APOCKETGUIDETO...AtheismUnderstandingtheinherentproblemsofano-GodworldviewCopyright©2014Answers inGenesis–US.All rights reserved.Nopartof thisbook may be used or reproduced in any manner whatsoever without writtenpermissionfromthepublisher.Formoreinformationwrite:AnswersinGenesis,POBox510,Hebron,KY41048AllScripturequotationsaretakenfromtheNewKingJamesVersion.Copyright©1982byThomasNelson,Inc.Usedbypermission.Allrightsreserved.www.answersingenesis.org

TableofContentsIntroductionbyKenHamAtheistsOutlineTheirGlobalReligiousAgendabyKenHamEvolutionaryHumanism:TheBloodiestReligionEverbyBodieHodgeWhataretheTacticsoftheNewAtheists?byElizabethMitchell(withendnotesbyBodieHodge)

Atheism:AnIrrationalWorldviewbyJasonLisleMorality:TheSecularResponsebyBodieHodgeSelf-refutingSkepticismbyRogerPattersonDearAtheists...AreYouTiredofItAll?byBodieHodgeConfessionsofaFormerAtheistbyJohnUpChurch“ThereIsNoGod!”

IntroductionbyKenHamYouprobablyknowthatwordchutzpah.(Asimilartermisaudacity.)IamusingthatYiddishwordtodescribetheactionsofanatheistwhovisitedourCreationMuseum. He got in free by cheating, toured the museum, and afterwardproceededtoblast themuseumonhisblog—ablogwhich isdevoted to,ashecallsit,“debunkingChristianity.”

How did he get in free? He played on the generosity and sympathy of amuseumstaffmember.Themancametothemuseumdeskanddeclaredthatheonlyhadashorttimetospendatthemuseumanddidnothavethemoneyinhisbudget to pay for a ticket. Now, he did admit that he was skeptical of themuseum’s content. But the museum staff member, wanting to reach out to aperson who expressed a financial need and also hoping the museum mightchallengehisthinking,allowedhiminatnocharge.Weverymuchwantskepticstovisit.

Conveniently, though,whatdidn’the tellher?Well, thathewas reallyat themuseum as an atheist who was wanting to go through the museum and thenwouldbeblastingit—withouthavingtopay.Wehavesincelearnedthatthemanhaswrittenfivebooksinthepastfewyearsandadvertiseshimselfasaspeakeragainst Christianity—I doubt very much he is the pauper he pretended to bewhenhecamehere.

Butcominghereunderfalsepretensesandgettinginfreedoesn’treallyupsetme.Why?First,becausehedidhearGod’sWord throughout themuseum,and“faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God” (Romans 10:17).PerhapsthismanwillrepentofhissinsandbelieveintheLordJesusChrist.

Second,becauseheisanatheist,thismanisonlyactingconsistentlywithhisworldview.Iunderstandhisactions,thoughIcertainlydon’tcondonethem,forstealing is against all sorts of biblical teachings, including one of the TenCommandments.Butyousee,hehasnoabsolutestandardbywhichheliveshislife.Sowhyisitevenwronginhissecularworldviewtomisrepresenthimselftous?Hecanjustifybeingacheaterbuyhisatheisticreligion.

So I understand his mindset. I really do. If there is no God, how could anatheist ever say what is right or wrong? By what standard can he make thatdetermination?Ifeachpersondecidesforhimselfwhatisrightorwrong,thenhecanarguethatwhathedidatthemuseumwasnotwrong.

Secularatheistichumanismisabeliefsystemaboutwhatwesupposedlycamefrom(nothing),whatourpurposeisinlife(nothing),andwhathappenswhenwedie(whichagainisnothing).Thosewhobelievethiswayareonlydemonstratingthe truth of Romans 1—they are suppressing the truth of God’s existence inunrighteousness. They claim to be wise, but Romans 1 states that they havebecomefools.

ItalsodidnotmakememadwhenIlearnedthatasthisatheistwasleavingthemuseum,heleftabusinesscardwithourguestservicesstaffmember—theonewhohadbeensokindtohim.Thecardhadthewords“debunkingChristianity”onitalongwithhiswebsiteaddress.Nowhewantedhertoknowwhathewasreallydoingatthemuseum,asifhewasgloating,“Ha!Ideceivedyou.”Butthisbehaviorwasconsistentwithhisatheism.

I once posted a Facebook comment about this man, with the title, “Atheistdebunking—oranadvertisementfortheCreationMuseum?”Likemostatheistswhowritenegativelyabouttheirmuseumexperience,hesimplydescribedsomeof the exhibits and, with lots of hand-waving, just said we were wrong. Hislengthy piece really offered no real rebuttals of the scientific displays. Hemockedtheexhibitsmorethananything.(HedidseemtobeimpressedwithourInsectorium’s collection of insects, though.) But I’m not upset with him foranotherreason:themanseemstohavealotoffollowers(basedonthenumberofcommentsheisreceivingabouthisblogagainstus),andsoIseehisblogpostasanadvertisementfortheCreationMuseum.

This atheist certainly saw and heard God’s Word in the museum, and weshouldprayforhim.Iunderstandthathecomesfromachurchbackground,butapparently he did not receive any effective apologetics teaching, or perhaps itmayhavebeenweak teaching. Idon’tknow.So let’spray for thisatheist, thatGodwill useHisWord to convict him and lead him to salvation through theHolySpirit.

Meanwhile, because of cheaters like this man, we greatly tightened up ourprocedures to make sure that people like this don’t take advantage of ourgenerosity just so theycanmockus.Actually, thismuseum incident showshedid not come to theCreationMuseumwith any other intent but tomock andspeakagainstChristianity.Evenbeforehisvisit,hisatheistic,blind-faithreligionhadalreadybiasedwhathewouldwriteabouttheCreationMuseum!

We’vehadanumberofinstancesofatheistsnottellingthetruth(forthemthereis no such thing as “truth” anyway) in order to take advantage of us at theCreationMuseum.Forinstance,TVcommentatorandcomedianBillMaherand

hisvideocrewliedandbroketherulestosneakintoAiG.1Andthentherewasanincidentin2010.2Andtherehavebeenotherinstances.Actually,theatheists’behaviorjust illustratesRomans1overandoveragain—theyworktosuppressthetruthbecausetheyknowintheirheartsthatGodcreated(Romans1:18–19).

Endnotes1.“HBO’sBillMaherandtheplottodeceiveAiG,”February7,2007,blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2007/02/07/hbos-bill-maher-and-the-plot-to-deceive-aig/.Returntotext.

2.“AttemptedCrashingof‘DateNight’attheCreationMuseum,”February15,2011,www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2011/02/15/crashing-date-night.Returntotext.

AtheistsOutlineTheirGlobalReligiousAgendabyKenHamInJune2010,atheistsmetataconferenceinCopenhagenandreleasedwhattheycall their “CopenhagenDeclaration onReligion in Public Life,”1 which reallymeans they released their statement of faith and their declarationagainstChristianity.

Theirdeclarationisreprintedbelow(inbold),which is interspersedwithmytranslation(regularfont)onwhat theyactuallymean.Theseatheists thinktheycan indoctrinate the public by their statements, but many are awake (andhopefully this short chapter will help even more people to awaken) to theiragendatoindoctrinatethepublicintheiranti-Godreligion.

CopenhagenDeclarationonReligioninPublicLifeWe, at the World Atheist Conference: “Gods and Politics”, held inCopenhagen from 18 to 20 June 2010, hereby declare [our Statement ofFaith]asfollows:Werecognizetheunlimitedright—eventhoughwehavenoobjectivebasis

for “rights” in our system—to freedomof conscience, religion, andbelief—exceptforChristians—andthatfreedomtopracticeone’sreligionshouldbelimited onlyby theneed to respect the rights of others—this is the goldenrule: “dounto others . . . ” forwhichwehaveno logical basis in ourwayofthinking;andexceptforChristians,aswerejectChristianitytotallyandmusttrytoeliminateit.

Thisisourdogma—Wesubmitthatpublicpolicyshouldbeinformedbyevidence

—except we discount the Bible as evidence—and reason—as long as it isautonomoushumanreason,aswearbitrarilyrejectthebiblicalGodtotally—notby dogma—except for our dogma of course, as we reject the claim of theabsoluteauthorityoftheChristianGod.Weasserttheneedforasocietybasedondemocracy—eventhoughthishas

no logical basis in our evolutionary worldview where survival of the fittestdominates;andaslongastheabsolutesofChristianityarenotallowed—humanrights—forwhichwehavenobasis—andtheruleoflaw—whichprotectstheweak from the strong, despite the fact that we believe in evolution, which is

about the strong dominating the weak. History has shown that the mostsuccessful—“successful” by our arbitrary dogma—societies are the mostsecular—just like the countries led by Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler,Mussolini,Lenin,andmanymore,killingoffmillionsofhumananimalsfortheircause.Weassert—thatis,wetakethenon-neutralposition—thattheonlyequitablesystem—eventhoughwehavenologicalbasisforwhatisfair—ofgovernmentinademocraticsocietyisbasedonsecularism—thereligionofnaturalismandatheism,andthusrelativemorality,rejectinganyabsolutes(exceptweabsolutelyreject Christianity and theBible)—state neutrality inmatters of religion orbelief—bywhichwemeanthestatemustenforceourview,thatiswhyweareabsolutelyagainstanyabsolutemoralitybasedontheChristianGod—favoringnone—except the religion of naturalism/atheism which is the only favoredreligioussystem—anddiscriminatingagainstnone—exceptChristians,asitisokay todiscriminateagainst thembecausebyourownarbitrarydefinitionswehaveeliminatedChristianity,beliefinaCreatorGod,andtheclaimsoftheBibleasGod’srevelation,thusitisokaytodiscriminateagainstChristians.Weassertthatprivateconduct—exceptforChristians—whichrespectstherights of others—even though we have no basis for determiningwhat “respect”means, nor any logical basis for why people (who are chanceconglomerations of chemicals) ought to have “rights”—should not be thesubject of legal sanction or government concern—unless it involvesChristians,aswehavedeterminedtheyshouldnotbeallowedfreedomfortheirreligion because they believe in absolutes and have a system of absolutemorality.Weaffirmtherightofbelieversandnon-believersalike toparticipate inpubliclife—aslongasChristiansdonotusetheirpositiontoactorevenvoteinaccordwiththeirChristianmoralityetc.,asinpubliclifetheymustactandvoteinaccordwithwhatwecallneutrality,whichisreallyourreligionofatheismandnaturalism, because that iswhatwe demand be imposed on our culture—andtheir right to equality of treatment in the democratic process—as long astheyagreewithour atheistic religion;otherwise, theyarenot allowedequalityandmustbemarginalizedandeliminated.Weaffirmtherighttofreedomofexpressionforall—exceptforChristians,

who cannot express their beliefs in public and certainly not in public schools,though it is okay for Muslims and atheists to indoctrinate kids in the public

schoolsystem,butChristianscan’tevenmentiontheBibleortheirChristianityor they will be fired—subject to limitations only as prescribed ininternational law—which we will determine, as we reject the Bible—lawswhichallgovernmentsshouldrespectandenforce—eventhoughwehavenobasis for any laws except our opinion, if we can impose that.We reject allblasphemylaws—exceptforthosewhichprotectourreligiousbeliefinatheismandevolution,whichmustnotbecriticizedaswehavedeterminedthatitisokayto blaspheme the ChristianGod (thoughwe try to avoid speaking against theMuslimgodorothers)becausewehave,byourarbitrarydefinitions,determinedthereisnoGodanyway—andrestrictionsontherighttocriticizereligionornonreligiouslifestances—aslongasnoonecriticizesatheism,becausewehavedeterminedthatthisisfactandthereforeanyotherpositionisoutlawedifwecanget awaywith that, as we are totally intolerant of others who don’t have ourposition.We assert the principle of one law for all—which is our law, which is

arbitrarybecausewehavenobasisforitexceptthatwewanttoimposeit—withnospecialtreatmentforminoritycommunities—exceptours,eventhoughwehave no ultimate basis for such a belief—and no jurisdiction for religiouscourtsforthesettlementofcivilmattersorfamilydisputes—whichmeansnoChristians can be involved in such courts because we reject Christianity;therefore, only courts based on our atheism and relative morality caninconsistentlyruleonsuchmattersimposingtheiratheisticopinionsonothers.We reject all discrimination in employment (other than for religiousleaders)—as no one has a right to impose anymorality on their organizationexcept our system of morality (which is arbitrary, of course) and is againstChristians. And of course we want to have atheists as leaders in atheistorganizations so we need that freedom for our leaders—though in theorganization itself we allow freedom, except for Bible-believing Christians ofcourseastheyhave(byourarbitrarydefinition)beeneliminatedanyway—andthe provision of social services on the grounds of race, religion or belief,gender,class,casteorsexualorientation—aswearetolerantofall;exceptweare intolerant of those dogmatic Christians who claim they have an absolutemorality based on the Bible, which of course we reject as we want our ownabsolutes(whichdenyChristianabsolutes)imposedontheculture.Werejectanyspecialconsiderationforreligioninpoliticsandpubliclife—

exceptforthereligionofatheism,aswewanttocontrolpoliticsandpubliclife

and imposeourarbitrary relativemoralityand intolerant systemon theculture—andopposecharitable,tax-freestatusandstategrantsforthepromotionofanyreligion—except the religionofatheism,aswewantall thegrantsandthetax-freestatus—asinimicaltotheinterestsofnon-believersandthoseofotherfaiths.Weopposestatefundingforfaithschools—exceptfortheatheistfaith,asthatistheonlyfaithallowedinschoolstobefunded,whichiswhyitisnow really the official religion of the public schools in the USA, whereChristianitybyandlargehasbeenthrownoutandreplacedwiththereligionofnaturalism/atheism,whichiswhatwewant tohappentoallschools.Thatway,we can control the coming generations and indoctrinate them in atheism andagainstChristianity,whichwearedoingquitesuccessfullyatthepresenttime.We support the right to secular education—which means atheist-based

education,aswetotallyrejectChristianeducationbecauseweareatheistsouttoimpose our religion of atheism on the culture—and assert the need foreducation in critical thinking—except for naturalism/evolution; evolution isnot allowed to be critically analyzed, because we need to indoctrinate kidstotallyinevolutionsotheywillmoreeasilyacceptourreligionofatheism—andthedistinctionbetweenfaithandreasonasaguidetoknowledge—exceptforour faith in atheism, which we simply redefine as “reason,” as we rejectknowledgeclaimedtobefromGodandonlyallowknowledgetobedeterminedbased on our arbitrary definitions of science being naturalism—and in thediversity of religiousbeliefs—as long asChristianity is not allowed, becausewearetolerantofallreligionsexceptChristianity.Wesupportthespiritoffreeinquiry—except no one is free to base their beliefs on the Bible—and theteachingofsciencefreefromreligiousinterference—exceptforthereligionofatheism,asbyourdefinition, sciencecanonlyexplain thingsbasedonnaturalcauses,becausewehavebydefinitioneliminatedthesupernaturalfromanypartof science—and are opposed to indoctrination, religious or otherwise—except for the indoctrination in atheism/naturalism, which is what we aredetermined to do, and as long aswe don’t allow people to even consider theBibleorChristianitybecauseatheismisthereligionwedemandbeimposedoneveryone,aswetotallyrejecttheGodoftheBible.

Endnotes1.Seethetextofthedeclarationatrationalwiki.org/wiki/Copenhagen_Declaration_on_Religion_in_Public_Life.Returntotext.

KenHam,PresidentandCEO,AnswersinGenesis&theCreationMuseum

Ken earned a bachelor’s degree in applied science from the QueenslandInstituteofTechnologyinAustralia.HealsoholdsadiplomaofeducationfromtheUniversityofQueensland.InrecognitionofhiscontributiontothechurchintheUSAandinternationally,Kenhasbeenawardedtwohonorarydoctorates:aDoctorofDivinity(1997)fromTempleBaptistCollegeinCincinnati,OhioandaDoctorofLiterature(2004)fromLibertyUniversityinLynchburg,Virginia.

EvolutionaryHumanism:TheBloodiestReligionEverbyBodieHodgeMan’sauthorityorGod’sauthority...tworeligionsIfGodandHisWordarenottheauthority...thenbydefault...whois?Manis.WhenpeoplerejectGodandHisWordastheultimateauthority,thenmanisattempting to elevate his or her thoughts (collectively or individually) to apositionofauthorityoverGodandHisWord.

So often, people claim that “Christians are religious and the enlightenedunbelievers who reject God are not religious.” Don’t be deceived by such astatement.For thesenonbelieversare indeedreligious—very religious,whethertheyrealizeitornot.Fortheyhaveboughtintothereligionofhumanism.

HumanismisthereligionthatelevatesmantobegreaterthanGod.Humanism,inabroadsense,encompassesanythoughtorworldviewthatrejectsGodandthe66booksofHisWordinpartorinwhole;henceallnon-biblicalreligionshavehumanistic roots. There are also those thatmix aspects of humanismwith theBible.Manyof these religions (e.g.,Mormonism, Islam, Judaism,etc.)openlyborrow from the Bible, but they also have mixed human elements into theirreligionwhere they take some ofman’s ideas to supersedemany parts of theBible,perhapsinsubtleways.1

Therearemanyformsofhumanism,butsecularhumanismhasbecomeoneofthe most popular today. Variant forms of secular humanism include atheism,agnosticism, non-theism, Darwinism, and the like. Each shares a belief in anevolutionaryworldviewwithmanasthecenteredauthorityoverGod.

Humanismorganizations canalso receivea tax-exempt status (the sameas aChristian church in theUnitedStates and theUnitedKingdom)and they evenhave religious documents like the Humanist Manifesto. Surprisingly, thisreligionhas free rein in state schools,museums,andmediaunder theguiseofneutrality,seekingtofoolpeopleintothinkingitisnota“religion.”2

Humanismand“good”Christiansareoftenconfrontedwiththeclaimthatahumanisticworldviewwill

help society become “better.”3 Even the first Humanist Manifesto, of which

belief in evolution is a subset, declared: “Thegoal of humanism is a free anduniversalsocietyinwhichpeoplevoluntarilyandintelligentlyco-operateforthecommongood.”

