Friday Fun: Baby Got Book

Challenge Response: Abortion Permissible – Nobody Has the Right to Use My Body

Here’s my response to this week’s challenge:

Challenge: Nobody Has the Right to Use My Body

Judith Jarvis Thomson developed the famous abortion-rights “Violinist” argument back in the ’70s. You’ve probably heard it in a form somewhat like this:

Even if the unborn is a human being, abortion should still be allowed because my rights trump the rights of the baby. I’m not obligated to maintain the life of another human being against my will. Look at the violinist example: If you were to be kidnapped and surgically connected to a famous violinist who could only stay alive if he remained attached to you, you wouldn’t be obligated to use your body to keep him alive. You would be justified in disconnecting him from yourself, though he’s a human being. In the same way, a pregnant woman is justified in disconnecting the unborn baby.

If a woman brought up this argument in conversation with you, how would you respond? Take your best shot, and Alan will be here on Thursday to tell you how he responds to this challenge.

Youth Doing Apologetics

This past weekend, I had the chance to hang out with some high school students from Lake Norman Baptist Church in North Carolina, who started an apologetics class at their church.  Not only that but they’ve also launched a website called “Simply Apologetics.”  It was so refreshing to spend time with young people who are loving God with their minds and trying to impact their peers.

I also discovered they are trying to engage skeptics.  A YouTube atheist (NonStampCollector) recently posed a challenge to theists:

So these high schoolers decided to answer with their own video.  At this point, I’m not trying to offer any response to the atheist’s video challenge or a critique of these Christian high schoolers response.  I was just so stoked to see these students stepping up to the plate:

Youth, you’re capable of a lot more than many adults give you credit for.  I challenge you to get off the sidelines and get in the game, like these high schoolers in North Carolina.

Friday Fun: Eight Reasons Why I Don’t Share My Faith

Challenge Response: Intelligent Design Is Not Science

Here’s my response to this week’s challenge:

Is Jesus the Only Way?

We’ve posted one of Brett’s articles from the Apologetics Study Bible for Students at STR Place on a subject that often comes up:

“Jesus is the only way to God” may be the most controversial claim of Christianity, so we had better have good reason for it. And I think we do.

The key to understanding the Christian claim that Jesus is the only way is to 1) understand that Christianity makes claims about reality, and 2) understand what it is that Christ accomplished for us.

We are conditioned by our culture to think of religion as a personal preference. We are told, “You’ve got yours, I’ve got mine and there’s no right one.” So, to claim Jesus is the only way to God is like claiming chocolate ice cream is the one true flavor. It sounds absurd. However, preference is the wrong category for religious truth, ice cream the wrong analogy.

Instead, we ought to think of religion the way we think of medicine. Each religion recognizes the world is sick and offers its own diagnosis, just as a doctor would. In addition, each religion offers a potential cure. And we don’t choose medicine like we choose dessert. It would be absurd to say, “Doctor, I prefer aspirin over chemotherapy.” Instead, we want to know what’s true. Which cure actually works. When you examine the diagnosis and cures offered by other religions, you discover they differ radically from Christianity.

Read the full article here.

Challenge: Intelligent Design Isn’t Science

This is quite a common challenge I come across:

Intelligent Design isn’t science. It’s not testable. It doesn’t make predictions. It’s just religion masquerading as science–a way to try to get creationism into schools.

So what do you think? Any ideas about how to respond to this challenge from your friends? This week, we’ll be hearing a response from Alan, so be sure to stop by again on Thursday to hear his answer.

The Genesis of Our Unique Missions Trips

Darwin Day Is Not Really About Darwin

It’s Darwin Day tomorrow, a day when evolutionists celebrate “science and reason,” allegedly.

But this annual celebration is more about the Darwinists of today than the Darwin of yesterday. Conspicuously absent each year is a tribute to one of Darwin’s most noteworthy traits: intellectual honesty.

When you read Darwin’s book, On the Origin of Species, you can sense his honesty about the problems with evolutionary theory. Like a good scientist should do, he acknowledges that his theory could be proven false (it’s falsifiable). He even offers specific examples of the kind of data that is necessary to show he’s mistaken about his theory. He was a fair-minded man.

Not so with Darwinists today. According to them, evolution is not only a proven fact, but impossible to disprove. It’s scientific dogma. Sure, they give a nod to falsifiability by saying evolution is “testable,” “open to evidence,” and is “forever uncertain,” but this is just lip-service. Their lips would serve the scientific community far better if they uttered the words “open to error” and actually meant it.

If Darwinists were open to evidence against evolution, they would consider the evidence of design and intelligence in biology. Though these might qualify as evidence to reasonable scientists, they are the very things Darwinists disqualify by definition!

Noted Darwinist Douglas Futuyma says, “In a scientific sense, there can be no evidence for…creation.” Notice he doesn’t say, “There is no evidence,” or “We haven’t found any evidence yet.” He says there can’t be. That’s because he’s not open to any evidence that might possibly cast doubt on Darwin’s theory. So much for continuing Darwin’s legacy of being fair-minded. Futuyma has left the school of science and entered the department of dogma.

Why have Darwinists abandoned the falsifiability of evolution? It’s because, in their mind, any evidence against evolution is evidence for an intelligent Designer. Darwinists aren’t interested in the right answers, but the right kind of answers.

It’s too bad for Darwin. His legacy couldn’t continue the treasured scientific tradition of fair-mindedness and falsifiability. Instead, Darwin Day celebrations reflect the mentality of Darwinists rather than Darwin, a man of more noble character than his theory’s progeny.