August 2010 Newsletter Reasons To Believe Austin, Tx Network Aug. 1, 2010 Volume 3 Issue 8 Contact us at [email protected] Upcoming RTB Austin presentations: Logan Turner and Ashton Murphy on How to Reason Rightly …. and Gracefully In April 2009, two high September—Concordist schoolers at Grace Academy Vs. Non-Concordist in Georgetown got the attenView of Scripture and tion of Hugh Ross and other Creation (John Weber) RTB scholars when the Headmaster of Grace Academy Beginning in October sent Dr. Ross a paper the new series geared for two students had written imcollege students mediately after the University Skeptics Forum. Also in This News- letter Steven Cunningham reviews John MacArthur’s Battle for the Beginning on Page 3 Agenda for Aug. 14 meeting and directions to our meeting place. Page 4. The paper, which identifies logical fallacies employed by Dr. Michael a Shermer, a well known member of the atheist community, is presented on p.4-5 in this newsletter. The two students, Logan Turner and Ashton Murphy, Continued Page 2 Coordinator’s Corner—by .Bob Davis Logic. It’s a word we use all the time—usually as an adjective as in “That’s just not logical.” Knowing when a seemingly convincing statement—made by ourselves or others—is not logical is an important part of our work as Christian apologists. Let me illustrate by two examples: one using good logic, the other, poor logic. cosmology. Premise 1: “All things that begin to exist owe their existence to something outside of themselves.” Premise 2: “The universe began to exist.” Example of valid use of logic Conclusion: “ Something outside of the universe (i.e., outside of time, space, energy, and matter) caused the universe to come into existence.” One the arguments for the existence of God is a simple logical argument using two premises and a conclusion drawn from Big Bang Once convinced of the logic, we move on to demonstrate how this “something” is actually ”Someone” by matching the at- tributes of the God of the Bible with what we know about Big Bang Cosmology. (If you are interested in this complete presentation request it at [email protected]) Example of bad logic Many times do well meaning Christians engage in discussions with non-believers and start out with the statement: “The Bible is the word of God,” and then when challenged as to how do they know this to be true, respond by saying, “because the Bible says it’s so.” While the statement may be true, the reasoning is circular. To Page 2 August 2010 Newsletter gument!” will be our featured speakers at our upcoming RTB monthly meeting on August 14 (see details on location and time on page 5 ). They will present nine logical fallacies and then illustrate them in a mock debate where we in the audience will be invited to interrupt the debate when we spot one of the nine logical fallacies. Lacy Murphy is the mother of Ashton as well as the logic teacher at Grace. “We teach logic to 7th and 8th graders because it is at that age when kids are naturally argumentative. We teach them how to argue well,” said Lacy. “ As my husband John likes to say, slamming the door is not a good arCoordinator’s Corner continued illustrate, let’s say you are arguing with a Muslim who has just told you that Koran is God’s word. You ask him how he knows, and he says, “because it says so.” Does that convince you? Why should we expect our equivalent form of reasoning to convince a non-believer. Circular reasoning is one of many logical fallacies. Logical fallacies are arguments that may sound convincing, but are based on faulty reasoning. Knowing about logical fallacies can help us as Christian apologists from falling into lazy, haphazard, incorrect thinking as we share with others the validity of the Christian worldview. Similarly, we can kindly and gently point out erroneous thinking on the part of those we are witnessing to by showing how their logic—including the veracity of their premises—is wrong. Our next meeting of the Austin Reasons to Believe network will focus on identifying logical fallacies. Knowing how to think straight is Although the paper rebutting Shermer struck many of us as extraordinary, Lacy says that any of her students could have done it. She says that middle schoolers— that’s when Grace teaches logic— are attracted to logic because they like to argue and discover the “gotcha” moments in their opponent’s arguments. Logan and Ashton have gone from the “gotcha-seeking “stage to using their skills in a more Christ like fashion as they season their arguments with grace. The need for presenting our arguments in a spirit of humility will be part of their presentation to us on Aug. 14. something best learned as a youth. Why? Because our worldview is really a series of choices about what to believe. Once acquired, most people continue in the way they view the world without critically examining why they believe what they believe. Our instructors in this overview of logical fallacies are a pair of high schoolers who have learned their critical thinking well (See an example of their work on Page 4 ). Lets make a special effort to bring young people to our meeting to learn how to thing critically and perhaps inspire them to follow in the footsteps of these high schoolers who have begun to engage the unbelieving world by providing valid “reasons for the hope that they have” in Christ (I Peter 3:15). Want to learn more about how . think? to If our presenters this month whet your appetite to learn