Butcan sucha statementbe true?For starters,whatdo theauthorsmeanby“good”? They have no legitimate foundation for such a concept, since oneperson’s“good”canbeanother’s“evil.”Tohavesomeobjectivestandard(notarelativestandard),theymustborrowfromtheabsoluteandtrueteachingsofGodintheBible.

Beyond that, does evolutionaryhumanism really teach a future of prosperityandacommongood?Sincedeath is the“hero” inanevolutionary framework,thenitmakesonewonder.Whathasbeentheresultofevolutionarythinkinginthepastcentury(20thCentury)?Perhapsthiscouldbeatestofwhatistocome.

Let’s first look at the death estimates due to aggressive conflicts stemmingfrom leaderswith evolutionaryworldviews,beginning in the1900s, to see thehintsofwhatthis“nextlevel”lookslike:Table1:Estimateddeathsasaresultofanevolutionaryworldview

Who/What? Specificeventandestimateddead TotalEstimates

Pre-HitlerGermany/HitlerandtheNazis

WWI:8,500,0004

WWII:70million5

[Holocaust:17,000,000]695,000,000

LeonTrotskyandVladimirLenin

BolshevikrevolutionandRussianCivilWar:15,000,0007 15,000,000

JosephStalin 20,000,0008 20,000,000

MaoZedong 14,000,000–20,000,0009 Medianestimate:17,000,000

KoreanWar 2,500,000?10 ~2,500,000

VietnamWar(1959-1975)

4,000,000–5,000,000Vietnamese,1,500,000–2,000,000LaoandCambodians11

MediansofeachandexcludesFrench,Australia,andU.S.losses:6,250,000

PolPot(SalothSar) 750,000-1,700,00012 Medianestimate:1,225,000

Chinaestimatessince1971-2006:300,000,00014

USSRestimatesfrom1954-1991:280,000,00015

Abortiontochildren13 USestimates1928-2007:26,000,00016

Franceestimates1936-2006:5,749,73117

UnitedKingdomestimates1958-2006:6,090,73818

Germanyestimates1968-2007:3,699,62419

621,500,000andthisexcludesmanyothercountries

Grandestimate ~778,000,000

Charles Darwin’s view of molecules-to-man evolution was catapulted intosocieties around the world in the mid-to-late 1800s. Evolutionary teachingsinfluencedKarlMarx,LeonTrotsky,AdolfHitler,PolPot,MaoZedong,JosephStalin, Vladimir Lenin, andmany others. Let’s take a closer look at some ofthese people and events and examine the evolutionary influence andrepercussions.

WorldWarIandII,Hitler,Nazis,andtheHolocaustMost historians would point to the assassination of Archduke Francis

FerdinandonJune18,1914,astheeventthattriggeredWorldWarI(WWI).Buttensions were already high considering the state of Europe at the time.DarwiniansentimentwasbrewinginGermany.Darwinoncesaid:

Atsomefutureperiod,notverydistantasmeasuredbycenturies,thecivilizedracesofmanwillalmostcertainlyexterminateandreplacethesavageracesthroughouttheworld.Atthesametimetheanthropomorphousapes...willnodoubtbeexterminated.Thebreakbetweenmanandhisnearestallieswillthenbewider,foritwillintervenebetweenmaninamorecivilizedstate,aswemayhope,eventhantheCaucasian,andsomeapeaslowasababoon,insteadofasnowbetweenthenegroorAustralian[Aborigine]andthegorilla.20

Darwin viewed the “Caucasian” (white-skinned Europeans) as the dominant“race” in his evolutionary worldview. To many evolutionists at the time,mankindhadevolvedfromape-likecreaturesthathadmorehair,darkskin,darkeyes,etc.Therefore,more“evolved”meantlessbodyhair,blondhair,blueeyes,etc. Later, in Hitler’s era, Nazi Germany practiced Lebensborn, which was acontroversial program, the details of which have not been entirely brought tolight.Many claim it was a breeding program that tried to evolve the “masterrace”further—moreonthisbelow.

But theGermansentimentprior toWWIwasverymuchbentonconqueringfor the purpose of expanding their territory and their “race.”An encyclopedia

entryfrom1936states:IndiscussionsofthebackgroundofthewarmuchhasbeensaidofPan-Germanism,whichwasthespiritofnationalconsciousnesscarriedtotheextremelimit.ThePan-Germans,whoincludednotonlymilitarists,buthistorians,scientists,educatorsandstatesmen,conceivedtheGermanpeople,nomatterwheretheylocated,aspermanentlyretainingtheirnationality.ThemostambitiousofthisgroupbelievedthatitwastheirmissionofGermanstoextendtheirkultur(culture)overtheworld,andtoaccomplishthisbyconquestifnecessary.InthisconnectionthetheorywasadvancedthattheGermanwasasuperiorbeing,destinedtodominateotherpeoples,mostofwhomwerethoughtofasdecadent.21

Germany had been buying into Darwin’s model of evolution and sawthemselves as the superior “race,” destined to dominate the world and theiractions were the consequence of their worldview. This view set the stage forHitlerandtheNazipartyandpavedtheroadtoWWII.

HitlerandtheNazisWorldWar II dwarfedWorldWar I in the total number of peoplewhodied.

RacistevolutionaryattitudesexplodedinGermanyagainstpeoplegroupssuchasJews, Poles, andmany others. Darwin’s teaching on evolution and humanismheavilyinfluencedAdolfHitlerandtheNazis.

Hitler even tried to force the Protestant church in Germany to changefundamentaltenantsbecauseofhisnewfoundfaith.22In1936,whileHitlerwasinpower,anencyclopediaentryonHitlerstated:

...aHitlerattempttomodifytheProtestantfaithfailed.23

Hisactionsclearlyshowthathedidnotholdtothebasicfundamentalstaughtinthe66booksoftheBible.Thoughsomeofhiswritingssuggesthedidbelievein some formofGodearlyon (due tohis upbringingwithinCatholicism), hisreligious views moved toward atheistic humanism with his acceptance ofevolution.Manyatheiststodaytrytodisavowhimbutactionsspeaklouderthanwords.

TheAlphaHistorysite(dedicatedtomuchtothehistoryofNaziGermanybyprovidingdocuments,transcribedspeeches,andsoon)says:

Contrarytopopularopinion,Hitlerhimselfwasnotanatheist....Hitlerdriftedawayfromthechurchafterleavinghome,andhisreligiousviewsinadulthoodareindispute.24

Sothishistorysiteisnotsurewhathisbeliefswere,buttheyseemtobecertainthathewasnotanatheist!Iftheyarenotsurewhatbeliefsheheld,howcantheybecertainhewasnotanatheist?25Thefactisthatmanypeoplewhowalkawayfromchurchbecomeatheists(i.e.,theywereneverbelieversinthefirstplaceas1 John 2:19 indicates). And Hitler’s actions were diametrically opposed toChristianity . . .butnotatheism,where there isnoGodwhosetswhat is rightandwrong.26

Regardless,thisrefutesnotionsthatHitlerwasaChristianassomehavefalselyclaimed.Hitler’sdisbeliefstartedearly.Hesaid:

Thepresentsystemofteachinginschoolspermitsthefollowingabsurdity:at10a.m.thepupilsattendalessoninthecatechism,atwhichthecreationoftheworldispresentedtotheminaccordancewiththeteachingsoftheBible;andat11a.m.theyattendalessoninnaturalscience,atwhichtheyaretaughtthetheoryofevolution.Yetthetwodoctrinesareincompletecontradiction.Asachild,Isufferedfromthiscontradiction,andranmyheadagainstawall....Isthereasinglereligionthatcanexistwithoutadogma?No,forinthatcaseitwouldbelongtotheorderofscience....Buttherehavebeenhumanbeings,inthebabooncategory,foratleastthreehundredthousandyears.Thereislessdistancebetweentheman-apeandtheordinarymodernmanthanthereisbetweentheordinarymodernmanandamanlikeSchopenhauer...Itisimpossibletosupposenowadaysthatorganiclifeexistsonlyonourplanet.27Considerthisquoteinhisunpublishedsecondbook:Thetypesofcreaturesontheeartharecountless,andonanindividualleveltheirself-preservationinstinctaswellasthelongingforprocreationisalwaysunlimited;however,thespaceinwhichthisentirelifeprocessplaysitselfoutislimited.Itisthesurfaceareaofapreciselymeasuredsphereonwhichbillionsandbillionsofindividualbeingsstruggleforlifeandsuccession.Inthelimitationofthislivingspaceliesthecompulsionforthestruggleforsurvival,andthestruggleforsurvival,inturncontainsthepreconditionforevolution.28Hitlercontinues:Thehistoryoftheworldintheageswhenhumansdidnotyetexistwasinitiallyarepresentationofgeologicaloccurrences.Theclashofnaturalforceswitheachother,theformationofahabitablesurfaceonthisplanet,the

separationofwaterandland,theformationofthemountains,plains,andtheseas.That[was]isthehistoryoftheworldduringthistime.Later,withtheemergenceoforganiclife,humaninterestfocusesontheappearanceanddisappearanceofitsthousandfoldforms.Manhimselffinallybecomesvisibleverylate,andfromthatpointonhebeginstounderstandtheterm“worldhistory”asreferringtothehistoryofhisowndevelopment—inotherwords,therepresentationofhisownevolution.Thisdevelopmentischaracterizedbythenever-endingbattleofhumansagainstanimalsandalsoagainsthumansthemselves.29HitlerfullybelievedDarwinaswellasDarwin’sprecursors—suchasCharles

Lyell’sgeologicalagesandmillionsofyearsofhistory. Inhisstatementshere,there is no reference to God. Instead, he unreservedly flew the banner ofnaturalism and evolution and only mentioned God in a rare instance to winChristians to his side, just as agnosticCharlesDarwindid in his bookOn theOriginofSpecies.30

OnepartoftheNazipartypoliticalplatform’s25pointsin1920says:WedemandfreedomofreligionforallreligiousdenominationswithinthestatesolongastheydonotendangeritsexistenceoropposethemoralsensesoftheGermanicrace.ThePartyassuchadvocatesthestandpointofapositiveChristianitywithoutbindingitselfconfessionallytoanyonedenomination.31Clearly this “positive Christianity” was an appeal to some of Christianity’s

morality,butnot thefaith itself.Manyatheists todaystillappeal toa“positiveChristian”approach,wantingthemoralityofChristianity(inmanyrespects),butnotChristianity.

Christianitywas under heavy attack byHitler and theNazi’s as documentedfromoriginalsourcespriortotheendofWWIIbyBruceWalkerinTheSwastikaagainst theCross.32The book clearly reveals the anti-Christian sentiment byHitler and theNazi’s and their persecutionofChristianity and their attempt tomakeChristianitychangeandbesubjecttotheNazistateandbeliefs.

In 1939–1941, the Bible was rewritten for the German people at Hitler’scommand, eliminating all references to Jews and made Christ out to be pro-Aryan!TheTenCommandmentswerereplacedwiththesetwelve33:

1. HonoryourFuhrerandmaster.2. Keepthebloodpureandyourhonorholy.

3. HonorGodandbelieveinhimwholeheartedly.4. SeekoutthepeaceofGod.5. Avoidallhypocrisy.6. Holyisyourhealthandlife.7. Holyisyourwell-beingandhonor.8. Holyisyourtruthandfidelity.9. Honor your father and mother—your children are your aid and your

example.10. Maintainandmultiplytheheritageofyourforefathers.11. Bereadytohelpandforgive.12. Joyouslyservethepeoplewithworkandsacrifice.

HitlerhadreplacedChrist inNazi thought; andchildrenwereeven taught topray toHitler insteadofGod!34Hitler and theNazi’swere notChristian, butinsteadwerehumanisticintheiroutlookandanysemblanceofChristianitywascultic. TheNazi’s determined that their philosophywas the bestway to bringaboutthecommongoodofallhumanity.

Interestingly, itwasChristians alone inGermanywhowere unconquered bytheNazi’sandsufferedheavilyforit.Walkersummarizesinhisbook:

YouwouldexpecttofindChristiansandNazismortalenemies.Thisis,ofcourse,exactlywhathappenedhistorically.Christians,alone,provedunconquerablebytheNazis.ItcanbesaidthatChristiansdidnotsucceedinstoppingHitler,butitcannotbesaidthattheydidnottry,oftenatgreatlossandnearlyalwaysastruemartyrs(peoplewhocouldhavechosentolive,butwhochosetodieforthesakeofgoodness.)35Hitler and theNazi’s evolutionaryviews certainlyhelped leadGermany into

WWII because they viewed the “Caucasian” as more evolved (and morespecificallytheAryanpeoplesoftheCaucasians),whichtothemjustifiedtheiradoptionof the idea that lesser“races” shouldbemurdered in the struggle forsurvival.Amongthefirst tobetargetedwereJews, thenPoles,Slavs,andthenmanyothers—includingChristiansregardlessoftheirheritage.

Trotsky,LeninTrotskyandLeninwerebothnotoriousleadersoftheUSSR—andspecifically

theRussian revolution.Lenin, takingpower in1917, becamea ruthless leader

andselectedTrotskyashisheir.LeninandTrotskyheldtoMarxism,whichwasbuilt,inpart,onDarwinismandevolutionappliedtoasocialscheme.

KarlMarxregardedDarwin’sbookasan“epoch-makingbook.”WithregardtoDarwin’s researchonnatural origins,Marx claimed, “The lattermethod is theonlymaterialisticand,therefore,theonlyscientificone.”36

FewrealizeoradmitthatMarxism,theprimaryideaunderlyingcommunism,isbuiltonDarwinismandmaterialism(i.e.,noGod).In1883,FreidrichEngels,Marx’s longtime friend and collaborator, stated at Marx’s funeral service that“Just as Darwin discovered the law of evolution in organic nature, so Marxdiscovered the law of evolution in human history.”37BothDarwin andMarxbuilt their ideologies on naturalism and materialism (tenants of evolutionaryhumanism).TrotskyoncesaidofDarwin:

Darwinstoodformelikeamightydoorkeeperattheentrancetothetempleoftheuniverse.Iwasintoxicatedwithhisminute,precise,conscientiousandatthesametimepowerful,thought.IwasthemoreastonishedwhenIread...thathehadpreservedhisbeliefinGod.IabsolutelydeclinedtounderstandhowatheoryoftheoriginofspeciesbywayofnaturalselectionandsexualselectionandabeliefinGodcouldfindroominoneandthesamehead.38

Trotsky’s high regard for evolution and Darwin were the foundation of hisbeliefsystem.Likemany,Trotskyprobablydidnotrealizethatthepreciousfewinstances of the name “God” did not appear in the first edition ofOrigin ofSpecies.Thesereferenceswereaddedlater,andmanysuspectthatthiswasdonetoinfluencechurchmemberstoadoptDarwinism.Regardless,Trotskymaynothave readmuch ofDarwin’s second book,Descent ofMan, in which DarwinclaimsthatmaninventedGod:

Thesamehighmentalfacultieswhichfirstledmantobelieveinunseenspiritualagencies,theninfetishism,polytheism,andultimatelyinmonotheism,wouldinfalliblyleadhim,aslongashisreasoningpowersremainedpoorlydeveloped,tovariousstrangesuperstitionsandcustoms.39VladimirLeninpickeduponDarwinismandMarxismandruledveryharshly

as an evolutionist. His variant of Marxism has become known as Leninism.Regardless, the evolutionist roots of Marx, Trotsky, and Lenin were thefoundationthatCommunismhasstoodon—andcontinuestostandon.

Stalin,Mao,andPolPot,tonameafewPerhapsthemostruthlesscommunistleaderswereJosephStalin,MaoZedong,

and Pol Pot. Each of these were social Darwinists, ruling three differentcountries—theSovietUnion,China,andCambodiarespectively.Theirreignsofterrordemonstratedtheendresultofreducingthevalueofhumanlifetothatofmere animals, a Darwinistic teaching.40 Though I could expand on each ofthese,youshouldbegettingthepointbynow.Solet’smovetoanotherkey,butdeadly,pointinevolutionarythought.

Abortion—ThewaronbabiesThewaronchildrenhasbeenoneofthequietest,andyetbloodiest,inthepast

hundred years. In an evolutionary mindset, the unborn have been treated asthoughtheyaregoingthroughan“animalphase”andcansimplybediscarded.

EarlyevolutionistErnstHaeckelfirstpopularizedtheconceptthatbabiesinthewombareactuallyundergoinganimaldevelopmentalstages,suchasafishstageandsoon.Thisideahascometobeknownasontogenyrecapitulatesphylogeny.Haeckelevenfakeddrawingsofvariousanimals’embryosandhadthemdrawn

nexttohumanembryoslookingvirtuallyidentical.These drawings have been shown to be completely false.41 Haeckel himself

partially confessed as much.42 However, this discredited idea has been usedrepeatedly for a hundredyears!Textbooks today still use this concept (thoughnotHaeckel’sdrawings),andmuseumsaroundtheworldstillteachit.

Through this deception, many women have been convinced that the babiestheyarecarryingintheirwombsaresimplygoingthroughananimalphaseandcanbeaborted.AuthorKenHam,states:

Infact,someabortionclinicsinAmericahavetakenwomenasidetoexplaintothemthatwhatisbeingabortedisjustanembryointhefishstageofevolution,andthattheembryomustnotbethoughtofashuman.Thesewomenarebeingfedoutrightlies.43Evolutionary views have decreased the value of human life. Throughout the

world the casualties of the war on children is staggering. Though deaths ofchildrenandtheunborndidexistpriortothe“evolutionrevolution,”theyhaveincreasedexponentiallyafterthepromotionofDarwinianteachings.

ConclusionIsevolutionthecauseofwarsanddeaths?Absolutelynot—bothexistedlong

before Darwin was born. Sin is the ultimate cause.44 But an evolutionaryworldviewwithitsatheisticunderpinningshasdonenothingbutaddfueltothefire.

