I would just like to point out that your whole viewpoint for this website is flawed. I read in an article on this website that anyone who asks the Bible to be taken out of the argument between Creationism and Evolution is really asking the deck to be stacked one way. However since a person who does not believe in Creationism also does not believe that the Bible is infallible, this cannot be used as an argument against them. Therefore the question is not whether Creationism or Evolution is correct, but whether the Bible is 100% infallible. That is the argument you need to put forth on your website. However you can’t do that without proving Creationism is true, which you can’t prove true unless the Bible is 100% true. It goes in a circle. I guess faith is the only thing you can stand on if you want to keep this particular view point.
—B.G., U.S.

I would just like to point out that your whole viewpoint for this website is flawed. I read in an article on this website that anyone who asks the Bible to be taken out of the argument between Creationism and Evolution is really asking the deck to be stacked one way.

The article is correct. Remember, the Bible claims that it is the Word of God (2 Timothy 3:16), that genuine knowledge must begin with God’s revelation (Proverbs 1:7; Colossians 2:3), and that thinking not based on God’s Word is futile and foolish (1 Corinthians 3:19, 1:20; Ephesians 4:17; Matthew 7:24–27).

Keeping the Sword

Last weekend I attended three speaking events at Calvary Chapel Kendall in Miami, Florida, where Ken Ham was the guest speaker. I cannot begin to express the impact that event had on my life and on my church famliy, not to mention the souls that came to know Jesus Christ as Savior. The talks were full of the power of the Word of God, and they brought conviction to believers and unbelievers alike. I was challenged to hold onto the authority of the Word of God, beginning with Genesis. As head of the science department at the school I work at I am tempted to want to defend my faith on the “turf” of unbelievers by not referring to the Word of God. Ken Ham challenged us not to throw away our sword before we enter the “battle.”

—R.D., U.S.

One Comment at a Time

I just wanted to pass along an experience I had this weekend in Austin, Texas. My wife and I visited the Texas Memorial Museum on UT’s campus. The exhibits on fourth floor of the museum were entitled, “Exploring Evolution,” and among the unimpressive collection of “micro-evolution” examples, I found a collection of written responses from visitors.

The collections were overwhelmingly filled with the comments of informed creationists, who firmly held to their understanding of science. I can only hope that the overwhelming responses are having an unsettling affect on those who created the exhibit . . . but the evidence is clear . . . the people are being properly educated.

Keep up the great work!

—P.F., U.S.

Have Something to Add?

Let us know what you think.

Therefore, those who start with the assumption that human reasoning is sufficient apart from God’s revelation have already arbitrarily decided that the Bible is not true. It would be like trying to win an argument by saying, “Let’s start by assuming that you are wrong. And then I can prove that you are wrong.” It wouldn’t make sense to agree to those terms.

However since a person who does not believe in Creationism also does not believe that the Bible is infallible, this cannot be used as an argument against them.

That’s a bit like saying, “I don’t believe in the existence of air. So, you cannot assume the existence of air when arguing with me. You’ll just have to hold your breath.” It would be absurd to agree to such terms. I don’t have to accept the terms of the critic of air in order to debate with him. (In fact, if I did accept his terms I could not debate with him, since I would not breathe.) Instead, I would respond by saying, “Actually, we all require air in order to make any argument. So, the fact that you are able to argue at all proves that your claim is wrong.”

The debate over origins and biblical authority is similar. Those who deny the Bible as their starting point must nonetheless use biblical principles, such as laws of logic, in order to argue at all. This shows that the biblical worldview must be true.

Therefore the question is not whether Creationism or Evolution is correct, but whether the Bible is 100% infallible.

The two go hand in hand. We are arguing for the Christian worldview—which includes both the infallibility of Scripture and biblical creation, as well as other things like the existence of God and the deity of Christ. There is no problem in defending all of these things simultaneously.

That is the argument you need to put forth on your website. However you can’t do that without proving Creationism is true, which you can’t prove true unless the Bible is 100% true. It goes in a circle.

No, we are proving that the Christian worldview is true (which includes both the infallibility of Scripture and biblical creation). We do this by showing that any alternative to Christianity must first assume the truth of Christianity in order to get started. Science, for example, presupposes the Christian worldview as shown here: Evolution: The Anti-science. Christianity must be true because it is the only rational possibility. This is not a vicious circular argument.

I guess faith is the only thing you can stand on if you want to keep this particular view point.

Everyone has faith in something—be it atheism, naturalism, Christianity, or so on. (Even someone who believes he has no faith must have faith in this belief itself.) The question is this: which faith system can be rationally defended? It turns out that only the Christian system of faith (including biblical creation and the infallibility of the Bible) has a good reason behind it. I hope this clarifies the issue.

God bless,

Jason Lisle

Help keep these daily articles coming. Support AiG.