity War

  • “Allfathers, let the dark magic flow through me one last time”
  • Paganism
  • “At the dawn of the universe, there was nothing. Then Boom the Big Bang sent 6 elemental crystals hurtling across the virgin universe. These infinity stones each control an essential aspect of existence. Space. Reality. Power. Soul. Mind. Time”
  • The story of naturalism is taught in this science fiction as being sparked by stones, but we recognize the same story (without the stones) being taught in universities, high schools, and media
  • “He (Vision) is more than that. He’s evolving.”
  • The assumption that matter and power can produce life and then evolve is simply religious in nature: the religion of naturalism
  • “You might have a choice. Your mind is made up of a complex construct of overlays. Jarvis. Ultron. Tony. Me, the stone. All of them mixed together. All of them learning from one another. You’re saying that Vision is not just the stone? I’m saying that if we take out the stone, there’s a whole lot of Vision left. Perhaps the best parts.” 
  • These lines assume that mind/consciousness is simply an accidentally aggregated and complex arrangement of particles. It is a religious (naturalism) assumption that part of the blind, pitiless, indifferent cosmos came alive, but this is exactly what the writers of this epic saga believe
  • “I’m only alive because fate wants me alive. Fate wills it so”
  • Personification of fate as having purpose and foresight is the reification fallacy. It is an expression of both Paganism and naturalism
  • “We all think that at first. We are all wrong”
  • Essentially, they are saying that truth cannot be known. This is a post modern relativistic thinking. However Truth can be known in the person of Jesus
  • “To ensure that whoever possesses it understands its power. The stone demands a sacrifice. In order to take the stone, you must lose that which you love. A soul for a soul.”
  • Paganism
  • “The universe judged you and you failed”
  • Reification fallacy and deification of the cosmos. It’s both pagan and naturalistic
  • “I’d watch the sun rise on a grateful universe”
  • More reification of the particles of the cosmos

Antman 2

  • “Molecular disequilibrium”
  • As if mind & consciousness are determined by an arrangement of particles rather than God’s breathing of life into a person. It’s naturalistic
  • “This place it changes you. Adaptation is part of it, but some of it is evolution”

Captain Marvel

  • “No one can look upon the Supreme Intelligence in its true form. Our subconscious chooses the way they appear to us. So it’s sacred. It’s personal.”
  • Paganism
  • “Supreme Intelligence: A. I. Leader of the Kree Civilization”
  • This assumes that AI (or bits of matter) can become conscious
  • “We must all be ready to join the Collective if that is our fate”
  • The collective is implied to be a pantheist divineness, and fate (yet again in the Marvel universe) reified as purposeful.

Avengers: End Game

  • “I know what I must do. I will shred this universe down to the last atom. Then with the stones you’ve collected for me, I create a new one – teeming with life. That knows not what it has lost, but only what it has been given. A grateful universe.”
  • While this is not specifically naturalistic or pagan, it is an affront to the LORD of glory, who HAS given breath and life to this universe. Those, who suppress the knowledge of this Creator, are ungrateful. They love darkness rather than light. 

One final note on the Marvel franchise: The real life version of Thanos is the World Economic Forum. They are the enemy, so whatever they promote should be rejected!

Fantastic 4

  • “My research suggests that exposure to high energy cosmic storm borne on solar winds might have triggered the evolution of early planetary life. In 6 weeks, another cloud with the same elemental profile will pass earth’s orbit. A study conducted in space could fundamentally advance our knowledge about the structure of the human genome, cure countless diseases, extend human life. Give kids a chance to live longer stronger healthier…”
  • The origin of life, the origin of the human genome, the origin of ALL genomes remain a complete mystery, but superhero movies like to preach that if there were just more funding, more vision that scientism could come up with the answer even though they fail to understand that the problem is like the perpetual motion machine. The only solution is the one that God already solved: His life-giving breath
  • The whole idea of the Fantastic 4 is that intense selective pressure (radiation) drives new traits of evolution…in their case super powers