In spite of the wars and atrocities caused by those who subscribed to anevolutionary worldview in recent times, there is still hope. We can end theseeminglyendlessatrocitiesagainsttheunbornandthosedeemedlessworthyofliving,includingtheoldandimpaired.

InEgypt,IsraeliteboyswereslaughteredbybeingthrownintotheNileatthecommandofPharaoh(Exodus1:20).Andyet,bytheprovidenceofGod,MosessurvivedandledtheIsraelitestosafety,andtheLordlaterjudgedtheEgyptians.

In Judea, under the Roman Empire, subordinate King Herod the Greatcommanded the slaughter of all the boys under the age of two in and aroundBethlehem.Andyet,bytheprovidenceofGod,Jesus,theSonofGod,survivedandlaterlaiddownHislifetobringsalvationtomankindasthePrinceofPeace.Herod’sname,however,wentdowninhistoryasaneviltyrantandmurderer.

In this day and age, governments readily promote and fund the killing ofchildren,bothboysandgirls,andsometimescommandit,throughabortion.Byprovidence, however…you survived.While we can’t change the past, we can

learnfromit. Ifweare tostopthiscontinuingbloodshed,wemustgetbacktothe Bible and realize the bankrupt religion of evolutionary humanism has ledonly todeath—by themillions.Weneed topoint thosewho thinkhumanity istheanswertotheSaviorwhotookthesinsofhumanityonHimselftoofferthemsalvation.

Endnotes1.Forexample:inIslam,Muhammad’swordsintheKoranaretakenasahigherauthoritythanGod’sWord(theBible);inMormonism,theyhavechangednearly4,000versesoftheBibletoconformtoMormonteachingsandaddthewordsofJosephSmithandlaterprophetsassuperiortoGod’sWord;inJudaism,theyacceptaportionofGod’sWord(theOldTestament)butbyhumanstandards,theyrejectalargeportionofGod’sWord(theNewTestament)aswellastheultimatePassoverlamb,JesusChrist.Returntotext.

2.AlthoughtheUSSupremeCourtsaysthatreligionisnottobetaughtintheclassroom,thisoneseemstobeallowed.Returntotext.

3.Onecanalwaysaskthequestion,bywhatstandarddotheymean“better”?Godisthatstandardsotheyrefutethemselveswhentheyspeakofthingsbeingbetterorworse.Intheirownprofessedworldviewitismerelyarbitraryforsomethingtobe“better”or“worse.”Returntotext.

4.TheWorldBookEncyclopedia,Volume21,Entry:WorldWarII,WorldBook,Inc.,Chicago,IL,p.467.Suchstatisticsmayhavesomevariancedependingonsourceasmuchofthisisstillindispute.Returntotext.

5.Rangesfrom60to80million,soweareusing70million.Returntotext.

6.Figuresrangedfrom7to26million.Returntotext.

7.“RussianCivilWar,”en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Civil_War,October23,2008.Returntotext.

8.“JosephStalin,”www.moreorless.au.com/killers/stalin.html,October23,2008.Returntotext.

9.“MaoTse-Tung,”www.moreorless.au.com/killers/mao.html,October23,2008.Returntotext.

10.Thisoneistoughtopindownandseveralsourceshavedifferentestimates,sothisisamiddleoftheroadestimatefromthesourcesIfound.Returntotext.

11.TheWorldBookEncyclopedia,Volume20,Entry:VietnamWar,WorldBook,Inc.,Chicago,IL,p.390.Returntotext.

12.“PolPot,”en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pol_Pot,October23,2008.Returntotext.

13.Thistableonlylistsestimatesforabortiondeathsinfewcountries;so,thistotalfigureislikelyveryconservative.Returntotext.

14.“Historicalabortionstatistics,PRChina,”compiledbyWm.RobertJohnston,lastupdated4June2008,www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/ab-prchina.html.Returntotext.

15.“Historicalabortionstatistics,U.S.S.R.,”compiledbyWm.RobertJohnston,lastupdated4June2008,www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/ab-ussr.htmlReturntotext.

16.“Historicalabortionstatistics,UnitedStates,”compiledbyWm.RobertJohnston,lastupdated4June2008,www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/ab-unitedstates.html.Returntotext.

17.“Historicalabortionstatistics,France,”compiledbyWm.RobertJohnston,lastupdated4June2008,www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/ab-france.html.Returntotext.

18.“Historicalabortionstatistics,UnitedKingdom,”compiledbyWm.RobertJohnston,lastupdated4June2008,www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/ab-unitedkingdom.html.Returntotext.

19.“Historicalabortionstatistics,FRGermany,”compiledbyWm.RobertJohnston,lastupdated4June2008,www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/ab-frgermany.htmlReturntotext.

20.CharlesDarwin,TheDescentofMan,NewYork:A.L.Burt,1874,2nded.,p.178.Returntotext.

21.TheAmericanEducatorEncyclopedia,TheUnitedEducators,Inc.,Chicago,1936,p.3914underentry“WorldWar.”Returntotext.

22.TheAmericanEducatorEncyclopedia,p.1702underentry“Hitler.”Returntotext.

23.TheAmericanEducatorEncyclopedia,p.1494underentry“Germany.”Returntotext.

24.“ReligioninNaziGermany,”alphahistory.com/nazigermany/religion-in-nazi-germany/,April3,2013.Returntotext.

25.Romans1makesitclearthatallpeoplebelieveinGod,theyjustsuppressthatknowledge,andthisisalsothecasewithanyprofessedatheist.Returntotext.

26.ForanextensivetreatiseonHitler’s(andtheNazi’s)religiousviewpoints,see:J.Bergman,HitlerandtheNaziDarwinianWorldview,JoshuaPressInc.,Kitchener,Ontario,Canada,2012.Returntotext.

27.“Hitler,Adolf,1941,”translatedbyCameron,NormanandStevens,R.H.Hitler’sSecretConversations,1941–1944.TheNewAmericanLibraryofWorldLiterature,Inc.,1961.Returntotext.

28.Hitler’sSecondBook,AdolfHitler,EditedbyGeraldL.Weinberg,2003Enigmabooks,TranslatedbyKristaSmith,p.8.Returntotext.

29.Hitler’sSecondBook,p.9.Returntotext.

30.InthefirsteditionofOriginofSpecies,Godisnotmentioned,inthesixthedition“God”wasaddedseveraltimestodrawChristiansintothisfalsereligion.SeeR.Hedtke,SecretsoftheSixthEdition,MasterBooks,GreenForest,AR,2010.Returntotext.

31.“NaziParty25Points(1920),”alphahistory.com/nazigermany/nazi-party-25-points-1920/Returntotext.

32.B.Walker,TheSwastikaagainsttheCross,OutskirtsPress,Inc.,Denver,CO,2008.Returntotext.

33.“HitlerrewrotetheBibleandaddedtwocommandments,”PravdaNewsSite,8/10/2006,english.pravda.ru/world/europe/10-08-2006/83892-hitler-0/;“JewishReferenceserasedinnewlyfoundNaziBible,”DailyMailOnline,August7,2006,www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-399470/Jewish-references-erased-newly-Nazi-Bible.html.Returntotext.

34.Walker,pp.20–22.Returntotext.

35.Walker,p.88.Returntotext.

36.GreatBooksoftheWesternWorld,Volume50,Capital,KarlMarx,WilliamBenton(Publishers),Chicago,1952,Footnotesonp.166andp.181.Returntotext.

37.G.Himmelfarb,DarwinandtheDarwinianRevolution,London:Chatto&Windus,1959,p.348.Returntotext.

38.MaxEastman,Trotsky:Aportraitofhisyouth,NewYork,pp.117–118,1925.Returntotext.

39.CharlesDarwin,TheDescentofManandSelectioninRelationtoSex,ChapterIII(MentalPowersofManandtheLowerAnimals),1871,AsprintedinGreatBooksoftheWesternWorld,Volume49,RobertHutchins,Ed.,Chicago,1952,p.303.Returntotext.

40.R.Hall,“Darwin’sImpact—TheBloodstainedLegacyofEvolution,”CreationMagazine27(2):46–47,March,2005,www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v27/n2/darwin.Returntotext.

41.MichaelRichardsonetal,AnatomyandEmbryology,196(2):91–106,1997.Returntotext.

42.Haeckelsaid,“Asmallportionofmyembryo-pictures(possibly6or8inahundred)arereally(inDr.Brass’s[oneofhiscritics]senseoftheword)“falsified”—allthose,namely,inwhichthedisclosedmaterialforinspectionissoincompleteorinsufficientthatoneiscompelledinarestorationofaconnecteddevelopmentseriestofillupthegapsthroughhypotheses,andtoreconstructthemissingmembersthroughcomparativesyntheses.Whatdifficultiesthistaskencounters,andhoweasilythedraughts—manmayblunderinit,theembryologistalonecanjudge.”“TheTruthaboutHaeckel’sConfession,”TheBibleInvestigatorandInquirer,M.L.Hutchinson,Melbourne,March11,1911,p.22–24.Returntotext.

43.KenHam,TheLie:Evolution,Chapter8:Theevilsofevolution,MasterBooks,GreenForest,AK,1987,p.105.Returntotext.

44.TheNewAnswersBook1,Gen.Ed.KenHam,MasterBooks,GreenForest,Arkansas,2006,Chapter26:WhydoesGod’screationincludedeathandsuffering?,pp.325–338.www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/why-does-creation-include-suffering.Returntotext.

WhatAretheTacticsoftheNewAtheists?byElizabethMitchell(withendnotesbyBodieHodge)FollowingtheApril29,2013openingoftheirdocumentaryTheUnbelieversatToronto’s Hot Dog Film Festival, outspoken atheists Richard Dawkins andLawrenceKraussdiscussedthemeritsoftheirapproachesto“riddingtheworldof religion.” In a recent interviewwith Steve Paikin, theymade it clear that,despitetheirsometimesdifferentpersonas,theyhavethesameagenda—gettingpeopletogetridoftheirbeliefinGod.1YettheybothsaythatChristiansshouldnotfeel“threatened”bytheireffortstoexpungereligionfromhumanhistory.

Outspoken atheists Lawrence Krauss and Richard Dawkins, co-stars of the documentary TheUnbelievers,discuss theirstrategy for ridding theworldof religion ingeneralandChristianity inparticular.TheyconsiderChristianity“demeaning”andwishtore-designsociety“thewaywewantit.” Image:screenshotsfrominterviewwithStevePaikinonww3.tvo.org/video/190768/rise-new-atheists.

ThegoalofTheUnbelieversdocumentaryEvolutionarybiologistDawkinsandtheoreticalphysicistKraussrecountedthat

whentheyfirstmettheyhadaheateddebateabout,asDawkinssaid,“whetherwe should have a kind of full-on attack on religion orwhetherwe should, asLawrence preferred, seduce them.”2 Krauss explained that this is really “astrategicquestion.”3Theyagree thatbothapproacheshavemeritdependingonthenatureofthepeoplebeingtargeted.However,expressinggeneralagreementwith themoreconfrontationalapproachof theoften-irascibleDawkins,Krausssaid,“You’vegottoconfrontsillybeliefsbytellingthemtheyaresilly,”adding,“If you’re trying to convince people, pointing out that what they believe is

nonsenseisabetterwaytobringthemaround.”4Despitetheirgreathostilitytowardreligiousbeliefs(otherthantheirown)and

avowalthattheyhopethisfilmwillhelpintheireffortstoeradicateallreligionworldwide, the atheist pair indicates that belief or non-belief in a deity is notwhat reallymatters to them.Kraussdeclares thatwhat isactually important tothem is that “everything shouldbeopen toquestion and that theuniverse is aremarkableplace.”5Bycontrast,hesays,“ThisismoreimportanttousthannotbelievinginGod—that’snotimportantatall.”

DawkinsandKraussbothexpressedgrudgingtoleranceforevolutionistswhowant to keep their religious beliefs in order to keep the good things religionoffers them—“spirituality,” “consolation,” and “community”—so long as theydo not then reject evolution.6 They said that people are “hard-wired” to seeksomethingspiritual,butby“spiritual”theyrefertoasortofemotionalhigh.Andtheydeclarethatscienceoffersabetterkindofspirituality,“asenseofonenesswith the universe.”7 Therefore science8, they maintain, can meet the inmostneedsofpeoplebetterthanreligionofanysort.

“Spiritualityisasenseofaweandwonderatsomethingbiggerthanoneself,”9

Krauss explained, adding that being “insignificant is uplifting.”10 And whilesomepeopleclingtotheirreligiontosatisfysomespiritualneed,11hesays,“Thespirituality of science is better than the spirituality of religion because it isreal.”12Bothofcoursevigorouslydenythattheirownatheisticpositionisoneof“belief,”saying“wedon’tdefineourselvesbywhatwedon’tbelievein.”

DawkinsandKrausswanttoridtheworldofallreligionexcepttheirown

Likemostatheists,DawkinsandKraussfailtorecognizetheworldview-basednatureof the interpretations theydefineas“real.”They repeatedly refer in theinterview to accepting the “evidence of reality” concerning originswhen theyare actually equating their worldview-based interpretations with reality.Furthermore,theatheisticbeliefthatthereisnoGodisactuallya“religion.”

Therereallyisnosuchthingasapersonwithoutareligion—youeitherbelievethat there is or is not a god. You are either for Christ or against Him (Luke11:23),andyoubaseyourinterpretationoforigins,morality,andthemeaningoflifeonthatbelief.Thebeliefthatthereisorisnotagodisessentialtohowoneexplains existence, the nature of authority, and our place in the universe.Krauss’s belief that the atoms in his body originated billions of years ago instardust, for instance, is the “religious”way he explains his existencewithout

God and the way he experiences what passes for spirituality by knowing the“fantastic”truththatheis“intimatelyconnectedtothecosmos.”

Atheistsdoclaimtobenon-religious,buttheyusetheirsetofbeliefsasawayto explain life without God—they worship and serve the creation (e.g., theuniverse) rather than the Creator (Romans 1:25). Krauss extols the profoundsenseofwonderhegetsstudyingthecosmosandDawkinsenjoysthe“poetryofscience,”but theytie their loveforsciencetotheirbelief inatheisticevolutionand their sheer joy in shaking their fists at the possibility of a Creator’sexistence.

ThereasonbehindthehostilitytowardreligionAndfrankly,thepointhereisnotwhetherapersondefinestheirworldviewas

areligionornot,orwhetherhebelievesina“god.”Christianityisunique—itisthe truth—and, perhaps for that reason as much as any other, is the especialtarget for Dawkins and most others. Those who love “darkness” (e.g., sin,rebellion against God, and rejection of Jesus Christ) will naturally attack thelight(John3:19–21).BasedonScripture,weknowthatGodlooksatthehearttoseehoweachpersonstands in relation to JesusChrist (Romans10:9–10;cf.1Samuel16:7).Again,JesusmadeclearthatapersoniseitherfororagainstHim(Matthew12:30;25:46).

Dawkins and Krauss reserve their greatest hostility for young-earthcreationists. They indicated that all debate about origins has been completelysettled by “Darwin and his successors”13 and by big bang cosmology,14whichKrauss describes as “the last bastion of God—I mean there are somefundamentalistsofcoursewhosaytheearthis6,000yearsoldanddon’tbelieveinevolution—butrational‘theologians’havemovedawayfromthatdebate.”15

DesigninnatureFurthermore, even Dawkins admits that nature—in particular, biology—

appears to be specially designed. We see, for instance, precise irreduciblecomplexity everywherewe look, frommajor anatomical features to biologicalprocesses at the molecular level. Dawkins agrees that “special creation” is“intuitive”—a look at nature in essence screams that there must have been aCreator.

But Dawkins says that he is thankful to Darwin for coming upwith a very“non-intuitive”way to explain naturewithoutGod.Darwinian belief basicallybuilds a theoretical guess about biological origins by appealing to a series of

billions of tiny, unobservable changes over billions of unobserved years.16 Yetneither Darwin nor his successors have through scientific observation shownhoweitherabiogenesisortheevolutionofbiologicalcomplexityispossible.

Dawkins explains that both biology and physics (cosmology) arecomplementaryfieldsthatsupplantbeliefinGod.17Butheindicatedthatbiology,because design is so apparent, was the first battleground in thewar against aCreator.Hesaidthefollowing:

Historicallybiology,Isuppose,hasbeenthemostfertilegroundforthosewhowishtomakeasupernaturalaccountbecauselivingthingsaresofantasticallycomplicatedandbeautifulandelegant,andtheycarrysuchanenormousweightofapparentdesign.Theyreallylookasthoughthey’redesigned.Sohistoricallybiologyhasbeenthemostfertilegroundfortheologicalarguments.That’sallsolvednow.Darwinandhissuccessorssolvedthat.Ithinkthespotlightinawayhasshiftedtophysicsandtocosmologywherewe’relessconfidentIthinkabouthowtheuniversebegan—inonewaymoreconfidentbecausethere’salotofdetailedmathematicalmodelinggoingone—buttherearesomeprofoundquestionsremainingtobeansweredinthatfieldandthat’swherecosmologistslikeLawrencecomein.Wearecomplementary.Intypicalfashion,KraussandDawkinsbelievethatanyonewhodisagreeswith

theirowninterpretationsaboutoriginsisirrationalandoutoftouchwithreality.And as happens with most lay people, anything that can be “mathematicallymodeled” is accepted as truth because numbers surely do not lie. Yetmathematicalmodelsconcerningcosmology(likethebigbang)andthelong-ageinterpretations ascribed to radiometric dating are based on unverifiable,worldview-basedassumptions.18

Dawkins and Krauss say that they hope that viewers of their film will beinspired by the wonders of science to critically evaluate their beliefs and toacknowledgethattheyare“silly.”Asdiscussedbelowhowever,fromabiblicalworldview, a careful study of the wonders of science only affirms what Godreveals in theBible and actually glorifies theCreator (Psalm19:1;Colossians1:16–17).

BiblicalcreationistsunderstandthatGodcreatedallthevariouskindsoflivingorganismsabout6,000yearsago(basedonthegenealogieslistedintheBible).AccordingtoGenesischapterone,Godequippedeachtoreproduce“aftertheir

kinds.”ThereisnoindicationinScripturethatGodusedevolutionaryprocessesor thatHemadeorganismsable to evolve through randomprocesses intonewandincreasinglycomplexkindsofcreatures.Wealsodonotseethishappeninbiology.