more about critical thinking skills—especially as it applies to Christian apologetics, you can learn more through Reasons to Believe Institute—an online distance learning series of courses coordinated by Dr. Bob Stuart of RTB. Several of the Austin RTB members have benefited from the outstanding program which involves almost daily contact with a qualified instructor. Following is the course offering for critical thinking. Check out the RTB website (www.reasons.org) and sign up for the January classes. CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS [RI0501] Register Now! Next term begins January 10, 2011.In this intensive 5-week (undergraduate) to 7-week (graduate) course, Kenneth Samples, RTB's senior theologian, teaches what it means to love God with all your mind. The ability of Christians to effectively address the many arguments skeptics present is an ongoing challenge. This course deals with the various aspects of deductive, inductive, and abductive reasoning as they are applied to different forms of argumentation. Different ways of testing arguments and truthclaims are evaluated for validity, cogency, and strength. Students will learn to assess how arguments break down, how to recognize and categorize fallacies, and how to recognize when areas of logic are violated. August 2010 Newsletter Review of John MacArthur’s Book, The Battle for The Beginning. By: Steven Cunningham, RTB Austin Dr. John MacArthur is a respected and very well known evangelical minister. Over the years, he has authored a long running radio show entitled “Grace to You,” penned countless articles, and built a college and seminary in California. He has certainly earned the right to be considered a significant authority in many matters that concern the modern evangelical Christian believer, but in writing the book The Battle for the Beginning, he proves that he can stumble as easily as the rest of us and appear quite mortal indeed. The Battle for the Beginning is a book that attempts to highlight the importance of an accurate view of Genesis in maintaining the transcendent veracity and perspicuity of all Scripture. In doing so, MacArthur attempts to coronate a Young Earth Creation (YEC) exegesis of Genesis as the only “non-secular” and, therefore, the only permissible view of the first and second chapters of Genesis. While it is certainly fair to argue this position, an alert reader would be wise to pay close attention not only to the Biblical exegesis, but the care or the lack thereof that the author pays to the related science issue in question. Almost no one questions Mr. MacArthur’s command of Scripture. That being the case, it is surprising how badly he stumbles in handling issues that deal with the interface between Scripture and science and the philosophy of science. There is no reference in MacArthur’s book of Old Earth Creationism (OEC) as another literal interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2. Hebrew scholars agree that the word “Yom” may be rendered, “12 hour day,” “24 hour day,” or “long period of time.” It is valid to challenge the “epoch” rendering, but by ignoring the grammatical debate altogether, or worse, referring to OEC Christians as “secularists,” one has to wonder if this is either sloppy thinking or even rank dishonesty. “...MacArthur attempts to coronate a Young Earth Creation (YEC) exegesis of Genesis as the only “non-secular” and, therefore, the only permissible view of the first and second chapters of Genesis.” OEC Christians could possibly be wrong on the correct rendering of “Yom,” but they are not “nonliteralists” and certainly not “secularists.” In order to grant a maximum level of Grace to Mr. MacArthur, it is im- Page 3 portant to stress that he is not a scientist, and in the book declares that he is not an authority in scientific matters. Having said that, it could be argued that he should at least be minimally versed in the philosophy of Dr. John MacArthur science, particularly when his intent is to write a book that relies so heavily on this information. One of the most egregious and oftrepeated errors he commits is in the conflation of abiogenesis, evolutionary biology, and cosmic origins (The Cosmic Singularity, the age of the universe, et al). He frequently and carelessly uses the term “secularism” or “evolutionary theory” to refer to any or all of these concepts interchangeably and without differentiation. Consider the following example from the text: “ On the other hand, if we accept the evolutionists’ theory that the universe has existed for countless epochs, we must adjust our interpretation of Scripture to accommodate an old Earth and therefore capitulate to one of evolution’s most essential dogmas.” (478-80, Kindle Reader). It is not only evolutionists that suggest that the universe is old. The Continued on Page 6 Page 4 August 2010 Newsletter branch of Begging the Question. Example: Dr. Shermer assumes that supernatural and natural cannot coexist. He demands 'natural' explanations be brought before him. He rejects certain evidences on the basis that they are 'supernatural'. Paper Prepared by Ashton Murphy and Logan Turner as Submitted by Grace Academy Headmaster to Hugh Ross of Reasons to Believe Ministry, April 2009 . Shortly after the debate between Hugh Ross/Fuz Rana and Michael Shermer and some UT atheists in April 2009, Dr. Tim Deibler, Headmaster of Grace Academy in Georgetown sent us this critique of Dr. Shermer’s arguments by a freshman