Fantastic 4: Rise of the Silver Surfer

  • “When the universe began, it was no bigger than a marble and then bam – It exploded. And in a trillionth of a second, it expanded exponentially to what became the universe we know today.”
  • Naturalism. This quote is religious in nature as is cannot be known – only assumed
  • “I’ve been cross referencing the Surfer’s radiation through every astronomical database, Altair 7, Rigel 3, Vega 6. And now they’re lifeless. Barren. Some even shattered. Everywhere the Surfer goes, eight days later, the planet dies.”
  • As if there’s life out there in the universe somewhere. Astrobiology is a lonely fruitless search…lacking all evidence
  • The Silver Surfer appeared to have power over death to bring Storm back to life. – Paganism

Alive (History Channel show)

  • In show after show, participants feeling great emotions of gratitude, rather than thanking the Almighty Creator, thank:
    • The land
    • Dead animals
    • Rivers
    • Lakes
    • Rocks
    • Wood
    • Ancestors
  • They exhibit the exact actions one would expect since Romans 1 is true 
  • “For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.”

Halo

  • S1 E6
  • “I was planning the future…The future of our species. Natural evolution is failing us. Human beings are still hardwired for conflict and selfishness. I knew years ago that if we were going to survive we needed a force. A force that could intervene – that could prevent conflict before it started. So, I created the Spartans. A groups who would protect us from ourselves.”
  • S1 E9
    • “We are born. We live and we die according to the rules of blind and unguided evolution. As a result our species are simply not equipped to survive what comes next. It is time for us to take control of our evolution, to push past our narrow ignorance and venture out into the wide unknown, where we will discover our true potential.” – Dr. Halsey
    • This is the definitive FAITH of naturalism: evolution is blind faith, but humans want to control an unguided blind process.
    • “Much has been lost and there will surely be more sacrifices to come. But I believe our species will soon spread its wings and soar to new heights, that we will rewrite what it means to be human. That we will achieve transcendence.” – Dr. Halsey
    • Do you now recognize the blending of paganism that is built upon naturalism which is being taught a fact?

The Sixth Day

  • “If you believe that God created man in his own image, then you also believe that God gave man the power to understand evolution. To exploit science. To manipulate the genetic code. To do exactly what I’m doing. I’m just taking over where God left off.”
  • The entire idea that memories and feelings can be saved to memory is materialistic. And then the assumption that memories can then be “written” to the brain of a cloned human as some sort of duplicate is materialistic as if memories and feelings are reproducible.
  • This movie promotes the idea that eternal life is achievable to the never-ending reproduction of clones
  • “We don’t have to die. I’m offering you the chance to live forever. Never aging. Perfect in every way.”
  • The faith of naturalistic paganism

John Wick

  • “There’s no rhyme or reason to this life. It’s days like today scattered among the rest”
  • The consistent naturalist is bound to see life like John Wick: through the eyes of the nihilist.

Edge of Tomorrow

  • “The thing you gotta understand is that perfectly evolved world-conquering organism. For all we know there are thousands or millions of those asteroids floating around in the cosmos like a virus. And they’re just waiting to crash land into a world with just the right conditions. All they need is for the dominant life form to attack.”
  • “eVoLutiOn!!!! eVoLutiOn EVERYWHERE! eVoLutiOn dUn iT!!!”

Robocop 2014

Jurassic Park: World Dominion

  • “Human beings have no more right to safety or liberty than any other creature on this planet. We not only lack dominion over nature, we are subordinate to it. And now here we are with the opportunity to rewrite life at our fingertips. And just like nuclear power, nobody knew what to expect with genetic engineering, but they pressed the button and hoped for the best. Just like you are doing now. Yep. You. You control the future of our survival on planet earth. According to you, the solution is genetic power. But that same power could devastate the food supply, create new diseases, alter the climate even further…In order to instigate revolutionary change, we must transform human consciousness” -Ian Malcolm
  • If ever there was a perfect ending to the teachings of paganism resulting from an assumption of naturalism, this is it. Malcolm’s character assumes that humanity is no more than a collection of particles rather than image bearers of the Almighty. And the consistent result of this irrational thinking is that nature is worthy of praise. In direct opposition to what God tells mankind to accomplish (“Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”” – Genesis 1:26) Malcolm’s character tells his class that humans are subordinate to nature. It is both blasphemous and irrational. The writers of the Jurassic Park franchise couldn’t help but add their mantra of “gLobaL wArmiNg” into the Malcolm’s little diatribe. They believe that the planet (Gaia) is in danger of destruction by the activities of mankind, so the best solution (for them) is reducing the global population
  • The Jurassic Park franchise is full of naturalist teachings regarding evolution and other fanciful origins stories

What are some examples of naturalism and paganism in modern media that you’ve seen?

eVideNce fOr eVoLutiOn!!!!