Organismsvarywithin theirkinds (e.g., variations indogsor in cats)butdonotevolveintonew,morecomplexkindsoforganisms(e.g.,amoebasintodogsorcats).Bacteriaremainbacteria,caninesremaincanines,apesremainapes,andhumansremainhumans—thoughthereismuchbiodiversityamongeachcreatedkind.Thisdiversificationwithinkindsisobservable.Butevolutionofnewkindsisnot,andbiologicalobservationcanoffernoactualmechanismsbywhichthiscanhappen.19

Further, biological observation confirms that living things do not spring intoexistence through the random interaction of non-living components, despiteevolutionary claims about abiogenesis. This is consistent with the biblicalaccountofourorigins.Thus,biblicalhistory—God’seyewitnessaccountofwhatHedidwhenHecreatedusandwhatsortofbiologyHeputinmotion—doesnotdiffer from biological observations. There is nothing “irrational” aboutrecognizingthatobservablescienceisconsistentwithbiblicalhistory.20

CanDawkinsandKraussreally“ridthisworldofreligion”?Theinterviewerconcludedbyaskingthepair,“Isityourhopeorexpectation

thatyoucan,inyourwords,ridthisworldofreligion?”“I’mnotsurehowsoon,”Dawkinsanswered.“Ithinkthatreligionisdeclining,

thatChristianityisdecliningthroughoutChristendom.”21Lookingtothefuture,headds,“AndIthinkthatthat’sgoingtocontinue.Ifwelookatthebroadsweepof history, it’s clear that the trend is going in the right direction. I’m not sooptimisticthatitwillbeinmylifetime,butitwillhappen.”22

And what do Dawkins and Krauss hope to accomplish by getting rid ofChristianity?Whydo theycarewhatothersbelieve?Whyare theysoeager toexpedite God’s exit from human history? Dawkins summed up the proudpositionofhumanismwhenhesaidthathewantstoseeus“intelligentlydesignoursociety,ourethics,ourmorality—sothatwelive in thekindofsocietywewant to live in rather than in thekindofsociety thatwas laiddown inabookwritten in 800 BC.”23 Krauss added that accepting the ideas of “Iron Agepeasants”is“demeaning.”24

Though Dawkins and Krauss disparage the ideas of biblical peasants, theirnotionsofsocialplanningreallysoundverymuchlikethepost-Floodpopulation

whobuilt theTowerofBabelinrebellionagainstGod’scommandtoreplenishtheearth.Intheirpride(Psalm10:4;Proverbs16:8),thosepeoplesaid,“Letusmakeanameforourselves”(Genesis11:4).Indeed,howarrogantdoesapersonhavetobetoassumethateveryonewhodisagreeswithhimiseitherill-informedorirrational?IsitanywonderthatGodhatespride,forthroughhumanisticpridepeoplenotonlyrejectGod’swaysbut“suppressthetruth”(Romans1:18)ofHisveryexistence?

Dawkins andKrauss seem towant to redesign theworld and society for therestofusaccordingtotheirownvision,makingcertainthatGodiswrittenoutofthepicture.YetthoseofuswhoknowandtrustGodandaccepttheBibleasHisrevealedWordbelievewholeheartedlythatJesusChrist,ourCreatorandSavior,possessesalltruewisdomandknowledge(Colossians1:16–17,3:2).AndwenotonlyacceptthehistoryinGod’sWordbutalsoGod’sdeclarationthatweareallsinners in need of the grace of Jesus Christ. By contrast, those who, likeDawkinsandKrauss,refusetoevenacknowledgethetestimonyofthe“design”they themselves see in nature (Romans 1:18–22) and their own consciences(Romans 2:12–16), much less God’s Word, are—according to God—“fools”(Psalm14:1,53:1).“Professingtobewise,theybecamefools”(Romans1:22).

In answer to the interviewer’s final question about the prospects for theimminent demise of religion,Krauss said, “Iwould have thought that by nowreligionwouldbegone.Ithoughtreligionwasonthewayout[inthe1960s],soIwas kind of surprised and disappointed in some ways by the resurgence offundamentalisminmycountry[theUnitedStates].”25Speakingofthefutureheexpects,headds,“ButIdothinkthatit’sobviousthataccesstoinformationandknowledge is decreasing” the number of people who say they are religiousworldwideandthat“inevitablyknowledgeandwonderoftherealuniversewillsupplant”religion.26AnswersinGenesisexiststomakeknowledgeavailabletohelppeoplemakeinformeddecisionsabouttheclaimsofatheisticevolutionistssothattheywillseethattheycantrustGod’sWordfromtheveryfirstverse.

BothKraussandDawkins thinkitunreasonable thatpeoplefeel“threatened”by their efforts to rid theworldof religion.27Dawkins said, “where religion isconcernedifyouspeakclearlyitsoundsthreatening”and“ifyousaysomethingclearly and distinctly and truthfully there are people who will take that asthreatening.”Hesaidthatreligionissoentrenchedthatit“getsafreeride”andthat “very mild criticism” and “questioning” shouldn’t be regarded asthreatening.28

Conclusion:man’swordvs.God’sWord

Krauss and Dawkins repeatedly refer to the “evidence of reality” in thisinterview.Yetthey,likeotherevolutionaryscientists,failtodistinguishbetweentestable scientific reality—experimental science—and the untestable,unobservable, and unverifiable assumptions on which the scientific claims ofevolutionary origins science are based. What they claim as “reality” isinterpreted through their own worldview, a worldview that is clearly hostiletowardGod.29

And while they oppose “all” religion, it is clear they particularly opposeChristianityandtheBible.Theyfirmlybelievethatanyonewhofails toaccepttheirworldviewis irrational.Theyadmit thatreligionmeets theneedsofsomepeople for “spirituality,” but their concept of spirituality is a purely emotionalresponse.30

And lest this“response”bedeemeddefensive (apointmadenotonly in thisinterviewbutalsobyanumberofatheistswhohaverecentlywritten in to thisministry),letmehastentopointoutthatif“justaskingaquestion”shouldnotbeseen as “threatening,” then neither should just answering one. If saying“something clearly and distinctly and truthfully” should not be seen asthreatening when Dawkins speaks, then neither should the truth from God’sWord be taken that way. It should not be threatening when we questionevolution,bigbang,millionsofyears,humanism,orevenDawkinsandKraussthemselves. In fact, they would welcome it in every forum, if they wereconsistent.

Krauss and Dawkins do have one thing in common with most biblicalcreationists—asenseofaweandwonderatwhatwecanlearnfromexperimentalscienceabout theworldaroundus.KraussandDawkinsappreciate the“poetryofscience”butsuperimposetheirownrhapsodicnotionsabouttheatomsinourbodiesbeingderived fromstardustbillionsofyearsold.31Biblicalcreationists,however, examine the actual facts of science—the observable and repeatableones,notevolutionarystorytellingandconjectures—inlightofGod’srevealedtruthandseethatthereactuallyisnocontradictionbetweenthehistoryrevealedintheBibleandscience(Romans1:18–22).

Krauss andDawkins hope their filmwill promptChristians to ask questionsandtocriticallyexaminetheirbeliefsinlightofscience.AtAnswersinGenesisweencouragepeople—bothbelieversandunbelievers—toaskquestionsandtocriticallyexamineScriptural revelationandscientific facts.Weprovidehelp infindinganswerstothosequestions.

Sadly,oneexampleDawkinsprovidedwasayoung-earthcreationistwhocame

to his lectures on evolution and was very impressed, having never heard theevolutionarypointofview.Wedonotencourage ignoranceaboutevolutionarypositions32 but insteadwant to equippeoplewith the information theyneed todiscern the difference between observable experimental science and historicalscience,betweenthatwhichcanbetestedandthatwhichcanonlybeimagined,betweenwhatcanactuallybeseenintheworldthroughscienceandtheclaimsofevolutionists.

Wewant toequipchildren, teens,andadultswith the tools theyneedtohelpthemtrustGod’sWordandseethroughfalsereligionslikeatheism,sothattheywillthenbeabletotrustJesusChristastheirSaviorandtheLordoftheirlives.Theverynameofourministry,Answers inGenesis,makes itclearwearenotencouraging people to have blind faith. On the contrary, we are providingreasonable,scientific,andbiblicalanswersforquestionsonorigins.AndwedosowithconfidencethattheBiblehastheanswerstoexplaintheworldwelivein—scientifically,morally,andtheologically.

TheBibleattestsnotonly to the truehistoryofouroriginsbutalso the truthabout humanity’s rebellious and sinful nature.33 Dawkins and Krauss considerbiblical truth restrictive and demeaning. TheBible doesmake it clear that allpeople are sinnerswho have rebelled against the omniscient, omnipotent, andholyGod.DawkinsandKrausspersonifythisrebelliousspiritindeclaringtheirdesiretoredesigntheworldtheway“we”—inotherwords,“they”—wantit tobe.Butevilmenandseducerswill,accordingtoScripture,getworseandworse(2Timothy 3:13), somuch so that Jesus said “Nevertheless,when the Son ofMancomes,willHereallyfindfaithontheearth?”(Luke18:8).

As Christians, meanwhile, we are commanded to respond to the“nonthreateningthreats”volleyedatusbyskepticsandbysincerequestionersbyprovidinganswers(1Peter3:15,KJV;2Timothy2:22–26),includingtheanswertopeople’ssinproblem(Romans3:23,6:23)—salvationthroughtheshedbloodofJesusChrist.Butthefinalendofhumanity’sdestinyisnottheendprophesiedbyDawkinsandKrauss,forthesameJesusChrist thatrosefromthedeadwillindeedcomeagain(Revelation22:20).DawkinsandKraussmaybeleadingthecharge toeradicateChristianity,but it is theLordJesusChristwhowill surelyhavethelastword.

Endnotes1.ww3.tvo.org/video/190768/rise-new-atheists.Returntotext.

2.Ofcourse,Dawkinsmeansallreligionsbuthisown.Heisveryreligiousbeingasecularhumanist.HeisasigneroftheHumanistManifestoIII.Humanismcomesinvariousflavorslike“agnosticism,”“traditionalatheism,”“newatheism,”

andsoon.Whensomeonesaysheis“notreligious”inthiscontext,thatisafancywayofsayingheadherestothereligionofhumanisminoneformoranother.Dawkins’sreligiousviewpointis“newatheism.”Itisdistinguishedfromtraditionalatheisminthatitactivelyproselytizesfortheatheisticpointofview,whereasadherentsoftraditionalatheismbelievethatnothingmattersandsoseenoreasontoproselytize.Returntotext.

3.Wehaveknownabouttheirstrategicattacksforsometime.Theyhavetriedtoforcethereligionofhumanismintheclassroomandnowelsewhere.In1983,humanistJohnDunphyalsospokeofthisstrategy—toputtheiratheisticreligionintoschools—whenhesaid:“Iamconvincedthatthebattleforhumankind’sfuturemustbewagedandwoninthepublicschoolclassroombyteacherswhocorrectlyperceivetheirroleastheproselytizersofanewfaith:areligionofhumanitythatrecognizesandrespectsthesparkofwhattheologianscalldivinityineveryhumanbeing.Theseteachersmustembodythesameselflessdedicationasthemostrabidfundamentalistpreachers,fortheywillbeministersofanothersort,utilizingaclassroominsteadofapulpittoconveyhumanistvaluesinwhateversubjecttheyteach,regardlessoftheeducationallevel—preschool,daycare,orlargestateuniversity.Theclassroommustandwillbecomeanarenaofconflictbetweentheoldandthenew-therottingcorpseofChristianity,togetherwithallitsadjacentevilsandmisery,andthenewfaithofhumanism.”JohnDunphy,“AReligionforaNewAge,”quotedinJohnDunphy,“TheBookthatStartedItAll,”CouncilforSecularHumanism,www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=dunphy_21_4.Returntotext.

4.Yettheseatheistsdonotrealizethesillinessoftheirownviews.Dawkinshimselfadmitsthatitispossiblethataliensdesignedandseededlifeonearth—yes,really!KraussandDawkinsbothbelievethatallpeopleultimatelycamefromarock—clearlythisisinviolationoftheLawofBiogenesis.Bothbelievethateverythingismaterial;therefore,fromtheirview,logic,truth,andknowledge,whicharenon-material,cannotexist.Bythuslayingclaimtologic,truth,andknowledge,theyinadvertentlyborrowfromaChristianworldview—howsillyfortheirreligiontoborrowfromitsenemy!DawkinsarguesthereisnomoralityandthentriestosayChristiansareimmoral.Bothbelievethatnothingultimatelymatters;yettheybothseemtothinkitmattersagreatdealtoforcethisbeliefonothers.NeitherKraussnorDawkinsseemtorealizethatinanatheisticworldview,theatheistisactuallyclaimingtobe“God”(becausetoknowthereisnoGod,onemustbeomnipresentandomniscient,whichareattributesofGodalone),whichrefutestheirownatheism.Thisshortlistshouldsuffice.Suchsillinessshouldbeembarrassingtoanatheist.Returntotext.

5.Interestingly,Christiansbelieveinaskingquestionsandseekinganswerstoallsortsoftoughquestions—includingthescientificandthetheological.AndChristianscertainlyrecognizethattheuniverseisaremarkableplace,butweknowitwascreatedbyGod.SotheoppositiontoChristianityonthisgroundiscompletelywithoutwarrantbytheirowncriteria.Returntotext.

6.Evolution(andmillionsofyears,orgeologicalevolution)istherealkey.ThesearetenetsoftheHumanistManifestos,sohumanistsdonotwanttogiveupthiskeyaspect.Theymustfightforthisintheirreligion.Butunderlyingallofthisistheideathatmanistheultimateauthority,notGod.Returntotext.

7.“Onenesswiththeuniverse”isatenantofBuddhism,whichisstrangeconsideringtheyarearguingtoopposeBuddhismalongwithallotherreligions.Returntotext.

8.Whattheymeanby“science”hereisnottheobservableandrepeatablesciencethatmakesdiscoveriesabouthowthingsworkandappliesthatknowledge,butinsteada“science”thatembracesnaturalismandevolutionasabsolutelyaxiomatic.Therefore,whatDawkinsandKraussmeanwhentheysayscienceisnotjusthowthingsworkbuttheirownnaturalistic,unverifiable,dogmatically-heldideasaboutwhereeverythingcamefrom.Byscience,theyreallymeantheirreligionofhumanism.Returntotext.

9.Ifonebelievesthereissomethinggreaterthanoneselfinatheism,thenitmeansthatheisnotatheistic.Hence,thisisself-refuting.Returntotext.

10.Ifbeinginsignificantissogreat,thenwhywastetimeseekingpopularitybyspeakingoutagainstChristianitybymakingdocumentaries?Returntotext.

11.Thisisoddlysimilartowhatthereligiousatheistisdoing,pertheverycontext.Returntotext.

12.Thisisa“NoTrueScotsman”fallacy,meaningthatthearguerhasdefinedthetermsinabiasedwaytoprotecthisargumentfromrebuttals.Returntotext.

13.ItissadthattheyappealtoDarwin,aracist,whowentsofarastosaythatthemoreevolvedCaucasianswouldeventuallyexterminateeveryoneelse(CharlesDarwin,TheDescentofMan[NewYork:A.L.Burt,1874,2nded.],p.178).EvenJamesWatson,aco-discovererofthestructureofDNA,alsohasunderlyingracistattitudes.Butnotethattheyappealtomanastheultimateauthority.Returntotext.

14.Whichbigbangmodel(openmodels,closedmodel)dotheythinkistrueandwhyaretheotherswrong?Returntotext.

15.TheatheistssimplydonotlikethefactthatChristiansactuallybelieveGodwhenHespeaks.TheyreallywantustocompromiseGod’sWordwiththeirslikeEvedidinthegardenandtodenyGod’sWordinGenesisinfavoroftheir

falliblesinfulwords.Theissueisnotmeredistasteforcreationists,butrathertheirdistasteforGod’sWord.Notethis:theconflictisnotbetweenatheistsandcreationists;itisbetweenatheistsandGod.Returntotext.

16.NotewhatreplacedGodintheirreligion.Itwastime,chance,anddeath.Withoutthese,evolutionismeaningless.Thesearethe“god”foranevolutionaryworldview.Returntotext.

17.YetsciencecomesoutofaChristianworldview,whereGodupholdstheuniverseinaparticularfashion,andthisall-knowingGodhastoldusso(e.g.,Genesis8:22andothers).Inthehumanisticview,howcanmanknowthatthelawsintheuniversewillbethesameinthefuture?Accordingtoman,fromthebigbangtotoday,thelawshavechanged.Howdoesoneknowtheywillnotchangetomorrow?Ifonesays,“becausetheyalwayshave,”heisarbitrarilybeggingthequestion.Returntotext.

18.Suchmethodsareclassiccasesofbeggingthequestion;theyareusinglong-ageassumptionstoprovelongages.Wecouldjustaseasilydothesamethingbyusingyoung-ageassumptionstoproveayoungearth,butthissimplyshowsthearbitrarinessoftheiruniformitarianclaims.Returntotext.

19.Thetwoproposedmechanismsofevolutionarecalled:(1)naturalselection,acreationistconceptbytheway,and(2)mutations.Inbothcases,theyarelosinginformation(i.e.,itisgoinginthewrongdirectionforevolution).Forexample,naturalselectionfiltersoutalreadyexistinginformation;mutationsloseinformationquickly,orinmanycasesitremainsnearlyneutral.Seewww.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/is-natural-selection-evolutionandwww.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab2/mutations-engine-of-evolution.Returntotext.

20.Isn’titfascinatingthathumanistswhoarematerialisticbytheirveryadmissionappealtologicandclaimweareirrational,whenrationalthoughtisonlypossibleifnonmaterialthingsexistlikeconcepts,truth,logic,andsoon?Yettheseatheists(materialists,humanists)mustrejectitbecauseiftheyleaveopenanimmaterialrealm(i.e.,aspiritualrealm),thenGodcouldexistandtheycannotbeatheisticorhumanistic(i.e.,humansaretheultimateauthority).Returntotext.