and a sophomore at Grace. A full year wiser now, these two students will be our presenters at the August 14, 2010 monthly meeting of RTB Austin. Dr. Michael Shermer uses the similarity of cells and their parts to modern day machines to indicate an intelligent designer. This is the construction that we noticed most often. Ad Hominem Definition: Accusations that distract from the issue at hand by focusing attention to negative aspects of the opponent himself. Ad Hominem Shermer Debate Critique Abusive is a particular branch cenAs we watched the presentation by tered on ridiculing an opponent. Ad Michael Shermer at the most recent Hominem Circumstancial focuses on discrediting an opponent’s view UT Skeptics Forum, we were surby casting light on the opponent’s prised to find simple fallacies dispersed throughout his presentation. background. Having had some high-school-level Example: “Good Science, Bad SciLogic courses, we challenged ourence…Non-Science and nonselves to respectfully bring out and examine the most blatant of the falla- sense. You’ve heard some (nonsense) tonight in my opinion.” cies we noticed. Dr. Shermer did not use the blatantly obvious version of Ad Straw-man Fallacy Definition: Attempting to disprove an Hominem Abusive. However, inopponent’s argument by presenting it stead of outright using degrading names, his entire demeanor spoke in an unfair, inaccurate light. disdain of his opponents, as seen in the quote above, and seen in nuExample: Dr. Shermer represented merous other instances. Reasons' position as being an attempt to fill in the gaps of science by Reply: This is not a form of arguusing God. ment that you can effectively argue against. Drs. Ross and Rana spoke Reply: The scientists at Reasons to Believe are not simply trying to fill in respectfully and ignored the ridicule from some of the other scientists, the 'gaps' left by modern scito which we tip our hats. ence. They are making a biblical case for why the presence of God solves these gaps, but they also use Begging the Question instances that are 'proven' to support Definition: When an opponent asGod as creator as well. This is seen in sumes what he is trying to prove. Circular Reasoning is also a Dr. Rana's arguments, in which he Reply: What RTB is trying to prove at the debate, at the basest level, is that 'natural' science and 'supernatural' God coexist, and that natural things were created by supernatural events. Dr. Shermer cannot fairly reject certain things because they are supernatural. Logically, he must prove that God and Science cannot coexist, before using it as one of his premises. Bifurcation (also called either/or) Definition: An argument that frames the debate such that only two options are possible, when other possibilities may exist. Example: Dr. Shermer claimed that what cannot be naturally explained by creation scientists must be attributed to supernatural intervention. Reply: This argument limits events to being explained naturally or supernaturally, but not both, and leaves out the option where God works miracles through His chosen physical laws. According to Reasons to Believe: "Supernatural interventions, according to the Bible, are not always transcendent miracles (those only explained by a God acting independent or outside of matter, energy, space, and time). ...Far more frequent are the miracles God performs within His chosen physical laws." Sweeping Generalization Definition: Arguments that take a generalization and apply it to August 2010 Newsletter cases that can be legitimate exceptions to it. Example: Dr. Shermer compares Christianity to several other religions. He implies that religions are ridiculous and cites many cases of absurd religions. Dr. Shermer makes the case tha t Christianity is just like these religions. Page 5 Austin Reasons to Believe Fourth Floor, Bldg A, Hill Country Bible Church NW 10 a.m. to Noon Reply: While there certainly are many absurd religions, and most of them are wrong, Christianity does not have to be either. The generalization that religious people are irrational and unscientific, we believe, does not apply in this case. Irrelevant Goals or Functions Definition: Arguments that distract by measuring the opponent’s plan or policy according to things it wasn’t intended to do. Example: At the end of his presentation, Dr. Shermer has compiled a list of questions, which he asks RTB to answer, based on their model and the Bible. transferred to the audience, who began to turn polite applause into a Reply: Not only were some of the battle to see who could be the loudquestions irrelevant (why doesn't God est. We left Gregory Gymnasium heal amputees?), most of them could disappointed, not because we lost, not be answered without the help of the not because our faith was in danger gift of prophecy. Drs. Ross and Rana of being shattered, but because we did not compile their model in order heard our beliefs presented to the that it would answer every philosophiaudience in an unfair, biased light. cal question known to man; they compiled it as a biblio-scientific hypothesis We left disappointed because the arguing for an intelligent creator. search for truth was abandoned in favor of sarcasm and disrespect. We left disappointed because many So, after all of that, who won? Was it of the crowd left without any respect Dr. Ross and Dr. Rana, who formulated for either position, and that is a pity. a strong biblio-scientific case for an in…………………………………………………….. telligent