Posted on by
16

Well, Christians, after 2000 years it’s time to pack it up. It was a good run for Christianity, but it’s over. A modern day Chuck confirmed the 19th century Chuck’s theory of evolution with a link to an article that holds the smoking gun for naturalism. “Evidence for evolution is uNdeNiabLe!!!!”.

At least that’s the claim they are making.

Before we discard the only valid worldview that can justify the preconditions for intelligibility, let’s take a closer look at the claim of the evolutionists and cross-examine their assertions

Here’s the conversation on Twitter that led to the analysis of this peer-reviewed article. I challenged this particular God-denier to produce undeniable proof that creatures lacking a particular trait gained a new trait in an immediately subsequent generation via natural selection acting on random mutations. He posted this link to a peer-reviewed article on ScienceDaily from 2008.

Here are the 3 claims from that article that they assert is a demonstration of new traits that produced by natural selection acting on random mutations that previous generations did not possess:

  1. “Striking differences in head size and shape”
  2. “increased bite strength”
  3. “development of new structures in the lizard’s digestive tracts”

Let’s take their claims one by one to see if it is indeed an undeniable example of natural selection acting on random mutations to produce novel traits

Head Shape and Size

Just from the initial reading of the text, we see that a different size head is not a new trait. Variable sizes in existing structures (head, arms, legs, noses…) is not an example of evolution. In that same way that we see different domestic dogs breeds with different size heads (poodle, St. Bernard) but they are the same species, there is variability in the genes. There are people that are tall and short, big heads and small heads, long arms and short arms…but to claim that this variability within the same species is “evoLuTioN” is ridiculous. They might have helped their case if they had given some measurements before/after, but this vital piece of evidence is missing. The claim that “changes in head size” is an example of evolution is inconsistent, impotent, and unconvincing.

Increased Bite Strength

Again, just reading the text, we see that there is no new trait. I would have liked to go deeper into this radical claim from the authors, but apparently they recognize that their claim of “increased bite strength” as evidence for evolution is extremely weak because they gave no further validation of their assertions. No measurements. No differences. Just a claim. As with the head size claim, there’s no need to speak of this anymore as if it’s part of the “mountain of evidence” in support of evolution, because it’s just empty

New Structures in the Digestive Tract

That leaves the crushing weight of their claim firmly on the shoulders of this last “example of evolution”. Can it support the weight? Let’s see.

Tail clips taken for DNA analysis confirmed that the Pod Mrcaru lizards were genetically identical to the source population on Pod Kopiste

Genetically identical?!??! This is the 1st reason why their claim of “evoLuTioN” holds no water. If the DNA is identical, then there were no random mutations to produce a new trait. This is the fundamental assumption of evolution: At one time, the DNA instructions for traits (arms, lungs, wings, cecal valves…) DID NOT EXIST, but over time, the accumulation of mutations produced functional code that improved a creature’s reproductive fitness in a particular environment. Since there are no genetic differences, there’s no evolution. It is the same species. There are no DNA changes. By itself, this is enough to dismiss this article as “an example of evolution”.