21.YetChristianityisstillthefastestgrowingreligion.Pleaseseefastestgrowingreligion.com/numbers.html;itismerelydecliningorstagnantincertainplaces,likeWesternEuropeandtheU.S.Returntotext.

22.DidyoucatchthatDawkinsjustmadeaprophecy?Hepredictedthatreligionwouldcease.GoddisagreeswithHim(Matthew16:18;Daniel2:44).Returntotext.

23.Satan,intheBible,sinnedwithhisprideofwantingtoascendtoGod’sposition(Isaiah14:14).ItappearsclearthatDawkinswantstoreplaceGod,too,asthe“intelligentdesigner”noless,albeitofsocietyratherthantheuniverse.(WesupposeevenDawkinsknowshehassomelimitations!)Interestingly,Dawkinsdoesseemtobelieveinaformofintelligentdesignbecausehehassaidheconsidersitapossibilitythataliensdesignedlifehere(perhiscommentsinthedocumentaryExpelledwithBenStein,notinthisinterview).Furthermore,itisunclearwhatbookDawkinsistalkingabout,thoughheissurelyalludingtotheBiblewithaprejudicialconjectureaboutthetiming.TheBiblewaswrittenoverthecourseofabout1450BCtoaboutAD68–95(Christiansdodebatethis).Takenoteoftheironyherethough;Dawkinswantspeopletofollowwhathesaysinhisbooks,butnotfollowGod’sbook!Again,heistryingtoreplaceGod(2Corinthians2:11),andinhisownmind,healreadyhas.Returntotext.

24.Notethestrawmanfallaciestheseatheistsarecommitting.TheyaretryingtomakeChristianitylooksilly,butbecausetheycannotevengetbasicfactscorrect,theylooksillybydefault.Returntotext.

25.ThisisreminiscentofatheistFriedrichNietzschewhodeclared“Godisdead”severaltimesinthe1800s.ItissadthatatheistslikeKraussknowsolittleaboutGod’sWordthattheyfailtorealizeadominatingprinciple:thepowerofGodintheResurrection.WhentheJewshadChristcrucified,evenChrist’sdisciplesthoughttheSonofGodwasdead.ButGodisknownforHisResurrection.ThoughNietzscheisdead,Godcontinuestoliveandgivestoalllifeandbreath.AndChristianitycontinuestogrowbythepoweroftheHolySpirit.Returntotext.

26.NoteherethatKrausshasnowprophesiedthesamesortofthingasDawkins.Heispredictingthatuniverseworship,likehisatheisticview,willcometodestroyreligion.Butthiswouldnaturallyfail,asatheismanduniverseworshipareaformofreligion,makingKrauss’spredictioninherentlycontradictory.Returntotext.

27.Actually,Christiansshouldfinditablessing.Matthew5:11says,“Blessedareyouwhentheyrevileandpersecuteyou,andsayallkindsofevilagainstyoufalselyforMysake.”Returntotext.

28.Again,Christiansdonotfearquestioning,nordowegetafreerideormildcriticism.Christiansinvariouspartsoftheworldaremurderedfortheirbeliefs,attackedandbeatenfortheirbeliefs,abusedfortheirbeliefs,andliedaboutbecauseoftheirbeliefs.IfoneisnotaChristian,likeDawkins,whyassumesuchpeopleactuallyadheretotheTenCommandments,whichsaynottolie?DawkinsclaimedthatthereisnomoralityinhisdebatewithLanier.Sowhytrusthimtotellthetruth?Withthisinmind,noticeDawkins’sdeceptionhere.Hewantsthefreedomtoquestion,buthedoesnotwantustorespond.NordoeshewantChristianstoquestionthingslikeevolutionorthebigbang—especiallyinclassrooms!Ifhedidwelcomeresponses,hewouldbehappyforChristianstoquestionevolution,thebigbang,naturalism,andsoon,andtorespondtohisfalseclaimsaboutChristianityinaproperforum,liketheclassroom,which

isaplaceforlearning.ButDawkinsisadamantthatChristiansshouldhavenosay,noresponse,andnoquestioningoftheevolutionaryviewinthestateschools.Dawkinswantsonlyhisreligiontaughtinschoolsandonlyhisreligionispermittedtoquestionothers.Thisisadoublestandard.Returntotext.

29.Remember,theyassumelongagestoprovelongages—anarbitrarybeggingthequestionfallacy.Returntotext.

30.Theyaretryingtodemoteallreligionstobeingmaterialistic(underlingstotheirreligion).Thisiswhytheysayspiritualisnotimmaterial,butmerelyemotion(e.g.,chemicalreactioninthebrain).Theyaretryingtochangethedefinitionofspiritandspiritual.TheywanttomakeGod(whoisspirit,John4:24)intopartoftheuniverseorplaceHiminapositionthatislowerthantheuniverse.Hence,theuniversecanbetheunofficial“god”totheatheist,nexttoman,ofcourse.Returntotext.

31.WhenKraussattackstheBiblewithhisfamousmantra,“ForgetJesus,thestarsdiedsoyoucanbeheretoday,”heispromotingamerefairytaleandstoriestosatisfyameaninglessatheisticworldview.Returntotext.

32.Thisiswhyweteachpeopleabouteachevolutionaryviewanditsproblems.Inbrief,therearefivemainviews:(1)TheEpicureanevolutionaryview,whichhasitsrootsinGreekmythology.Thisiswhereevolutioncamefrom.ThenewerformswehavetodayarejustrehashesofthismythologythatPaulrefutedinActs17;(2)Lamarckianevolution,whichtaughtthatanimalscanacquirenewtraitsthroughinteractionswiththeirenvironments,andthenpassthemontothenextgeneration;(3)TraditionalDarwinism,wherenaturalselectionandtimearetheprimaryfactorsforchange;(4)Neo-Darwinism,wherenaturalselectionandtimearecombinedwithmutationsastheprimaryfactorsforevolution;and(5)PunctuatedEquilibrium,whichtriestoexplainthelackoffossilevidencefortransitionalforms.Thisviewassumesthatevolutionoccurredinburstsandisnotrecordedinthefossillayers;itstillreliesonnaturalselection,mutations,andtime.Formore,seeRogerPattersonandDr.TerryMortenson,“DoEvolutionistsBelieveDarwin’sIdeasaboutEvolution?”NewAnswersBook3,KenHam,gen.ed.(GreenForest,AR:2010),pp.271–282.Returntotext.

33.Itisimportanttonotethatinthebeginning,GodcalledHiscreation“verygood”(Genesis1:31;Deuteronomy32:4).Itisbecauseofman’ssinthatdeath,suffering,anddiseasecameintothecreation.Goddidnotmaketheworldlikeitistoday(fullofsuffering)butsubjectedittothisduetoman’ssin.WehaveessentiallybeengivenatasteofwhatlifeislikewithoutGod.ButChristdidnotleaveustoperish;instead,hetookthepunishmentthatwedeserveontheCross,onceforall.Christ,theGod-man,tooktheinfinitepunishmentthatisdemandedbytheverynatureofGod,whoisinfinite.Godthenoffersthefreegiftofsalvation,andpromisesanewheavensandnewEarththatwillnotbesubjectedtodeath,suffering,anddecay.Seewww.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/04/21/what-does-it-mean-to-be-saved.Returntotext.

ElizabethMitchell,researcherandwriter,AnswersinGenesisDr. Mitchell received a bachelor of science in chemistry from Furman

University in 1980. She graduated from Vanderbilt University School ofMedicineinNashvilleandcompletedherresidencyinobstetricsandgynecologyat Vanderbilt University Affiliated Hospitals in 1988. Dr. Mitchell practicedmedicineinGallatin,Tennessee,butin1995sheretiredfromprivatepracticetodevoteherselfmorefullytotheneedsofherfamily.

Atheism:AnIrrationalWorldviewbyJasonLisleAtheists are “coming out of the closet” and becomingmore vocal about theirmessage that “there is noGod.” ProfessorRichardDawkins (Britain’s leadingatheist) is encouraging those who share his views to express their opinion.Author of The God Delusion, Dawkins says he wants to “free children frombeingindoctrinatedwiththereligionoftheirparentsortheircommunity.”1WillChristiansbepreparedto“giveananswer”totheatheists’claims?2

Materialisticatheismisoneoftheeasiestworldviewstorefute.Amaterialisticatheist believes that nature is all that there is. He believes that there is notranscendentGodwho oversees andmaintains creation.Many atheists believethat their worldview is rational—and scientific. However, by embracingmaterialism, the atheist has destroyed the possibility of knowledge, aswell asscience and technology. In other words, if atheism were true, it would beimpossibletoproveanything!

Here’swhyReasoning involves using the laws of logic. These include the law of non-

contradictionwhichsaysthatyoucan’thaveAandnot-Aatthesametimeandin thesamerelationship.Forexample, thestatement“Mycar is in theparkinglot,anditisnotthecasethatmycarisintheparkinglot”isnecessarilyfalsebythe law of non-contradiction. Any rational person would accept this law. Butwhyisthislawtrue?Whyshouldtherebealawofnon-contradiction,orforthatmatter,any lawsofreasoning?TheChristiancananswer thisquestion.For theChristian there is an absolute standard for reasoning; we are to pattern ourthoughtsafterGod’s.ThelawsoflogicareareflectionofthewayGodthinks.The law of non-contradiction is not simply one person’s opinion of how weought to think, rather it stems from God’s self-consistent nature. God cannotdenyHimself(2Timothy2:13)3,andso,thewayGodupholdstheuniversewillnecessarilybenon-contradictory.

Lawsof logic areGod’s standard for thinking.SinceGod is an unchanging,sovereign, immaterialBeing, the lawsof logicareabstract,universal, invariantentities. In otherwords, they are notmade ofmatter—they apply everywhereand at all times. Laws of logic are contingent uponGod’s unchanging nature.Andtheyarenecessaryforlogicalreasoning.Thus,rationalreasoningwouldbe

impossiblewithoutthebiblicalGod.Thematerialisticatheistcan’thavelawsoflogic.Hebelievesthateverything

that exists is material—part of the physical world. But laws of logic are notphysical.Youcan’tstubyourtoeonalawoflogic.Lawsoflogiccannotexistintheatheist’sworld,yetheusesthemtotrytoreason.Thisisinconsistent.Heisborrowing from the Christian worldview to argue against the Christianworldview.Theatheist’sviewcannotberationalbecauseheusesthings(lawsoflogic)thatcannotexistaccordingtohisprofession.

ThedebateovertheexistenceofGodisabitlikeadebateovertheexistenceofair.3Canyouimaginesomeonearguingthatairdoesn’tactuallyexist?Hewouldoffer seemingly excellent “proofs” against the existence of air, whilesimultaneously breathing air and expecting that we can hear hiswords as thesoundis transmitted throughtheair. Inorderforus tohearandunderstandhisclaim,itwouldhavetobewrong.Likewise,theatheist,inarguingthatGoddoesnotexistmustuselawsoflogicthatonlymakesenseifGoddoesexist.Inorderforhisargumenttomakesense,itwouldhavetobewrong.

Howcantheatheistrespond?The atheist might say, “Well, I can reason just fine, and I don’t believe in

God.”But this isnodifferent thanthecriticofairsaying,“Well,Icanbreathejust fine, and I don’t believe in air.” This isn’t a rational response. Breathingrequiresair,notaprofessionofbeliefinair.Likewise,logicalreasoningrequiresGod, not a profession of belief in Him.Of course the atheist can reason; it’sbecauseGodhasmadehismindandgivenhimaccesstothelawsoflogic—andthat’s the point. It’s becauseGod exists that reasoning is possible.The atheistcan reason, butwithinhis ownworldviewhe cannot account for his ability toreason.

Theatheistmightrespond,“Lawsoflogicareconventionsmadeupbyman.”Butconventionsare(bydefinition)conventional.That is,weallagree to themandsotheywork—likedrivingontherightsideoftheroad.Butiflawsoflogicwere conventional, then different cultures could adopt different laws of logic(like driving on the left side of the road). So, in some cultures it might beperfectly fine to contradict yourself. In some societies truth could be self-contradictory. Clearly that wouldn’t do. If laws of logic are just conventions,thentheyarenotuniversallaws.Rationaldebatewouldbeimpossibleiflawsoflogicwereconventional,becausethetwoopponentscouldsimplypickdifferentstandards for reasoning. Each would be right according to his own arbitrary

standard.The atheist might respond, “Laws of logic are material—they are made of

electrochemical connections in the brain.” But then the laws of logic are notuniversal;theywouldnotextendbeyondthebrain.Inotherwords,wecouldn’targuethatcontradictionscannotoccuronMars,sincenoone’sbrainisonMars.Infact,ifthelawsoflogicarejustelectrochemicalconnectionsinthebrain,thenthey would differ somewhat from person to person because everyone hasdifferentconnectionsintheirbrain.

Sometimesanatheistwillattempttoanswerwithamorepragmaticresponse:“Weusethelawsoflogicbecausetheywork.”Unfortunatelyforhim,thatisn’tthe question.We all agree the laws of logicwork; theywork because they’retrue.Thequestion iswhydo theyexist in the firstplace?Howcan theatheistaccountforabsolutestandardsofreasoninglikethelawsoflogic?Howcannon-materialthingslikelawsexistiftheuniverseismaterialonly?

Asalastresort,theatheistmaygiveupastrictlymaterialisticviewandagreethatthereareimmaterial,universallaws.Thisisahugeconcession;afterall,ifapersoniswillingtoconcedethatimmaterial,universal,unchangingentitiescanexist,thenhemustconsiderthepossibilitythatGodexists.Butthisconcessiondoesnotsavetheatheist’sposition.Hemuststilljustifythelawsoflogic.Whydo they exist?Andwhat is the point of contact between thematerial physicalworldandtheimmaterialworldoflogic?Inotherwords,whydoesthematerialuniverse feel compelled to obey immaterial laws? The atheist cannot answerthese questions. His worldview cannot be justified; it is arbitrary and thusirrational.Objection: “The laws of logic (and causality, mathematics, etc.) are a

necessary extension of the (macroscopic) laws of nature in this universe, andhumankindhasevolvedenoughtorecognizeandutilizetheselawsoflogic”.Response:Theargumentisthatlawsoflogicareareflectionofthethinkingof

the biblical God as revealed in the Scriptures, and that any alternative viewreally doesn’t make sense. The hypothetical response that you have posed isessentially the conjecture that laws of logic are a reflection of the way theuniverseworks.Thispositionisalsoveryeasytorefuteforanumberofreasons.

First,itwouldbehardtosupportthenotionthatlawsoflogicareareflectionorextensionofthephysicaluniversebecausetheydonotdescribethephysicaluniverse (as laws of nature do). Rather, laws of logic pertain more to thereasoningprocess;theydescribethecorrect“chainofreasoning”frompremisestoconclusions.Forexample,thelawofnon-contradiction(Aandnot-Acannot

bothbetrueatthesametimeandinthesamerelationship)dealswithconcepts—notwith nature, per se.Laws of logic connect conceptual relationships, ratherthandescribingspecificconditionsorprocessesinthephysicaluniverse.

Moreimportantly,iflawsoflogicwereareflectionoftheuniverse(ratherthanofGod’sthoughts), thentheywouldbecontingentupontheuniverse.Andthatleads to some ratherabsurdconsequences. If lawsof logicwerecontingentonthe universe, thenwewould expect that different parts of the universewouldhavedifferent lawsof logic.Afterall, theconditions in thecoreof thesunarequitedifferentthanconditionsonthesurfaceofearth.Iflawsoflogicdescribethe universe, then theywould be different fromplace to place, since differentpartsoftheuniversearedescribeddifferently.

Moreover,iflawsoflogicwerecontingentupontheuniverse,thenwewouldexpectthemtochangewithtime,sincetheuniversechangeswithtime.Yet,weall presume that laws of logic are invariant—the same yesterday, today, andtomorrow.This,ofcourse,makessenseintheChristianworldview,sinceGodisbeyondtime,and,thus,Histhoughtsareaswell.Iflawsoflogicweremerelyanextensionofthephysicaluniverse,thenwewouldhavenobasisforarguingthattheymustapplyinunknownregionsoftheuniverseorinthefuture,sincenoonehas experienced these things. It doesnogood to counter that lawsof logicdoworkinknownregionsandhavealwaysworkedinthepast.Thisisirrelevanttounknown regions and the future unlesswe already presupposed an underlyinguniformity,whichonlytheconsistentChristianhasarighttoexpect.

Mathematicsissimilar,reflectingthethinkingofaninfiniteGod.Mathematicsisnotanextensionofthephysicaluniverse,eventhoughnaturallawscanoftenbe expressed in terms of mathematical principles. Mathematicians frequentlyentertain concepts that have no corresponding physical realitywhatsoever.Wecouldconsidera38-dimensionalspaceandcomputethehyper-volumesofhyper-spheresandothershapesinsuchmathematicalrealms.Suchconceptswouldbeperfectlymeaningful,eventhoughsuchthingsdonotandcannotexistphysicallyinourthree-dimensionalspace.

By the way, laws of logic (and mathematics) are not violated even at thequantum scale or at relativistic velocities.Energy andmass are not contraries,and, so, there is no problem with an equivalence relationship. Even wave-particledualityisnottrulycontradictory;objectsbehavewavelikeinsomewaysatsometimes,andparticle-likeatothertimesandinotherways.Whenthetimeorsenseisdifferent,thereisnocontradiction.Objection:“Oneoftheargumentswentas,‘Theuniformityoftheuniverseis

a property of the universe.’This is obviously an assumption as you also said.Whydowehavetoaccountforthisuniformity?”Response:Theansweristhis:inordertoberational.Themarkofrationalityis

tohaveagoodreasonforwhatwebelieve.Andremember,itisbiblicaltohaveareasonforwhatwebelieve(1Peter3:15).Thetwokeyformsofirrationalityareinconsistencyandarbitrariness(nothavingareason).Youcanimaginethatwhenan evolutionist asked why I believe in creation if I replied, “Oh, there’s noreason—it’sjusttrue,”thenhewouldrightlypointoutthatthisisarbitraryandirrational. And yet, evolutionists do not have a good reason (on their ownprofessedworldview)for theirbelief inuniformity—orfor lawsof logic.Theyare, therefore, being irrational. Biblical creation is the only rational positionbecause it alone provides a reason for those thingswe take for granted—likeuniformityandlawsoflogic.

