Welcome to Anchored by Truth brought to you by Crystal Sea Books. In John 14:6, Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life.” The goal of Anchored by Truth is to encourage everyone to grow in the Christian faith by anchoring themselves to the secure truth found in the inspired, inerrant, and infallible word of God.

Script:

The heavens proclaim the glory of God. The skies display his craftsmanship. Day after day they continue to speak; night after night they make him known… their message has gone throughout the earth, and their words to all the world.

Psalm 19,verses 1 through 4, New Living Translation

********

Hello! I’m Victoria K. Welcome to Anchored by Truth brought to you by Crystal Sea Books. We’re excited to be with you as today we conclude our series that we’ve called “Truth and Proof.” This series is all about helping our listeners think carefully about their faith. The Christian faith is not a belief system that requires its followers to abandon their brains when they surrender their hearts to Jesus. So, for the past several episodes we’ve been focusing on the logic, reason, and evidence that demonstrates that placing your faith in the God of the Bible is not only reasonable – it would actually be unreasonable to do otherwise. And today to help us complete our series we have RD Fierro back in the studio. RD is an author and the founder of Crystal Sea Books. RD, the world around us today clamors that we must choose between our Christian faith or science. But that demand is unreasonable isn’t it?

RD: Well, before we get into our discussion for today I’d like to thank all the people who are joining us here today. Like many of our series on Anchored by Truth this “Truth and Proof” series has been intellectually challenging so we know that anyone who has listened to any of the episodes are truly serious about their Christian faith. And to answer your question, yes, it is unreasonable to ask a Christian to choose between faith and science because science actually helps demonstrate the validity of the Christian faith and worldview. And we’re certainly not the first people to point that out. For instance, in 1991 Berkeley law professor Phillip Johnson wrote a book called Darwin on Trial. Johnson’s book was so compelling that the debate about design in nature and a supernatural Designer was forever changed. Johnson wrote “In brief, what makes me a ‘critic of evolution’ is that I distinguish between naturalistic philosophy and empirical science, and oppose the former when it comes cloaked in the authority of the latter.”

VK: So, what Johnson is pointing out is that empirical science does not, and should not be equated with, philosophical naturalism. Philosophical naturalism is basically the idea that the only things that we can know to exist are those of the material universe. As such, philosophical naturalism rejects any claims that anything supernatural, including God, exists. But, as we have pointed out during this series, this anti-supernatural bias flies in the face of logic, reason, and evidence. It is very clear from science that the material universe does not and cannot explain its own existence. Empirical observations reveal that the universe is one giant effect – and effects need causes.

RD: Exactly. But we need to point something out. The logic and reason behind the “science has proved that God doesn’t exist” is just sad but wrong but the marketing of that very bad idea has been brilliant.

VK: I’ve had a few products like that through the years. The commercials were brilliant. The products were – well, let’s just be charitable and say they didn’t live up to the promises.

RD: Same thing is true with the idea that “science disproves God” or its slightly better dressed cousin “faith in God is ok as long as you don’t insist it’s true.” They’re bad ideas, bad logic, and bad science but, as in so many cases, bad products that are marketed effectively will be embraced by many people. And all we have to do is look around us to see that’s what’s happened in the faith vs. science debate. The debate itself is completely unnecessary because reason and science because Christianity is perfectly consistent with real science and the founders of many of the major branches of modern science were devout Christians such as Johann Kepler who articulated the major laws of planetary motion and Robert Boyle who is regarded as the first modern chemist and the founder of modern chemistry. And Carolus Linnaeus who is credited with establishing the modern taxonomic system was also a Biblical creationist.

VK: This false dichotomy that is so popular in modern entertainment and culture is one of the reasons we wanted to do a series on what is often termed “apologetics.” Apologetics does not mean anyone is apologizing for being a Christian. The term comes from a Greek word meaning “to give a defense” and that’s what Christian apologetics does – provides a reasoned defense for the truth of Christianity. And while even ardent Christian apologists will acknowledge that good apologetics may not necessarily change someone’s heart, good apologetics is a form of “pre-evangelism.” Good apologetics will hopefully remove barriers for some people. So, what do you want to cover as we wrap up this “Truth and Proof” series?