These structures actually occur in less than 1 percent of all known species of scaled reptiles

These structures ALREADY exist in this species of reptiles. The new environment did not PRODUCE these structures. The new environment of the lizards was selection pressure on the lizards such that the existing DNA information for the production of these structures (cecal valves) was made manifest. Since the lizards already carried the instructions in their DNA to produce these structures, then there was no evolution that created these structures. It was the environmental stresses that caused these existing structures to be expressed. See epigenetics for more information. This second nail in the coffin simply ensures that the corpse of their claim cannot be revived

Lastly, I’ve been told by evolutionists that fitness is measured on populations and it must abide by the mutation rates. Now I have reason to doubt the mutation rates that have been published by evolutionists because of bad assumptions, but even if we accept the mutation rates that they propose, the formation of new digestion structures and the creatures ability to make use of the new digestive structures is impossible. From The National Center for Biological Information:

Simple calculations then show that the waiting time to improve one of these six of eight matches to seven of eight has a mean of 60,000 years. This shows that new regulatory sequences can come from small modifications of existing sequence

We have already shown that there were no mutations, BASED ON THEIR OWN ADMISSIONS, but even if we grant the possibility of mutations, the mutation rate is far too slow to have produced that necessary changes that they have proposed. They claim that the new structures appeared in 36 years, but the minimum time for even the smallest beneficial mutation to occur is sixty thousand years. By their own metrics, their claim is refuted.

It looks like the wild claim from the evolutionists was (again) long on assertions and short on evidence. There’s no reason after all to close down Christianity in favor of evolutionism. The claims by these evolutionists is not new or rare. You can see here other claims that evolutionists have made about the amazing powers of evolution are shown to be impotent when analyzed.

Can Evolution Explain the Eye?

Posted on by
18
Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

The world is filled with magnificent biological designs and interrelated interdependent systems. I’ve been told that natural selection acting on random mutations has enough power to produce everything in biology. I’ve put these claims to the test several times

Well, I got a new challenge from a God-denier, who made the claim that evolution can even account for eyes. They provided a link to a “scientific” paper thinking they could bluster their way through a conversation without being skeptical. But I don’t fall to bluster so easily. Let’s analyze the claim to see if the scientists, who made the claim are asserting based on evidence or assumptions

Here’s how this works: I will post the quotes from the article in red and then just below the quote, I’ll post my analysis in the default black font preceded by a dash. I have bolded key words throughout, so the bold does not appear in the original work. Throughout, you’ll notice that instead of actual evidence, the authors of the article rely on assumptions. And those who are particularly intrepid and can work through this analysis to the end will be gifted with a unique surprise at the end

“Sight is an evolutionary gift”

– Odd choice of words from a scientific journal. Notice how evolution is reified as a magnificent gift-giver. Sounds more like paganism than science

“Life probably first appeared ~3.7 billion years ago”

– Probably?!?!? Indeed

“more likely”

– Aren’t we supposed to be talking about evidence rather than making assumptions?

“The opsin in rhodopsin probably evolved”

– Probably?!?!? Notice the use of the magic word: “evolved”. Do you care to go into the details? It seems like they missed a step in the explanation and tried to sweep the actual explanation under the “it evolved” rug. Pathetic!

“The passage of such molecules from microbial opsins to metazoan opsins probably came from a common ancestor as these are related, albeit distantly”

– Probably?!?!? Probably is used TWELVE times in the article. It sounds like a collection of assumptions rather than the actual evidence that we were told to expect

“Once an opsin (or the predecessor of the opsins) covalently bonded with retinal, perhaps in a cell with a cilium or two, the slow crawl to an eye began”

– Perhaps?!?! It’s a fine yarn, but the science-sounding veneer is wearing thin

“Perhaps after 35 000 generations, an organism discovered that developing a concave cup instead of a spot produced a more successful and competitive organ for sight”

– I really thought this was going to be a peer-reviewed scientific paper, but it’s just probably after probably followed by reification fallacy. How exactly did the unguided, sightless process of evolution look ahead to discover anything? They don’t know

“As Nilsson and Pelger suggested, from an eyespot to an eyecup to a fully formed camera-style eye could take as few as 364 000 generations, and the production of such an eye in perhaps as short a period as half a million years”

– This is called hedging. Suggested. Could. Perhaps. It’s not even distantly evidence, just speculation

“If one assumes that the eye must provide spatial information to be defined as an eye, then the curvature of a cup would create the first eye, as primitive spatial information would be provided”

– Notice how they just assumed that a critical component of the eye just popped into existence. It was needed, so nature provided. No explanation, just that it would be magically provided

“A cornea, lens, extraocular muscles (EOMs), and ocular adnexa were added as necessary”