designer, specifically the God of the Bible? Was it Dr. Shermer, who, By while committing many fallacies, was an excellent showman and clever rheto- Ashton Murphy (Freshman), rician? and Logan Turner (sophomore) with assistance from Hannah Thoms We personally believe that, if the (sophomore) purpose of the debate was a structured intelligent search for truth, no one Grace Academy won. The flippant way Dr. Shermer Georgetown, Texas seemed to view the debate was quickly Agenda For August 14 RTB Network Meeting 9: 30 a.m. Coffee time and fellowship 10 a.m. Prayer and introduction of guests and speaker 10: 30 a.m Presentation: Reasoning Rightly and Gracefully by Ashton Murphy and Logan Turner 11:40 am Update on RTB Austin Change in Directions—John Weber 11:50 a.m Update on the National Pastors Conference on Faith and Scripture in October—Larry Linenschmidt. August 2010 Newsletter strongest evidence for that lies in the observation of the Earth and the cosmos and the analytic methods that accompany that enterprise (ice cores, radiometric dating, General Relativity, stellar dynamics, mathematic principles, etc). Interestingly, the old universe time lines that cosmology is yielding are not particularly helpful to evolutionary biology because they indicate a universe that is far too young for naturalistic origins of life. (See sidebar at right ). MacArthur also rolls out some of the already disproven arguments of many YEC adherents, including the argument that the second law of thermodynamics does not allow for an increasingly ordered biological structure. There are some good arguments against many of the elements of Darwinian evolution, but this is not one of them. For example, water turning into ice in your freezer definitely represents a localized increase in order and structure while representing an overall increase in entropy in the system at large. This argument has no scientific merit, and appears to be as timeless as it is false. MacArthur does what many YEC advocates do when he associates belief in The Big Bang, ie, The Cosmic Singularity, with “secularism.” He does not even mention that The Cosmic Singularity was a mathematical derivation that was actually very much disliked by secularists when the theory first came out, because it worked against secularism and toward an uncaused first cause or transcendent beginning. Finally, MacArthur commits the same error that many nonChristians commit when they attempt to disprove the truth claims of the Bible—he misrepresents and limits the true nature of the enterprise of science, limiting it to only what is repeatable and falsifiable in a laboratory setting. This is Karl Popper’s criteria [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Karl_Popper], and is useful for certain types of scientific inquiry, but is far too limiting a principle for the acquisition of all physical truth. Our quest should be to find truth without limitation by artificial human boundaries. The physics of the Cosmic Singularity are not repeatable in the lab, but that does not mean that it didn’t happen as the mathematics and the multiple lines of independent observational evidence are indicating. Dr. MacArthur is correct in describing the critical importance of the book of Genesis in evangelism. On that we can all agree. He would better aid the cause of evangelism, however, by not getting in its way by ascribing a worldview to OEC Christians that they do not hold in front of watching non-believers. Science-faith evangelism is a mission field that will no doubt be extremely fruitful in the years to come as new discoveries demonstrate and affirm the exquisite design of the universe. Many scientists and scientifically minded people are looking on with great interest and carefully checking the truth claims made by Christians. They can quickly detect misrepresentations of science and so we must be especially careful not to not misrepresent science in order to establish a Page 6 base of credibility sufficient to gain their trust. The Battle for the Beginning is not a well researched or well written book. However, we can certainly return MacArthur’s maxim and give “Grace To Him” in this matter. Our Lord would expect no less. Is 4.6 billion years enough time to support a naturalistic origin -of-life scenario? By Bob Davis As Steven Cunningham notes in his book review, the concern that young earth creationists have that a 4.6 billion year old earth provides enough time for life to develop by natural processes (and thus provide support to macroevolutionary Darwinism), is unfounded. Sir Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wikramasinghe estimated that the probability of naturalistic formation of a single enzyme is only one chance in 10 to the 20th power or 1 in 100,000,000,000,000,000,000. The simplest living cell requires thousands of different enzymes. The two scientists—neither a creationist—estimate that the odds of a naturalistic process for creating a single bacterium are 1 in 10 to the 40,000 power. Since there are only 10 to the 80th power atoms in the universe, the only possibility of a naturalistic formation of a bacterium is a time span of infinite length. Big bang cosmology refutes an infinitely old universe and hence also a naturalistic scenario for the origin of life. For details on these and similar calculations see: A Case against Accidental and Self Organization, by Dean Overman,; Rowan and Littlefield Pub. 1997. pp 58-65.
© Copyright 2024