RD: I’d like to examine some of the broad – but fallacious - assertions that are often tossed about that, too often, become barriers between people and accepting the truth of Christianity.

VK: Then we should probably start with the assertion you hear so often. “There is no such thing as absolute truth.” How would you respond to someone who says that?

RD: I’d ask them whether their assertion was “absolutely true.” The person who says that there is no such thing as absolute truth is claiming that there is no such thing as absolute truth while wanting you to accept their claim as being absolutely true.

VK: In other words they are making a claim that is self-refuting or self-defeating. The same thing is true for all philosophies or claims that deny the existence of truth. Broadly speaking there are four philosophies that deny the existence of absolute truth: agnosticism, relativism, skepticism, and post-modernism.

RD: But each of them is self-defeating. Each fails its own central premise. For instance the skeptic says we must doubt the existence of absolute truth – but does not doubt the absoluteness of their own position. Said differently, the skeptic is certain about doubt. The relativist tries to say “all truth is relative” but makes their claim as if the claim were absolutely true. All attempts to deny the existence of absolute truth are self-defeating.

VK: How would you respond to the claim that “science has proven that there is no God?”

RD: Well, first I would ask them to go talk to the previous questioner because the statement “science has proven there is no God” is an absolute truth claim. But second, I would ask which discipline within science has demonstrated that God doesn’t exist and then listen for their answer.

VK: Then they might say that the Big Bang Theory has eliminated the need for God to be the Creator of the universe.

RD: They might – but if they did so they have missed the most fundamental implication of the Big Bang.

VK: Which is?

RD: If the Big Bang Theory is true then it necessarily means that the universe had a beginning. Anything that has a beginning – or an end for that matter - cannot be eternal which means another entity must have caused the universe to come into being. And given how big and complex the universe is the cause for the universe would have to be a Being like the God of the Bible – infinite in power, knowledge, and presence.

VK: Then they might say that there are other theories out there that explain how the universe can have existence but still without the need for a God. There are ideas such as a rebounding universe that just goes through endless cycles or the multiverse which postulates an infinite series of universes of which ours is just the one we happen to be in.

RD: Again, it’s certain possible to make those kinds of assertions but the biggest problem that they face is that there absolutely no empirical evidence for either of these theories or any of the others that are proffered. For example, let’s take a quick look at the multiverse idea which is an extension of the notion of string theory. Many people may have heard the term “string theory” but most probably have no idea what it actually means.

VK: According to one article on the Creation Ministries International website “string theory proposes that [particles] may instead exist as one-dimensional loops or ‘strings’ that cut across or exist in nine spatial … dimensions compared to the three spatial … dimensions we understand and use in relativity theory. Some suggest that these strings exist as higher dimensional objects called branes (membrane-like structures) that act like vibrating flat sheets or tubes etc. These ideas can even be extended to support the idea of multi-universes coexisting with our own, and that our own universe (the big bang) was the result of the collision of two of these branes in some higher-dimensional hyperspace. The goal is to get the universe to create itself—that way, no first cause would be needed, hence no God.”

RD: Note the last sentence from the portion you just read. The goal of all these amendments to the Big Bang Theory – again, none of which have any scientific, empirical support – is to avoid the straightforward conclusion that if the universe did come into being because of a “big bang” it means the universe is not eternal and therefore needs a Creator. So, to avoid that conclusion scientists will engage in their own version of myth making – concocting these fascinating alternatives to God’s creative activity that make for great science fiction movies but completely fail in the real world.

VK: And some scientists have been willing to admit that they do so. Harvard evolutionary biologist and geneticist Richard Lewontin wrote: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failures to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”

RD: It’s really important to note that the goal of what Lewontin has called “just-so stories” is to keep that Divine Foot out of the door. Lewontin knows that the moment you acknowledge that science not only doesn’t have to exclude God – but in fact points out the need for a creative, Necessary Being – the cat is out of the bag. The point of all this is that even if the currently favored explanation for the origin of the universe, the Big Bang Theory, were true it still doesn’t avoid the conclusion that there is a God. The big bang would mean the universe had a beginning in space and time and that in turn means something or Someone must have caused it. By the way some of this discussion might give the impression that I am somehow “anti-science.” But that’s nonsense. I was trained as an engineer and I have a great appreciation for all benefits that science has conferred on our modern world. But it would be fair to say that just because I trust science that doesn’t mean I will uncritically accept the pronouncements of all who call themselves scientists.