It isfinetoposeahypotheticaluniversewithstabilityandlawsoflogic.Butthosethingswouldstillneedtobejustified.Howcouldwepossiblyknowthatthe laws of logic are invariant (do not change with time), and not that theysimply have not changed so far? And why does the material universe feelcompelledtoobeyimmateriallaws?Howwouldweknowthatthelawsaretrulyuniversal (applying everywhere) and invariant? The biblical creationist cananswer these questions by pointing to God’s special revelation, but thesequestions are simply not answerable apart from a biblical worldview. So, theevolutionist is still leftwithout a good reason forwhy he believes in laws oflogic,whytheyhavethepropertiestheydo,andwhythephysicaluniversedoesnotviolatethem.Heisindeed“borrowing”fromChristianity.

TheChristianworldview is not amere assumption. It is theworldview thatmakesknowledgepossible(Proverbs1:7;Colossians2:3).Italoneprovidesthejustificationfor thosethingsweneedforreasoning—suchas lawsof logicanduniformity. And that is a pretty good reason to believe in Christianity. Evenpresuppositionsrequireareason;it’sjustthatthereasonisprovidedafterthefactin the case of a presupposition. In summary, a good reason to believe in theChristianworldviewisthatwithoutit,wecouldn’treasonatall.

ConclusionsClearly, atheism is not a rational worldview. It is self-refuting because the

atheistmustfirstassumetheoppositeofwhatheistryingtoproveinordertobeabletoproveanything.AsDr.CorneliusVanTilputit,“[A]theismpresupposestheism.”LawsoflogicrequiretheexistenceofGod—andnotjustanygod,but

the Christian God. Only the God of the Bible can be the foundation forknowledge (Proverbs 1:7; Colossians 2:3).4 Since the God of Scripture isimmaterial,sovereign,andbeyondtime,itmakessensetohavelawsoflogicthatare immaterial, universal, andunchanging.SinceGodhas revealedHimself toman,weareabletoknowanduselogic.SinceGodmadetheuniverseandsinceGodmade ourminds, itmakes sense that ourmindswould have an ability tostudy and understand the universe. But if the brain is simply the result ofmindlessevolutionaryprocessesthatconveyedsomesortofsurvivalvalueinthepast, why should we trust its conclusions? If the universe and our minds aresimply the results of time and chance, as the atheist contends,whywouldweexpectthatthemindcouldmakesenseoftheuniverse?Howcouldscienceandtechnologybepossible?

Rational thinking, science, and technology make sense in a Christianworldview.TheChristianhasabasisforthesethings;theatheistdoesnot.Thisisnottosaythatatheistscannotberationalaboutsomethings.TheycanbecausetheytooaremadeinGod’simageandhaveaccesstoGod’slawsof logic.Buttheyhavenorationalbasisforrationalitywithintheirownworldview.Likewise,atheistscanbemoral,buttheyhavenobasisforthatmoralityaccordingtowhatthey claim to believe. An atheist is a walking bundle of contradictions. Hereasonsanddoesscience,yethedeniestheveryGodthatmakesreasoningandsciencepossible.On theotherhand, theChristianworldview is consistent andmakessenseofhumanreasoningandexperience.

Endnotes1.“Atheistsarise:DawkinsspreadstheA-wordamongAmerica’sunbelievers,”TheGuardian,October1st,2007.www.theguardian.com/world/2007/oct/01/internationaleducationnews.religion.Returntotext.

2.ChristianphilosopherDr.GregBahnsenoftenusedthisanalogy.Dr.Bahnsenwasknownasthe“manatheistsmostfeared.”Returntotext.

3.Ifwearefaithless,Heremainsfaithful;HecannotdenyHimself(2Timothy2:13).Returntotext.

4.ThefearoftheLORDisthebeginningofknowledge,butfoolsdespisewisdomandinstruction(Proverbs1:7);inwhom[Christ]arehiddenallthetreasuresofwisdomandknowledge(Proverbs1:7).Returntotext.

JasonLisle,DirectorofResearch,InstituteforCreationResearchDr.Lislegraduatedsummacumlaude fromOhioWesleyanUniversitywhere

hedouble-majoredinphysicsandastronomyandminoredinmathematics.Jasonearned a master’s degree and a PhD in astrophysics at the University ofColorado.

Morality:TheSecularResponsebyBodieHodgeMoralityhasalwaysbeenaproblemforsecularhumanismanditsvariousforms(e.g.,atheism,agnosticism,naturalism,andthelike).1Inrecenttimessomehavetriedtoaddressthismajorproblem,buttheirattemptsfailmiserably.

In a New Scientist article, there was a section conveying the latest secularthoughtsonmorality,aswellasabriefarticlefurtherinthemagazineregardingthetopic.2Thesectionistitled,“Ifmoralityisbroken,wecanfixit.”

Thattitlecaughtmyattentionbecausethereisnosurebasistosaymoralityisbroken outside of God and the absolute truth revealed in His Word. If onesecularistsaysmoralityisbrokenandneedstobefixed,thenanothercansayitisnot broken and does not need to be fixed. So they are left with nothing butarbitraryopinionsaspeopletrytopickandchoosetheirownmorality.

ExaminingthesesecularclaimsThearticlesays,“Sciencehasmadegreatstridesinexplainingmorality.”This

statementattributeshuman-likequalitiestothemethodologyof“science,”whichis the fallacy of reification. “Science” does not explain things;people explainthings.Sadly,thisfallacyismadefrequentlyonthesecularside.

Thearticlegoesontosay,“Nolongeris[morality]seenassomethinghandeddownfromonhigh…”ThoughmanysecularhumanistsprofessthatmoralityisnotsetbyGod,themajorityofpeopledisagreeandstillrecognizethatmoralitydoescomesfromGod.Butdoesitreallymatterwhatpeoplethink,orisitaboutwhatGodsays?

Thearticlecontinues,“…insteadit isanevolvedsystemofenlightenedself-interest.”Ifmoralityisreallyallabout“self-interest,”thenwhocaresaboutthemoralityofothers?Hitlerwasconsumedwithhisownself-interest,andhewasanevolutionist.So,washismoralityacceptablebytheseevolutionarystandards?Ishouldhopenot!

Next theysay,“Altruismforexamplecanbenefityourgenesanddisgustcanprotectyoufromdisease.”Whatdotheymeanby“benefit”?Didyoucatchthat?They are appealing to some overarching “good” in the universe by which tojudge something as a “benefit.” Secularists are borrowing from the biblicalworldview when they propose that something such as a “benefit” or “good”exists.Bysodoing,theyundercuttheveryargumenttheyaretryingtopropose.

Furthermore,whoarethesepeopletosaythat“disgust”isagoodthingorthatbeingdisease-freeisagoodthing?SuchideasareareflectionofLeviticusandthe cleanliness laws from the Bible, which teaches to resist effects of a sin-cursed and broken world. But how can an evolutionist say that preventingdiseaseisagoodthing?Perhapscatchingadiseaseanddyingiswhatisneededforthenextstepofevolution.

Next,theycommentthat“thispictureisprogress,butitcanalsoleadtoakindoffatalism,abeliefthatourmoralvaluesevolvedforagoodreasonandsoweshouldstickwiththem.”So,nowtheyareappealingtoanoverarchingconceptof “good”bywhich to judge these things?Forpeoplewhoclaim that theynolongerbelieveinmoralitybeing“handeddownfromonhigh,”theyhavetwiceappealedtosomethinghigherthatdetermineswhatisgoodandbadandgovernseverything.Thisisself-refuting!

In the article, the writer(s) further agreed that their moral guidelines are“arbitrary”and that“the rulesarenot set instone,” so there isnothing tostopthemfromgetting ridof the rules they thinkdon’twork. Icouldcontinue,butI’msureyouunderstandthebasicsofhowtheseargumentshavefailed.

ThisNewScientist article demonstrates that secularmorality is baseless, andthe writer(s) even appealed to Christianmorality with an overarching “good”(probablywithoutmeaningto)—allthewhilesayingmoralityissimplyarbitraryandnotbasedonanall-goodGodwhodeclareswhatisrightandwrong.

ConclusionTruemorality from a secular perspective simply cannot exist—it is arbitrary

andmeaningless.Non-Christianshavenochoicebut toborrowfromabiblicalworldviewtomakesenseofmorality—whethertheyrealizeitornot.Inaway,Ifeelsorrowforthosewhohavebeensecularizedtobelievemoralityisarbitrary;theydon’tknowwhattheyaremissingwhentheyfailtounderstandthetruth.

Fromabiblicalviewpoint,wehaveabasisformoralitysincewearemadeintheimageofaperfectlymoralCreator.Ofcourse,therearestillmoralproblemsbecauseweliveinaworldfullofsin,thankstoourmutualgrandfatherAdam.

WhenyoutakeGodoutoftheequation,everythingbecomesarbitrary.Sadly,thisistheworldwelivein,andthenextgenerationofkidsisbeingtaughtGoddoesn’t exist and everything is subjective—not just morality, but even realityitself!

Thisiswhythecreation-gospelministryofAnswersinGenesisissoimportantinourmodernage.Pleasestandwithusaswebattleforbiblicalauthorityagainst

thesefalseideasthatarepermeatingourculture.Itistimetobuildyour“houseontherock”ofJesusChristinsteadofthefalseandsinkingsandofsecularideas—especiallywhenitcomestomorality.

Andthisisthecondemnation,thatthelighthascomeintotheworld,andmenloveddarknessratherthanlight,becausetheirdeedswereevil(John3:19).

Endnotes1.HumanismisthereligionthatessentiallyelevatesmantothepositionofGodtodeterminetruthandlikewisemorality.Returntotext.

2.“Ifmoralityisbroken,wecanfixit,”NewScientist,February18,2012,p.3.Alsointhesamepublication,MichaelMarshal,“Moralchoicesshowwearedeeplysplit,”p.10.Thissecondarticlepointsoutthatmoralityseemssplitonissuespertainingtoethicalchoices,butthisshouldbeexpectedwhenpeoplearetaughtthereisnoabsoluterightandwrong.ForthosewhodidreadthisshortarticlebyMarshal,whydidnovolunteersoffertosacrificethemselvesandbetheonetojumpoffthetraintosaveotherpeople’slives?ThatiswhatourlovingCreatordidwhenHesteppedintohistorytodieintheplaceofmankind.Returntotext.

BodieHodge,speaker,writer,andresearcher,AnswersinGenesisBodieHodgehasamaster’sdegreeinmechanicalengineeringfromSouthern

IllinoisUniversityatCarbondale.SincejoiningAnswersinGenesis,Bodiehascontributed to several books, including Dragons: Legends and Lore ofDinosaurs.

Self-refutingSkepticismbyRogerPattersonMany people in modern society label themselves as skeptics. They publishmagazines, participate in various organizations, raise funds to support theircauses, and lobby the public through roadside signs, podcasts, andadvertisementsonbuses.

Thoughthereareseveralorganizationstowhichwecouldrefer,wewillfocusourattentionontheSkepticsSocietyheadedbyDr.MichaelShermerforsakeofdiscussingtherelevantpointsofagreementanddisagreement.Byexplainingthepositions given by this organization, you can easily apply them to otherswhosharethesamebasicviews.AsChristians,weshouldhaveabiblicallyfoundedskepticismoftheclaimsmadeby“skeptics”(Proverbs18:17).

Skepticism is a humanistic philosophy. Humanists consider man to be themeasureofallthings.Thatis,thehumanmindisconsideredtobetheultimatestandard bywhich all claims are judged.Humanism is a religious system, thedeity of the worldview being man himself. Though the humanists wouldgenerally reject the labelof religious, theycertainlyhold theirviewswithzealandconviction.

Another important element of the humanist religion is naturalism (or,materialism).This belief blindly asserts that nothing beyond nature exists; thephysical universe is all that there is.Anything that is supernatural is excludedfromthisbeliefsystem.Wewillexplainthesetwoideasaswelookatthebeliefsofskepticalhumanistsandtheirmanifesto.

The followingexcerpts are taken fromASkepticalManifesto,written byDr.MichaelShermer,whichwillservetoillustratethebeliefsofthosewhoclaimtobeskeptics.

Tohiscredit,Dr.Shermerisopenlyhonestaboutthefailureofskepticismasaphilosophy.

But what does it mean to be skeptical? Skepticism has a long historicaltraditiondatingbacktoancientGreecewhenSocratesobserved:“AllIknowisthatIknownothing.”Butthisisnotapracticalpositiontotake.

Shermerrightlyconcludesthatifaskepticweretoapplyhisphilosophytohisownviews,hewouldhavetobeskepticalofskepticism—apositionofabsurdity.Theveryfoundationofthisbeliefsystemisself-refuting.

Toavoidtheabsurdityofhisargument,Shermergoesontoqualifyhisbeliefs.

Headdsthequalifiersofrationalandscientifictohisbeliefsystem.Hedoesthisin order to justify his claim that hewishes to promote progress, even thoughskepticismitselfdoesnotholdthatgoal.Exactlywhathemeansbyprogressisnot explained, but it seems to tie into a later discussion of the evolution ofmankind to higher levels. However, he provides no scientific or rationalvalidationforwhathighermeansandwhyhisviewsshouldbeacceptedaboveotherviewsofprogress.

ScientificskepticismLetusfirstlookattheclaimthatskepticismmustbescientificinordertobeof

value.Thoughnotexplicitlystated,theconceptofmaterialismispresentinthedefinitionofsciencegivenbytheSkepticsSociety:

...asetofmentalandbehavioralmethodsdesignedtodescribeandinterpretobservedorinferredphenomenon,pastorpresent,aimedatbuildingatestablebodyofknowledgeopentorejectionorconfirmation.1Itisworthnotingthatthisdefinitionissimplygiventopersuadethereaderto

accept a particular view. It is not what would be found in textbooks anddictionaries. Redefining terms is simply a tactic of persuasion, not a logicalargument.

Since his definition of science deals with observation, Shermer definesobservation as “gathering data through the senses or sensory enhancingtechnologies.”Althoughsupernaturalforceswouldnotnormallybeexperiencedbythesenses,theChristianrightlytakesGodtobetheultimatefirstcauseofthethings we do experience. This forces us to ask the question, “Why mustsupernaturalexplanationsberemovedfromscience?”

Dr.Shermerdoesnotprovideareasonfortheassertionthatsciencecanonlybe based on observations by the senses. If this claim is left as an arbitraryassertion, then there is no logical reason to accept it. Christians should beskepticalofthisskeptic’sdefinitionofscience.

Another problem that this definition presents for the skeptics is that it isinconsistent.On theonehand,Shermerwants to includepast eventsas fallingunder his definition of science. On the other hand, he wants to haveobservational confirmation or rejection of everything that is to be consideredscientificknowledge.But,ofcourse,pasteventsarenotsubjecttoobservationalrejection or confirmation. Shermer tries to cover up this inconsistency bysuggesting that inferences are as legitimate as observations, but provides nosupportforthisview.

Shermergoeson to explain thatmostbiologistswouldaccept evolutionas a“fact”inthatit isbasedon“dataorconclusionsconfirmedtosuchanextentitwouldbereasonabletooffertemporaryagreement.”Sinceskepticalsciencecanneverultimatelyproveanything, thetemporaryagreementof thecommunityisthatevolutionhappenedandwillcontinuetohappen.This“fact”mustbebasedontheinferencesofpasteventsfromobservationsof thingsin thepresent,notobserving and testing things from thepast. Shermer argues from this “fact” atseveralpointsinthisarticle.

Since facts,bydefinition,are true, thisphilosophyallows for theprovisionalacceptance of untrue facts.Many things thatwere once considered factual areknown to be false today. In the absence of an absolute standard to determinetruth,skepticsbuildtheirfoundationonwhattheymustadmitcouldbefalseinthefuture—evolutionincluded.

Thisnaturalisticscienceisintendedtobeobjectiveandavoidanymysticism.Creationismissaidto“havebeentested(andfailedthetests)oftenenoughthatwecanprovisionallyconclude[itis]false.”Ifthesetestsweredoneaccordingtothescientificmethod,itwouldinterestustoknowhowthesupernaturalcreationof the universe was observed through the senses (what measurements wereinvolved)andshowntobefalse.Theveryclaimisoutsideofthecapabilitiesofthemodelofskepticalsciencesetforward.

RationalskepticismTo prop up his self-refuting philosophy of skepticism, Dr. Shermer believes

thattheremustbearationalcomponentaddedsothattheskepticmightthinkinareliableway.Hedefinestherationalskepticas:

Onewhoquestionsthevalidityofparticularclaimsofknowledgebyemployingorcallingforstatementsoffacttoproveordisproveclaims,asatoolforunderstandingcausality.SinceDr.Shermerseemstobecommittedtoaphilosophyofnaturalism,how

doesheaccountfortheexistenceofreason?Reasoninvolvesusinglawsoflogic—which are not part of nature. Laws of logic describe the correct chain ofreasoningfrompremisestoconclusions;theyarenotmaterialandcannotexistinamaterialistic universe. The naturalist cannot account for universal, invariant,abstractentitieslikelawsoflogic.

What the skeptic is doing is borrowing concepts froma biblical viewof theuniversewhile rejecting the system itself—an irrational approach.There is noexplanation for the existence of reason and the laws of logic in a naturalistic

worldview.Ifmanissimplytheaccumulationofchemicalreactions,whyshouldwe trust those reactions tounderstand theworldaround it?Chemical reactionsandelectrical impulsesby themselvesareneither rightnorwrong; theysimplyare.

ScienceisonlypossiblebecauseGodhasorderedtheuniverseandsustainsitin such a way that the human mind can understand it. The Christian has anultimatereasonforbelievingthatwecanstudyandunderstandtheuniverse.Thenaturalistic skepticdoesnot. (Foradetailedexplanationof thisconceptpleaseseeRevelation,Speculation,andSciencebyDr.GregBahnsen.)

