in , , , , ,

Evidence Is Overwhelming?

critical thinking

As I mentioned in my previous article Ministers – Do You Care About Vicki?, after the UTSA Religious Forum held last November, I talked with two of the representing people regarding molecules to man evolution. Sean, the Secular Student Alliance representative, told me: “the evidence [for evolution] is overwhelming.” This is not the first time I have heard that from a Darwinist. That is a talking point of Darwinists, including theistic evolutionists. And they really believe it! But one of the “evidences” Sean used during the debate was how bacteria evolves. Bacteria do change. But bacteria are still bacteria. Using this as an example for molecules to man evolution is nothing more than the logical reasoning flaws of equivocation1 and extrapolation2. We addressed this issue in an episode of Believing the Bible radio program.3

But this underscores a bigger problem. People, Christians and non-Christians, are not taught to look at the arguments for the General Theory of Evolution (molecules to man) critically. But they surely look at the Bible critically. I have become better at assessing the Darwinists’ arguments. It does not hurt that I have a science background. But I learned a lot from Dr. Jason Lisle’s Ultimate Apologetics.4 I only wish I had watched this sooner when I think of all of the missed opportunities that I had. But here are some observations that I have made, having learned not to just accept whatever Darwinists say:

  1. Homo erectus had a narrower skull than we have.5 I heard this from a paleontologist on a science program. My answer to that is: Then Homo erectus is still walking around today. I have noticed perfectly normal people with noticeably narrow skulls. We are not all the same. As a matter of fact, Darwinists look at cranial capacity when they label the remains of someone as human or some kind of pre-human.6 On one occasion, I saw a young man who had a noticeably small head; as well as supports for his legs. He may have had microcephaly.7 I am sure he faces significant challenges. But I know he is a human being made in the image of God; because I saw him. But using their criteria, if Darwinists were to just look at his skeleton, they would label this young man as a pre-human. That is sad.
  2. Arizona State Professor Lawrence Krauss implies with the title of his lecture, A Universe from Nothing8, that the universe came from nothing. But Krauss points to “a boiling, bubbling brew of virtual particles popping in and out of existence in a time-scale so short that you can’t see them” that have energy that make up protons and neutrons that exist in a “vacuum”, or what we have called “nothing.” Well, if what we have called a “vacuum” has these virtual particles, then it is not really nothing. So Krauss is equivocating on the term “nothing.”   Krauss even says “By ‘nothing’ I don’t mean ‘nothing.’ I mean ‘nothing’ … ‘Nothing’ isn’t nothing anymore – in physics.” He even shows an animation titled “Empty Space not Empty!” Well Lawrence, if it is not empty, it is not “empty space.”
  3. In basically the same lecture given at another time9 Krauss states “Now, nothing has changed a lot. And some people get upset with that when I tell them science has changed the meaning of ‘nothing’ ” Krauss defends his changing of the word “nothing”, calling it “learning.” I call his statement a logical fallacy – reification. Science does not change the meaning of words – maybe scientists do. And Krauss is changing the meaning of “nothing” to commit another logical fallacy – begging the question. By changing the meaning of the word “nothing,” Krauss is begging the question of how the universe really came from nothing; while making people think that he is answering that question. In this lecture, Krauss also makes ad hominem (at the person) attacks and straw man arguments.10 The first lecture referred to, given at the Atheist Alliance International Conference in 2009, is also the lecture where Krauss states: “So forget Jesus, the stars died so that you could be here today.”
  4. The Darwinists frame this debate as science verses religion. On Larry King, Bill Nye the Science Guy criticizes people that believe the Bible and claims we are inconsistent in our thinking because we use science when we “accept aspirin, anti-biotic drugs, airplanes.”11 But Nye stated: “It is very hard to accept, for many of us, that when you die, it’s over. That’s really hard for a lot of people.” The question for Nye is: Is your statement “when you die, it’s over” a scientific statement, or a religious statement? In making that statement, Bill Nye revealed he is just as religious as I am. He just cannot see it.