– In a cosmos with no design, no purpose, just blind pitiless indifference, what is necessary? How does the naturalist suddenly assume purpose and necessity? Even worse, the explanation is never given, just “it was necessary – so evolution provided” as if there’s design inevitabilities just waiting out in the ether to be added to biological organisms. It’s a ridiculous assumption by evolutionists

“Multiple such ommatidia would likely have been produced by gene duplication”

– That’s not science. It’s just an assumption wrapped in a façade of scientism

“The morphology of the compound eye would itself evolve”

– Why do they continue to use the magic word: evolve, rather than explaining what happened? Maybe they don’t know so they just say “it evolved”

“Although little is known about its genetics”

– That’s actually optimistic. What exactly do you know AT ALL about its genetics?

“How this organism interprets the image it receives remains a mystery”

– Indeed! Mysteries abound within this “scientific” paper

“These organelles are believed to have originated through ancient symbiosis with a red alga23 or perhaps other protists”

– Believed?!?!? Perhaps?!?!? Yawn. I was hoping to find some evidence in this scientific paper, but they keep giving me their beliefs. In addition to that, symbiosis is a paradox for evolutionists. Symbiosis is an unimaginable coincidence built on another unimaginable coincidence, but since symbiosis is observed, the evolutionist just says: “LooK wHaT nAtuRe diD!”

“convergent evolution”

– This is a term that simply means: “We Darwinists don’t know how/why the same structures emerged in disparate species, but here they are, so nature must have done it twice”. It has no explanatory power…just a sciency-sounding term

“This ancient arthropod probably lived between 600 and 550 mya before the Cambrian explosion”

– Again, we’ll note that we’re dealing with assumptions and not science. The giant pink elephant in the room with which these authors fail to deal, is how did the extremely complicated eyes of the trilobite emerge via natural processes. They have no explanations just the assumption that nature was able to produce these complex eyes. Do you doubt my analysis of this sentence? Check out the very next sentence in the peer-reviewed scientific paper

“This would suggest that eyes were forming well before the Cambrian period but no record of such pre-Cambrian trilobites, or other animals with eyes, exists, at least to date”

– THERE IS NO RECORD (NO EVIDENCE) OF THE EVOLUTION OF THE EYE…just more assumptions. The key to those who claim that there’s a mountain of evidence for evolution is the hope that no one will actually read their peer-reviewed papers. They didn’t count on ApoloJedi skeptically analyzing their claims of evidence…only to expose that this “mountain” is a bottomless crater covered by assumptions

“As discussed earlier, the compound eye began, possibly in a worm-like creature, preceding the trilobites or contemporary to them”

– This sentence is further proof that anonymous internet God-denying keyboard warriors  have never read these peer-reviewed scientific papers. They Google search ‘the evolution of the eye’ and post the 1st link in the list. Little do they know that I’m not intimidated by their bluster. I’m literally taking these papers line by line and exposing the sheer blatant assumptions and complete lack of evidence. Because there is no evidence of the evolution of the compound eye of the trilobite, they have to say “the compound eye began”. It just began according to their assumption. No explanation. No evidence. It just began. When did the compound eye begin, evolutionists? “Possibly preceding trilobites or contemporary. We’re not sure” because THERE’S NO EVIDENCE

“There are at least six different models of compound eyes and it would appear that the most likely explanation is that the apposition-style eye came first and radiated into the other forms although this explanation is not completely satisfactory”

– No doubt. There’s at least 6 options, but none of them are satisfactory.

“The octopus evolved later and exhibits a more derived eye that includes a lens, a horizontally oval pupil, and a highly sophisticated system of EOMs”

– Hey evolutionists, how did the compound eye of the octopus come about…the steps…the processes? “It evolved”. Ohhhhhh, that’s not a very compelling explanation for us skeptics of evolution.

“The agnathans are the closest extant relative to the first cephalochordates alive today, so we must rely upon them to help us understand the development of eyes in the early vertebrate lineage”

– Notice the assumption of common decent and since there is no evidence of a step-by-step progression from agnathans to humans, the Darwinists “MUST RELY” on these assumptions in their artwork to show the fabled evolution of the vertebrate eye. Highly suspicious

“The Devonian was an important period”

– To the accidental aggregation of stardust in an amoral purposeless blind pitiless indifferent cosmos, how do you justify what is “important”?