Dr.Shermermakestheclaimthatitwouldbeunscientifictoacceptadogmaticclaim that is not based on scientific inquiry. But he expects us to accept hisdogmaticassertionwithoutprovingitbyanyscientificmeans(whichwouldbeimpossible).Again,anassertionismadewithnorationalreasontoacceptit.

Acceptingideasontheauthorityofanotherhumancanbedangerous;so,itisimportanttounderstandhowthepersonmakingtheclaimcametoknowwhatisbeing claimed.Wecertainlydon’t disagreewithDr.Shermeronnot acceptingdogmaticclaims,butit isironicthatheexpectsustobelievehisclaimwithoutscientificproof.Christiansshouldbeskepticalofsuchclaims.

Thereis,however,Onewhomwecantrustabsolutely.WhenHetellsusoftheworld,we can accept those things, asHewas not only an eyewitness, but theCreatoroftheuniverse.Havingcreatedtheuniverse,wecantrustthatwhatGodtellsusabout it throughHisWordcanbetakenas truth.Sincetherecanbenohigher authority than theCreator,wemust acceptHis claimsof truthover theclaimsmadebyfalliblehumans.Godhasgrantedusthegiftofreason,humanshaving been created in His image, but we must recognize the limits of thatreasoningandtheconditionofthefallenworldinwhichwelive.

Other skeptics have suggested thatwe cannot trust theBible because itwaswrittenbymen;ofcourse, thisstatement itselfwaswrittenbymen.So, if thatstatement is trustworthy, thatwecannot trusta statementwrittenbymen, thenwecannottrustthestatementitselfaboutnottrustingtheBible—acontradiction.

Itisalsoworthnotingthatanargumentreallyshouldbeevaluatedonitsownmerit,notonthesource.Todootherwiseis tocommit thegeneticfallacy.TheBible claims to be theWordofGod, is internally consistent, andprovides theonly rational foundation for the world around us. On these grounds, not theemptyclaimsofskepticalhumans,wecanacceptthetruththatGodhasrevealedtous.

Conclusion

Mankindhaselevatedhimselfthroughouthistory.FromtheFallintheGarden,mankind has sought to be equal, if not superior, to God. Like any otherphilosophy that begins without God as the standard of truth, this humanisticphilosophy is arbitrary and logically inconsistent. Applying a little biblicallybasedskepticismtotheclaimsoftheseskepticsexposestheflaws.

AswelooktoGod’sWordasthefoundationforallthinking,wemightalsobemoved to pray for those who suppress the truth of God in unrighteousness(Romans1:18–19).HadGodnot revealedHis truth tous,wewouldstillbe inthatdarkenedcondition(Ephesians2:1–5).Asweseektosharethetruthwithalostworld,letusremembertodosoinmeeknessandfearandwiththankfulnesstoGodfor thesalvationHehasgrantedusthroughJesusChrist(1Peter3:15–16).

Endnotes1.www.skeptic.com/about_us/manifesto.html.Returntotext.

RogerPatterson,writer&editor,AnswersinGenesisRoger Patterson taught in public schools for eight years before joining

AnswersinGenesis.HeearnedhisBSEddegreeinbiologyfromMontanaStateUniversity–Billings. Roger is the author of Evolution Exposed and serves onAiG’seditorialreviewboard.

DearAtheists...AreYouTiredofItAll?byBodieHodgeAreyoutiredofall theevilassociatedwiththephilosophyofatheism—Stalin,Hitler,PolPot,andsoon?1Afterall,mostmurderers,tyrants,andrapistsarenotbiblicalChristians, andmost have rejected theGodof theBible.Even if theyclaim to believe in theGodof theBible, they are not really living like a trueChristfollower(whostrivestofollowGod’sWord),arethey?

Doyoufeelconflictedaboutthefactthatatheismhasnobasisinmorality(i.e.,no absolute right and wrong; no good, no bad?) If someone stabs you in theback,treatsyoulikenothing,stealsfromyou,orliestoyou,itdoesn’tultimatelymatter in an atheistic worldview where everything and everyone are justchemicalreactionsdoingwhatchemicalsdo.Andfurther,knowingthatyouareessentiallynodifferentfromacockroachinanatheisticworldview(sincepeoplearejustanimals)mustbedisheartening.

Areyoutiredofthefactthatatheism(whichisbasedinmaterialism,2apopularworldviewtoday)hasnobasisforlogicandreasoning?Isittoughtryingtogetupeverydaythinkingthat truth,which is immaterial, reallydoesn’texist?Areyoubotheredby the fact that atheismcannot account foruniformity innature3

(the basis bywhichwe can do real science)?Whywould everything explodefromnothingand,bypurechance,formbeautifullawslikeE=MC2orF=MA?4

Do you feel like you need aweekend to recoup, even though aweekend isreally meaningless in an atheistic worldview—since animals, like bees, don’ttakeadayof restorhaveaweekend?Sowhyshouldatheists?Whyborrowaworkweek and weekend that comes from the pages of Scriptures, which aredespisedbyatheists?WeeksandweekendscomefromGodcreatinginsixliteraldaysandrestingforaliteralday;andthentheLordJesusresurrectedonthefirstdayoftheweek(Sunday).Andwhylookforwardtotimeoffforaholiday(i.e.,holyday),whennothingisholyinanatheisticworldview?

Forprofessingatheists,thesequestionscanbeoverwhelmingtomakesenseofwithintheirworldview.Andfurther,withinanatheisticworldview,atheistsmustviewthemselvesasGod.Essentially,atheistsareclaimingtobeGod.Insteadofsaying there may not be a God, they say there is no God. To make such astatement, theymust claim tobeomniscient (which is anessential attributeof

theGodoftheBible)amongotherattributesofGodaswell.5So,bysayingthereis no God, the atheist refutes his own position by addressing the question asthoughheorshewereGod!

Doyoufeelconflictedaboutproselytizingthefaithofatheism,sinceifatheismwere true then who cares about proselytizing? Let’s face it, life seems toughenoughasanatheistwithouthavingtodealwithothermajorconcerns likenothavingabasistowearclothes,ornobasisformarriage,noconsistentreasontobeclean (snailsdon’twakeup in themorningandclean themselvesor followothercleanlinessguidelinesbasedonLeviticallaws),andnoobjectivereasontobelieveinlove.

AreyouwearyoflookingforevidencethatcontradictstheBible’saccountofcreation and finding none?6 Do the assumptions and inconsistencies of datingmethods weigh on your conscience when they are misrepresented as fact?7

Where do you suppose thosemissing links have gone into hiding? Surely theatheist sees the folly andhopelessnessof believing that everything came fromnothing.

In fact, why would an atheist care to live one moment longer in a brokenuniversewhere one ismerely rearranged pond scum and all you have to lookforward to is . . . death,which canbe around any corner?And in 467 trillionyears,noonewillcareoneiotaaboutwhatyoudidorwhoyouwereorhowandwhen you died—because death is the ultimate “hero” in an atheistic,evolutionaryworldview.Ofcourse,asaChristianIdisagree,andIhaveabasistoseeyouashavingvalue.

InvitationIinviteyoutoreconsiderthatthefalsereligionofatheismissimplythat.I’m

heretotellyouthatatheismisalie(Romans1:25).8AsaChristian,Iunderstandthat truthexistsbecauseGodexists,who is theTruth(John14:6),9andwearemadeinHisimage.10Unlikeanatheist,whoseworldviewdoesn’tallowhimtobelieve in truthor lies, theBible-believerhasa foundation thatenableshim tospeakabouttruthandlies.ThisisbecausebelieversinGodandHisWordhaveanauthority,theultimateauthorityonthesubject,tobasestatementsupon.

ThereisaGod,andyouarealsomadeinHisimage(Genesis1:26,9:6).11Thismeansyouhavevalue.Whereasconsistentatheiststeachthatyouhavenovalue,Iseeyoudifferently.Iseeyouasarelative(Acts17:26)12andonewho—unlikeanimals, plants, and fallen angels—has thepossibilityof salvation fromdeath,which is the result of sin (i.e., disobedience to God; see Romans 6:23).13We

haveall fallenshortofGod’sholystandardofperfectobedience thanks toourmutualgrandfather,Adam(Romans5:12).14AndGod seesyoudifferently, too(John3:16).15Whileyouwerestillasinner,Godsteppedintohistorytobecomeaman to die in your place (Romans 5:8)16 and offer the free gift of salvation(Ephesians2:8–9).17

Atheistshavenoconsistentreasontoproselytizetheirfaith,butChristianslikemedohaveareason—JesusChrist,whoistheTruth,commandsusto(Matthew28:19).18Wewant to see people repent of their evil deeds and be saved fromdeath(Acts8:22,17:30).19Whatawonderfuljoy(Luke15:10)20.

Whereatheistshavenobasisforlogicandreason(orevenfortruth,sincetruthisimmaterial),Biblebelieverscanunderstandthatmankindismadeintheimageof a logical and reasoningGodwho is the truth. Hence, Christians canmakesense of things because inChrist are “hidden all the treasures ofwisdom andknowledge” (Colossians 2:3).21 Christians also have a basis to explain whypeoplesometimesdon’tthinklogicallyduetotheFallofmankindinGenesis3.ThemostlogicalresponseistogiveupatheismandreceiveJesusChristasLordandSaviortorescueyoufromsinanddeath(Romans10:13).22Insteadofdeath,God promises believers eternal life (1 John 2:25; John 10:28)23 and in 467trillion years, you will still have value in contrast to the secular view ofnothingness.

Christians do have a basis to wear clothes (to cover shame due to sin; seeGenesis 2:25, 3:7),24 a reason to uphold marriage (God made a man and awoman; seeGenesis 1:27;Matthew 19:4–6),25 a reason to be clean (Leviticuscontains many provisions to counter diseases in a sin-cursed world), and asourceofreallove(sinceGodmadeusinHislovingimage;see1John4:8).26AsChristians,wehaveasolidfoundationforsayingthingslikeback-stabbing,theft,andliesarewrong(seetheTenCommandmentsinExodus20).

I invite you to leave the false religion of atheism and its various forms andreturntotheonetrueGodwhocametorescueyou(John17:3).27JesusChrist,whoisGodtheSon,lovedyouenoughtocomedownanddieinourplacesowecanexperienceGod’sgoodnessforalleternityinsteadofthewrathofGodforalleternity in hell (Matthew 25:46).28 And we all have sentenced ourselves tojudgmentbecauseofourdisobediencetoGodandrejectionofHim(John3:17–18).29

ThedayiscomingwhenweallwillgiveanaccountbeforeGodforouractionsandthoughts(Romans14:12).30WillyourepentandreceiveChristasyourLordandSavior todayso thatyouwill joinChrist in the resurrection fromthedead

(John11:25;Romans6:5)?31Iinviteyoupersonallytobecomeanex-atheist,jointhe ranks of the saved through Jesus Christ, and become a new creation (2Corinthians5:17)32aswecontinuetoadvancewiththegospelinpeacethatonlyGodcanprovide(Romans5:1).33

Endnotes1.See“EvolutionaryHumanism:TheBloodiestReligionEver”inthisbook.Returntotext.

2.See“Atheism:AnIrrationalWorldview”inthisbook.Returntotext.

3.J.Lisle,“Evolution:TheAnti-science,”AnswersinGenesis,February13,2008,www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v3/n1/evolution-anti-science.Returntotext.

4.K.Ham,Gen.Ed.,NewAnswersBook1,Lisle,J.,“Don’tcreationistsdenythelawsofnature?”MasterBooks,GreenForestAR,2006,pp.39–46,www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/creationists-deny-laws-of-nature.Returntotext.

5.IfoneclaimsthatGodmayexistorthattheremaybeaspiritualrealm,thenthatpersonisnotanatheist,butanagnostic,atbest.TheagnosticsaysthatonecannotknowwhetherGodexists,buthowcantheyknowthatforcertainapartfrombeingomniscientthemselves?Additionally,theBiblesaysin1John5:13thatwecanknowforcertainthatwehaveeternallife.Soanagnostic—whoclaimswecannotknow—doesnotholdaneutralpositionregardingthebiblicalGod.Returntotext.

6.K.Ham,“Missing?orMisinterpreted?”AnswersinGenesis,March1,2004,www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v26/n2/missing.Returntotext.

7.K.Ham,NewAnswersBook1,M.Riddle,“Doesradiometricdatingprovetheearthisold?”MasterBooks,GreenForest,AR,2006,pp.113–134,www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-radiometric-dating-prove.Returntotext.

8.WhoexchangedthetruthofGodforthelie,andworshipedandservedthecreatureratherthantheCreator,whoisblessedforever.Amen(Romans1:25).Returntotext.

9.Jesussaidtohim,“Iamtheway,thetruth,andthelife.NoonecomestotheFatherexceptthroughMe”(John14:6).Returntotext.

10.KeepinmindthatChristians,includingme,dofallshortduetosinandtheCurse,butGodneverfails.Returntotext.

11.ThenGodsaid,“LetUsmakemaninOurimage,accordingtoOurlikeness;letthemhavedominionoverthefishofthesea,overthebirdsoftheair,andoverthecattle,overalltheearthandovereverycreepingthingthatcreepsontheearth”(Genesis1:26);Whoevershedsman’sblood,bymanhisbloodshallbeshed;forintheimageofGodHemademan(Genesis9:6).Returntotext.

12.AndHehasmadefromonebloodeverynationofmentodwellonallthefaceoftheearth,andhasdeterminedtheirpreappointedtimesandtheboundariesoftheirdwellings(Acts17:26).Returntotext.

13.Forthewagesofsinisdeath,butthegiftofGodiseternallifeinChristJesusourLord(Romans6:23).Returntotext.

14.Therefore,justasthroughonemansinenteredtheworld,anddeaththroughsin,andthusdeathspreadtoallmen,becauseallsinned(Romans5:12).Returntotext.

15.ForGodsolovedtheworldthatHegaveHisonlybegottenSon,thatwhoeverbelievesinHimshouldnotperishbuthaveeverlastinglife(John3:16).Returntotext.

16.ButGoddemonstratesHisownlovetowardus,inthatwhilewewerestillsinners,Christdiedforus(Romans5:8).Returntotext.

17.Forbygraceyouhavebeensavedthroughfaith,andthatnotofyourselves;itisthegiftofGod,notofworks,lestanyoneshouldboast(Ephesians2:8–9).Returntotext.

18.Gothereforeandmakedisciplesofallthenations,baptizingtheminthenameoftheFatherandoftheSonandoftheHolySpirit(Matthew28:19).Returntotext.

19.Repentthereforeofthisyourwickedness,andprayGodifperhapsthethoughtofyourheartmaybeforgivenyou(Acts8:22);Truly,thesetimesofignoranceGodoverlooked,butnowcommandsallmeneverywheretorepent(Acts

17:30).Returntotext.

20.Likewise,Isaytoyou,thereisjoyinthepresenceoftheangelsofGodoveronesinnerwhorepents(Luke15:10).Returntotext.

21.Inwhom[Christ]arehiddenallthetreasuresofwisdomandknowledge(Colossians2:3).Returntotext.

22.For‘whoevercallsonthenameoftheLordshallbesaved’(Romans10:13).Returntotext.

23.AndthisisthepromisethatHehaspromisedus—eternallife(1John2:25);AndIgivethemeternallife,andtheyshallneverperish;neithershallanyonesnatchthemoutofMyhand(John10:28).Returntotext.

24.Andtheywerebothnaked,themanandhiswife,andwerenotashamed(Genesis2:25);Thentheeyesofbothofthemwereopened,andtheyknewthattheywerenaked;andtheysewedfigleavestogetherandmadethemselvescoverings(Genesis3:7).Returntotext.

25.SoGodcreatedmaninHisownimage;intheimageofGodHecreatedhim;maleandfemaleHecreatedthem(Genesis1:27);AndHeansweredandsaidtothem,“HaveyounotreadthatHewhomadethematthebeginning‘madethemmaleandfemale,’andsaid,‘forthisreasonamanshallleavehisfatherandmotherandbejoinedtohiswife,andthetwoshallbecomeoneflesh’?Sothen,theyarenolongertwobutoneflesh.ThereforewhatGodhasjoinedtogether,letnotmanseparate”(Matthew19:4–6).Returntotext.

26.HewhodoesnotlovedoesnotknowGod,forGodislove(1John4:8).Returntotext.

27.Andthisiseternallife,thattheymayknowYou,theonlytrueGod,andJesusChristwhomYouhavesent(John17:3).Returntotext.

28.Andthesewillgoawayintoeverlastingpunishment,buttherighteousintoeternallife(Matthew25:46).Returntotext.

29.ForGoddidnotsendHisSonintotheworldtocondemntheworld,butthattheworldthroughHimmightbesaved.HewhobelievesinHimisnotcondemned;buthewhodoesnotbelieveiscondemnedalready,becausehehasnotbelievedinthenameoftheonlybegottenSonofGod(John3:17–18).Returntotext.

30.SotheneachofusshallgiveaccountofhimselftoGod(Romans14:12).Returntotext.

31.Jesussaidtoher,“Iamtheresurrectionandthelife.HewhobelievesinMe,thoughhemaydie,heshalllive”(John11:25);ForifwehavebeenunitedtogetherinthelikenessofHisdeath,certainlywealsoshallbeinthelikenessofHisresurrection.(Romans6:5).Returntotext.

32.Therefore,ifanyoneisinChrist,heisanewcreation;oldthingshavepassedaway;behold,allthingshavebecomenew(2Corinthians5:17).Returntotext.

33.Therefore,havingbeenjustifiedbyfaith,wehavepeacewithGodthroughourLordJesusChrist(Romans5:1).Returntotext.

ConfessionsofaFormerAtheistbyJohnUpChurchMystorystartsinasmallcollegetown.Wehadmovedthereafewyearsbeforeasanescapeformyfather,aformerpastorwhohadgivenuponachurchthathadgivenuponhim.