Now the question that I have is: Where are people going to learn to think critically about what the Darwinists, or more generally the philosophical materialists12, are saying? Where are they going to learn they do not have to accept this? Are they going to learn it in school? Are they going to get it from Time Magazine, or the Discovery Channel? Are they going to get it when they watch the news? Church leaders are afraid to take this issue on. Most parishioners, on their own, are not going to take the initiative to learn that they really can believe the Bible. So people are either compromising their belief in the Bible, or they are falling away entirely. That is why we are where we are; living in a society where people, even professing Christians, believe two dudes can be “married” or people can choose their gender. Then more conservative church leaders put out statements on these social issues; without ever addressing the root cause – people do not believe the Bible! And the church is not teaching them that they can. It is like Jesus said: “You know how to interpret the weather signs in the sky, but you don’t know how to interpret the signs of the times!”13 If your church is not dealing with this, tell them we are here to help.

Advertisement Below:

Terry Read


Ultimate Apologetics DVD Set

Ultimate Apologetics Set explains how to defend biblical creation in a way that is absolutely irrefutable. Unlike so much literature on origins, this series deals with the heart of the issue, showing that the Bible is the bottom-line. The Bible must indeed be what it claims to be: the authoritative Word of God. Otherwise the gospel message itself—of original sin and the need for Jesus Christ—is without foundation.

In the Ultimate Apologetics Set, Dr. Jason Lisle reveals how to defend Genesis against all criticism. Lisle’s is a technique that anyone can learn, and includes many real-life examples.

Click here for more information about this DVD set

Avatar photo

Written by Terry Read

Graduate of University of Missouri-Rolla (now Missouri University of Science and Technology) – B.S. Engineering Management, 1986; Licensed professional engineer in the State of Texas – 1994 to Present; Volunteer data entry person at the San Antonio Pregnancy Care Center – 1992 to 2007;
Member of Kirby Baptist Church – 2006 to Present; Member San Antonio Bible Based Science Association – 2010 to Present; A director of San Antonio Bible Based Science Association – 2015 to Present; Co-host of Believing the Bible – 2016 to Present; Author of the book - Why Should I Believe? Why Should You Believe? - A Wake-Up Call to the Church!; Married to the former Elizabeth Cecilia – 1992 to Present;
Father of Joshua Read

Advertisement Below:


Leave a Reply
  1. Is the image of god consistent? Or is the term image variable in itself?

    “if Darwinists were to just look at his skeleton, they would label this young man as a pre-human.”
    If Darwinists looked at the size of his legs and head they would quickly indicate that his physical development was not normal and any assessment of his skeleton would determine this. Therefore he would not be classified as home erectus.

    But Nye stated: “It is very hard to accept, for many of us, that when you die, it’s over. That’s really hard for a lot of people.” The question for Nye is: Is your statement “when you die, it’s over” a scientific statement, or a religious statement? In making that statement, Bill Nye revealed he is just as religious as I am. He just cannot see it.
    I am missing your logic here.

  2. Warren,

    The Bible says God made “adam” (meaning mankind or “sons of Adam”) in God’s own image. Gen. 1:27. People are not human because of particular physical characteristics, but rather because they are descended from Adam and Eve.

    It is possible that some skeletons may not look human, but nevertheless be human, due to some disease or deformation. Evolutionists cannot prove that homo erectus was not human based merely on their arbitrary classification methods (i.e., narrow skulls, etc.)

    Bill Nye’s statement, “When you die, i’ts over,” is not a scientific statement. Scientific knowledge can only be attained by naturalistic methods (i.e., measuring, testing, inferences). How can anyone scientifically prove what happens to a person (i.e., soul and spirit) when they die? Any statement about what happens to a person after they die is based upon religious evidence and beliefs; there is nothing science can say about it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Advertisement Below:
Advertisement Below:

What Happened to the Dinosaurs? – Creation Basics 5

Compromise In Ivy League Schools – The Evolution of Evolution | David Rives