“Some spiders developed excellent eyesight and clever adaptations to squeeze the optics and neurologic equipment into very small spaces”

– Sounds very much like purposeful design rather than natural selection throwing together random mutations into “clever equipment” with efficiency and effectiveness.

“Shubin and his team discovered the fossil of Tiktaalik, which probably represents the transitional form from an aquatic animal to a terrestrial one”

– Probably?!?!? The contrary analysis of Tiktaalik exposes the evolutionary assumptions as impotent

“external eyelids appeared”

– They just appeared! The explanation missed a step or 10,000

“Although our knowledge of dinosaurian vision is limited, we can make some assumptions based on the last common ancestor, indirectly related creatures and extant progeny including direct descendants”

– At least they admitted to making assumptions in this part, but they do fail to admit their assumptions about the ancestors and descendants of dinosaurs. There are no fossils of dinosaur ancestors. The evidence for dinosaur ancestors is completely missing

“We can conclude much of this from the avian lineage as birds are living dinosaurs”

– Not recognizing their own assumptions that birds are the direct descendent of dinosaurs, they try to make their assumptions count as direct evidence. It’s just an assumption, and their conclusions is based on the assumption – not evidence

“It is not known for certain”

– Clearly, but that doesn’t stop the authors from crafting a story filled with assumptions

“The Old World monkeys were separated from the New World monkeys and evolved a third visual pigment”

– There’s that magic “evolved” word again. No details. Just “nature-dun-it” I’ve been told that evolution simply means ‘change’. If indeed evolution just means change, can we substitute ‘changed’ in for ‘evolved’? Here’s what it would look like: “The Old World monkeys were separated from the New World monkeys and CHANGED a third visual pigment”. Maybe not. ‘Evolved’ doesn’t just mean changed. There’s way more magic built into the usage of the term

“This third visual pigment is not the same one as found in fish, reptiles, or birds, and likely represents an error in duplication of the LWL visual pigment”

– Likely. More assumptions. Evolutionists assume that an accumulation of errors (mutations) produced all of life. It’s all they have to work with. But it strains the very limited of common sense to assert that you can gain function from an accumulation of brokenness

“they illustrate visual photopigment evolution in progress”

– Isn’t evolution ALWAYS supposed to be in progress? I guess they have to assert this because observations of fossils show that “abrupt appearance” and “stasis” are the norm. No progress

In their conclusion (for those intrepid readers, here’s your gift from the scientists who authored their paper!):

“We know from computer models, and deductive reasoning, that eyes can evolve quickly”

– No evidence? Just assumptions and intelligently designed (biased) algorithms that assert an evolution of the eye. This can’t be repeated enough: if there were evidence, they would have produced it in this article. But they didn’t. In their concluding paragraph they admit that the evolution of the eye is speculated based on a computer model. And it’s not just that they claimed eyes evolved – but that they evolved QUICKLY. The Grand Theory of Evolution has been taught that it takes lots of time to change creatures from one to another. It’s likely these authors are not familiar with the waiting time problem…although they should be.

As Christians we know that evolution cannot explain the emergence of the eye because it is contrary to what God has revealed in the Bible. But the analysis of the claims of the evolutionists has a purpose beyond just saying (from the Christian worldview) that evolution is in conflict with God’s Word, so evolution isn’t true. This purpose is to see if their claims (from their perspective) is legitimate. Do they indeed have evidence to support their claims? After reading through this article, you can see that their claims are impotent and the definitive answer is NO. There’s no need to be bullied when an evolutionist claims: “There’s a mountain of overwhelming evidence for evolution.” As I’ve done in this series of articles, I say “SHOW ME!” And when we peek behind the curtain, it’s one assumption built on another.

We can trust What God has revealed in his Word about the past, so we can trust Him about the future too

UPDATE: Even the simplest vision is far beyond the capabilities of the BLIND forces of natural selection acting on random mutations