Iwouldnotsaythatmyfatherwasanopenlyreligiousman(evenduringhisyears as aminister), and he had never told uswhat to believe.Whenwe hadmoved there, he became even more reticent. The only conversations that Iremember havingwith himabout his faith concerned the “fluidity” of biblicalinterpretation—somethinghehadlearnedfromseminary.Tobehonest,lookingback,Iamnotsureheeverbelievedwhathehadoncepreached.Beingthesonofaminister,despitecertainexpectations,doesnotmeanthatyouwillhaveanysortoffaithinGod.

Tobe fair, Idid try it.Mymotherhasnevergivenuponherbelief, andshemadesurethatweatleastwenttochurchoccasionally.Itwasatimidexperimenttosaytheleast:fourboyswhopreferredhighjinxtohymns.Butweenjoyedourchurchbulletinartworkandcrawlingunderthepewswheneverthechancearose.Weweremostlybidingourtimeuntilweturned16andcouldmakethe“adult”decisionnottogotochurch.Itturnedout,however,thatwereallydidn’thavetowaitthatlong.

The olderwe got, themoremy parents drifted apart.Mymomoccasionallymade the sojourn to church, often carting me along as the youngest. I wentbecauseIhadsomefriendswhowent;IwentbecauseIthoughtitwasgoodtodoso.ButIdidnotseechurchasanythingmorethanalocationwithotherpeople.

Asanychildofthe1980s,IspentmuchofmyyouthgettinginformationfromeducationalprogramsoncableandPBS. Iwasvoracious to learneverything Icouldabouttheworld,abouttheuniverse,aboutmatter,space,time.Iwantedtolearn itall,and thereneverseemedtobeenoughresources. In thosedarkagesbefore the Internet, therewere only somanybooks at our library andonly somany TV shows. I absorbed everything I could about dinosaurs and our“ancient” cosmos and the history of the earth. In fact, I spent my summervacationsreadinginmyroom.

Ihave toadmit that Iwasmarginally interested in religion ingeneralduringthat time, and I studied ancientmythology. But I found the Bible itself to berather dry. Thees and Thous were not nearly as interesting to me as star

formation,animalhabitats,andchemicalprocesses.That,Ibelieved,waswherethe“goodstuff”was.

WhatIdidstudyoftheBibleledmoretoquestionsthananswers.Ononehand,Iwasreadingapaleontologybookthatcouldlayoutatimelineofdinosaursandtheir extinction. On the other hand, I didn’t see anything about them in theBible.1 IfGodwere trulyGod, surelyHewouldhave tohave said something.Butmy footnoteswere stubbornly silent (though I do recall themmentioningsomethingaboutahippoorelephantinJob).

WhenIthinkback,IlostallconfidenceintheBibleatayouthgroupmeetingduringhighschool.ThemainpastorofourlargechurchmetwithustoanswersomeofourmostseriousquestionsaboutGod,theBible,life,andanythingelse.Weall tookascrappieceofpaper,wroteourquestiononit,andplacedit inahat.Many of the questions, given thatwewere teenage boys, had to dowithrelationshipsandgirls,butmyquestionwasverydifferentandsimple:wherearedinosaursintheBible?Hepurposefullyskippedmyquestion.

Really,Ididn’twantananswer.Myfather’s“fluidity”lessonshadtaughtmethattherewasnoreasontotrustwhattheBiblesaid.Andthefruitofsayingthatthe Bible (especially the first few books) is full of mythological stories andallegorieswasthatIhadnoreasontobelievethatanyofitwastrue.IftheBiblewasn’ttrueforhistoryorscience,thentherewasnoreasontotrustitforspiritualpurposes:iftheBiblecan’tbetrustedonwhatpeoplecansee,itisveryunlikelythattheywilltrustitonwhattheycan’tsee.

When the pastor skipped my question, I decided that the books and TVprogramshadbetteranswers.Itwasjustthatsimple.

AcourseincollegeI had decided to be an anthropologist—or astronomer—or philosopher—or

poet—orteacher.College,afterall,wasacornucopiaofoptions,andIlovedthefreedomof itall.Myadvisorsdidn’tunderstandmygoodgradescoupledwithmy“extendedstay.”Ihadconvincedmyselfthattheyjustdidn’tunderstandmydesiretotakeitallin,beeverythingallatonce.

Iwas free; Iwasmiserable.Myparentswerecontinuing todriftapart,and Ifelt like my life was quickly spiraling down. I convinced myself that all theangerandsadnessinmylifewouldmakeexcellentwritingmaterial,sincethat’sallthatIhad.Thereis,afterall,nohopewhenyoubelievethatyouarenothingmorethanacollectionofsenselesselectrons,windingdown—whenyoubelievethatyourlifeismerelytheendresultofmillionsofrandomgeneticmistakes.

But Icouldargueagainst theexistenceofGodwith thebestofmypeers. Infact, it was about that time that I was introduced to something amazinglyridiculousbyananthropologyprofessor.Beforethen,IhadneverreallythoughtitconceivablethatsomeonewouldtaketheBibleliterallyorthinkthattheearthwas young. When I think back, I find it ironic that except for an atheistprofessor,Imayneverhaveevenheardofyoung-earthcreation.However,atthetime, I howled in delight as she explained how some Christians believedthatmen had one less rib becauseGod took one tomakeEve. I also secretlyderidedoneofherreligiousfriendsthatshetoldusaboutwhofoundnodisunitybetweenevolutionand theBible.Thatperson, Idecided,was simply someonewho could not give up on an archaic belief system and was clinging to a“crutch.”

On the other hand, I was interested in knowing how someone could everbelievethattheearthwas6,000yearsold.Inseveralofmyclasses,IlaterheardaboutArchbishopUssher’scalculationfortheageoftheearth,andIdecidedtolookitupatsomepointwhenIneededagoodlaugh.

SomethingfromnothingMy parents separated in 2003, and I was never the same again. I slid into

severe depressionwith suicidal tendencies and sought help at the university’stherapycenter.Aftertwomonths,thesessionsended,butmydepressiondidnot—nor my thoughts and plans for suicide. By March of that year, I had mystrategylaidoutandmynotewritten.Ididnotbelieveinheavenorhell,andIcertainlydidnotbelievethatIwasaccountabletoanyoneoranything.Mylifewasminealone.

Ididn’tgothroughwithmysuicideattemptbecauseofasinglephrase.AtthemomentIhadplannedtofinishthejob,onesimplephrasecametomymind,onesolitaryverse:“InthebeginningwastheWord,andtheWordwaswithGod,andthe Word was God.” I did not know what the phrase meant, nor did I knowwhereitcamefrom.Butgivenmyvoracitytoknowasmuchaspossible,itwasenough to keep me from following through. However, it wasn’t until a fewmonthslaterthatIeventriedtofigureitout.

ThefirstoneAfter this, I received my BA in English, and I took a job in information

technology. The job was, in many ways, a less-than-stressful occupation, andmost of my time was spent setting up computers and monitoring the nightly

backupofaserver.ThisdidallowagreatdealoftimetoreadthenewsontheInternetwhileIwaitedforthesystemtofinishrecording.

Itwasduring this time that Imetmy first living,breathing,walking, talkingyoung-earthcreationist. Ididnotknowhewasacreationist forseveralweeks,butheandIspentagreatdealof time talkingaboutmyfamilyand the recentissuewithmyparents.ButwhenIdidfindout,IhavetoadmitthatIfeltlikeIwasstudyinganundiscoveredspecies—alivingfossil,perse.Hebelieved,andIfelt like I shouldgetascalpel toexaminehisbrain.Althoughmyfirst instinctwas to beat him over the head with the “facts” of the age of the earth andevolution,Idecidedinsteadtolethimtalk.

Andwhatsurprisedmeisthat,firstofall,hedidn’tbelievethatmenhaveonelessrib—IassumedhemustsimplyhavemissedthatpartofhisSundayschoollesson.He alsowas very rational in the reasonswhy he believed.As permytraining, I figured he was “cherry-picking” the data he used to counterevolutionaryclaims.ThemantraIwastaughtandclungtowasthatthewealthofevidenceandallcrediblescientistssupportedbillionsofyears.Caseclosed.

WaitingforbackupAfterafewweeks,Ifinallyagreedtogotoawebsitethatmycreationistfriend

hadtoldmeabout:www.answersingenesis.org.WhydidIgo?WasIsearchingfor the truth?Sadly, Iwent to thesitebecauseIwanted toseewhat ridiculousclaimsthesepeopleweremaking.Ithadbeenaroughday,andcomedywasinorder.AndI laughed—hard—that firstnight. I laughedsomuch, in fact, that Iwent back thenext night and thenight after that. I foundUssher, and I foundpeoplewithdoctorateswhoactuallybelievedthattheearthwas6,000yearsold.Ialsofoundagoodnumberofevolutionarysitesthatlaughedwithmeoverthatfirstweek.

But I also found something else. There, buried in the archives, was aninteresting story about the pepperedmoths2 that I had studied throughout mychildhood.Therewassomequestionastothevalidityoftheseexperimentsthatwere put forth as one of the cornerstones of evolutionary thought. I didn’tbelieveitatfirst,butIfoundcorrelatingevidenceonothersecularsitesaswell.Thatmaynotseemlikemuchtomanypeople,butitcausedasubtleshiftinmythinking.And then therewas theMiller-Urey experiment: classic foundationaltruth of abiogenesis. But why had no one ever bothered to discuss chirality?Whywasthatleftout?Sure,IcouldfindsitesallovertheInternetthatattemptedtoaddresstheseissuesandhowtheydidn’tdisproveevolution,butwhatIwas

concernedwithwasthefactthattheyhadneverbeenbroughtupbefore.Itwasasifallthedifficultspotsinevolutionarytheoryhadbeenwhitewashed.

The only controversy I had ever been taught concerning the history of theworld waswhere life had originated and how it developed from there. I hadnever even thought to question the foundational principles; I had never evenconsidered taking ametaphysical look at the framework that I assumed to betruth.Theunspokenruleseemedtobethatanyonewhodidwouldautomaticallybecome contemptible. One could be a genius one moment (as long as theyfollowedtheevolutionaryprinciples)andanidiotassoonasonesteppedbeyondthosebounds.

Now,IwantedtoknowwhyIbasedallmypreconceptionsonanevolutionaryfoundation.Itwasn’tsomuchthatIbelievedthecreationistmaterial;itwasjustthatIneededtostartwith“whatdidIknow”and“howdidIknowit.”Ibeganre-readingsomeofmyanthropologytextbookswithaneyetofindthebasisforthe extrapolations. What I found was that the texts themselves assumedevolutiontobetruefromthebeginning.Thus,alldatawasinterpretedtofitthatparadigm. Many of my professors had often accused creationists of the samething as a means to destroy their arguments. But these textbooks, too, werestartingfromaframework(naturalism)toconstructhypotheses.

To be honest, the one recurring argument I read on the Internet to supportevolutionwasthesame“allevidencesupportsit”argument.ButIfoundthattobeveryunsatisfying.Wherewasall thisevidence?Alldatingmethodshave toassumecertainconditions inorder towork.Fossilsalsohavetobeinterpreted.ThoughIcontinuedtoreadtherebuttalsites,theirargumentswereincreasinglyunsatisfying,andallofthemcontinuedtopoundthe“allevidence,allscientists.”This ischaracteristic, I found,ofagreatdealofanti-creationist literature—notsuffocating, scintillating proofs of evolution, but, rather, angry attacks onscientificcredentials,intellect,andsanity,caricatures,evenhopesof“removal”through natural (and not-so-natural) selection.When I wanted proof, the onlythingIfoundwasvitriol.

Ididnotrealizehowmuchofanimpactthesediscoverieswerehavingonmeuntil I began disagreeing with TV shows and books that I had previouslyacceptedwithoutquestion.ItwasalsoaboutthistimethatIdiscoveredEvidencethat Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell (a former agnostic)—a book thatcompletely transformedwhat I thought I “knew”about theunreliabilityof theBible,abookthatmademewanttotryreadingthatdustytomeonceagain.

Andwhen I picked up theBible, not knowingwhere to start, I decided that

Johnwouldbeagoodplace (thenameof thatbook is fairly catchy, after all).There,onthefirstpageandthefirstline,Ireadthatsameversethathadstayedmyhandsomanymonthsbefore,eventhoughIhadnotreadit inmanyyears:“InthebeginningwastheWord,andtheWordwaswithGod,andtheWordwasGod”—inthebeginning,indeed.Thosewordsbecamemyprayerofconfessionandobeisancethatdayandeverydaysince.

AglancebackSincecomingtoknowtheLord,ithasneverceasedtoamazemewhenpastors

say thatacceptinga literalGenesishasnothing todowith salvation.Afterall,they say, people have interpretedGenesis differently throughout history.But Irejected thegospelmessage formostofmy life for thevery reason that thesepastors say doesn’t matter. If secular science trumps Genesis, then it trumpsChrist’smessageofsalvation,too.

Tothosepastors,Iask,“IfnotonGenesis,wherewillyoustand?Whyshouldtheworld listen to themessage of redemptionwhen the very peoplewho arepreachingitdon’tbelievewhatGodsays?”Thisisnotaback-burnerissue;thisisnotsomethingsecondary. Iamlivingproof thatpeopleneedanswers,and iftheydon’tgetthematchurch,theywillfindthemsomewhereelse.

Endnotes1.TurnsoutIwasn’tlookingfortherightthingswhentryingtofinddinosaursintheBible.See“Youdon’t‘fit’dinosaurswiththeBible!”(www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2000/04/14/dont-fit-dinosaurs).Returntotext.

2.ThisarticleisanupdatetothearticleIoriginallyread.Recentfindingshaveupheldthedataoftheoriginalstudy,butthemethodologycalledthewholeexperimentintoquestion.Thatsaid,thereisnodisconcertingdataforcreationistsinanyofthestudies,forwhatwasfoundwasmerelynaturalselection,whichcreationistsdon’tconflatewithmolecules-to-manevolution,asevolutioniststendto.Returntotext.

JohnUpChurch,SeniorEditorofBibleStudyTools.comandJesus.orgJohnUpChurch serves as the editor for Jesus.org and is a contributor to the

Answers in Genesis website. He graduated summa cum laude from theUniversityofTennesseewithaBAinEnglish.

“ThereIsNoGod!”TheBibleclearlysays,“ThereisnoGod.”Really.Butthecontextisimportant.

Thefoolhassaidinhisheart,“ThereisnoGod.”Theyarecorrupt,Theyhavedoneabominableworks,Thereisnonewhodoesgood.TheLORDlooksdownfromheavenuponthechildrenofmen,Toseeifthereareanywhounderstand,whoseekGod.Theyhaveallturnedaside,Theyhavetogetherbecomecorrupt;Thereisnonewhodoesgood,No,notone.(Psalm14:1–3)GodcallsthosewhorejectHisexistencefoolsnotbecausetheyarestupid,but

becausetheywillinglyrejectwhattheyknowtobetrue.Theorderedcomplexitythat is present in the universe leaves everyonewho looks at theworld aroundthem—especially in this age of scientific knowledge—without excuse. TheyknowthereisaGod,andtheyknowHeispowerful,buttheysuppressthattruthin unrighteousness to serve their owndesires rather than theCreator (Romans1:18–32).

Isthattrueofyou?DoyourecognizetheattributesofGodpresentinthespiralof a sunflower or the beauty and immensity of a galaxy, and yet you have adesiretorunawayfromtheCreatorofthosethings?

WhenGodcreatedtheuniverse,Hecreatedaworldthatwas“verygood.”Thefirst man and woman lived in perfect harmony with God. But that perfectrelationshipwasbrokenwhentheyrebelledagainsttheirCreatorbydisobeyingHiscommand.Atthatpoint,therelationshipbetweenGodandmanwasbroken.ThatbrokenrelationshiphasbeenpassedtoeverydescendantofAdamandEve,includingyou,asoriginal sin.Thatsinhascorrupted theentireearthandeventheheartsandmindsofpeople.

WhatisyourattitudetowardGod?EvenifyouaresuppressingthetruthofHisexistence,theBiblemakesitclearthatyouareimpactedbyoriginalsin.Thisisevident in your actions and thoughts. When asked about the greatestcommandment given byGod toman, Jesus respondedwith a summary of thefirstfourofthetenCommandments:YoushalllovetheLordyourGodwithallyour heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind (Matthew 22:34–40;

Deuteronomy6:5).CanyousaythatyoudesiretoloveGodwithallofyourheart,soul,andmind?

Canyousay thatyoudesire to followGod’scommands found in theBible? Ifnot, then the rebellion that was in Adam’s heart is also in your heart. AndbecauseGodisajustjudge,HemustpunishthosewhorebelagainstHim.AstheCreator,God has the right to establish the rules forHis creation and to judgethosewhorebel.Thatisthebadnewsofsinintheworld.ThatbadnewsmeansthatyouareseparatedasarebelagainstyourCreator.

ButGodmadeawayforthebadnewstobeturnedtogoodnews!Godsteppedinto the world when Jesus was born to a virgin. Jesus, the God-man, lived aperfectlifeandperfectlyobeyedeverycommandofGodinthought,word,anddeed. He then went willingly to the Cross to be crucified and to take thepunishmentforsinuponHimself.Heactedasasubstitute,takingthepunishmentwedeserve,andHeoffersusHisrighteousness.

AnyonewhoturnsfromhisorhersinsandsubmitstoJesusasLord,trustinginHislife,death,andResurrectionasthebasisofbeingreconciledtoGod,willbeforgivenandseenasrighteousbeforeGod.

HumbleyourselfandsubmittoJesusasbothyourCreatorandSavior.ButGodhaschosenthefoolishthingsoftheworldtoputtoshamethewise,andGodhaschosentheweakthingsoftheworldtoputtoshamethethingswhicharemighty;andthebasethingsoftheworldandthethingswhicharedespisedGodhaschosen,andthethingswhicharenot,tobringtonothingthethingsthatare,thatnofleshshouldgloryinHispresence.ButofHimyouareinChristJesus,whobecameforuswisdomfromGod—andrighteousnessandsanctificationandredemption—that,asitiswritten,“Hewhoglories,lethimgloryintheLord”(1Corinthians1:27–31).