VK: That would be a dangerous bumper sticker. “I trust the science. It’s the scientists I doubt.” Well, someone might say that even if science and some scientists agree that there is a God that that doesn’t mean that God is the God of the Bible. What would you say then?

RD: I’d say I agree. We can know from logic, reason, evidence, and science that God exists – but we can only know a limited amount about his attributes and character from general revelation. To know more we need God’s special revelation and we get that from the Bible. So, to know whether the Bible is the word of God we need to examine its attributes and see whether the claim can be trusted. Here at Anchored by Truth we believe that any book that makes the claim to be the word of God would have to meet two criteria. First, the book would have to be consistent with what we know of the physical universe and the history of the world. Second, the book would have to provide evidence of supernatural origin.

VK: As long time Anchored by Truth listeners know we believe that there are four lines of evidence that demonstrate that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant, and infallible word of God. First, the Bible is historically reliable. Second, the Bible displays a remarkable unity for a book that was composed by over 3 dozen human authors who wrote over a span of 1,500 years. Third, the Bible gives evidence of supernatural origin especially through a large body of fulfilled prophecy. And the 4th line of evidence is that the Bible has resulted in an untold number of lives that have been positively changed by its transcendent message.

RD: Exactly right. For shorthand I call those lines of evidence reliable history, remarkable unity, fulfilled prophecy, and redeemed destinies. And that’s what we focus on continuously. In fact, as far as I know, Anchored by Truth, is the only radio show I know that focuses exclusively on demonstrating the inspiration, inerrancy, and infallibility of scripture.

VK: So, if someone wants to know whether the Bible is historically reliable we could point them to our “Facts in Acts” series or our series on David and Goliath. Some people think that a story about a short, teenage boy killing a 9 foot tall trained soldier must be a fable or myth - but we provide evidence from history and science that show the story is historically reasonable.

RD: And we have Anchored by Truth series on the remarkable unity of scripture such as our series on miracles and “15 critical scriptures.” And we have several series on the large body of fulfilled prophecy that the Bible contains including a series on the book of Daniel, one on the role of the prophets, and an entire show on what may be the most remarkable prophecy in the Bible – Daniel’s so-called 70 weeks prophecy. We also do interview shows from time to time with people whose lives have been changed by the Bible. In some cases the changes have been dramatic. One gentleman we interviewed Armando “Mondy” Flores had his life changed by one specific scripture.

VK: But only after his wife and her family had been praying for him for 19 years.

RD: Yes. A remarkable example of how God used a faithful wife and His word to covert one more sinner. But once Mondy was converted, like Paul, Mondy began testifying to the grace he’d received. He was a senior executive in a Fortune 500 corporation and the day after he received Christ he was in the corporate HQ testifying to his salvation. Just about all of our episodes of Anchored by Truth are available from our website crystalseabooks.com. So, when listeners get the question about how we can be sure that the true God is the God of the Bible that website can be an invaluable resource in helping people to answer the question intelligently.

VK: The irresistible conclusion from the evidence is that the Bible is exactly what it claims itself to be – the inspired, inerrant, and infallible word of God.

RD: Right. You know, as we mentioned in one of the episodes in this “Truth and Proof” series, biochemist, atheist, and co-discoverer of DNA, the late Francis Crick, began studying biochemistry in the 1940’s as a way to disprove the existence of God. But, in fact, what Crick discovered was that there was an irreducibly complex information system at the heart of all life. In effect Crick demonstrated the exact opposite of what he intended to. He thought he could show that life didn’t need a creator. What he discovered was that life not only needs a creator – and has one – but also that the Creator has left His fingerprints in every living being. Crick was a phenomenal scientist but he wrong about God. His materialistic presuppositions prevented him from acknowledging the very truth that his own work pointed out. This is such a shame because the ability to derive the truth about God from reason and evidence has eternal consequences. We do Anchored by Truth because we want people to be able to put on the full armor of God to withstand the devil and his worldly allies. And for those who are familiar with Ephesians Chapter 6 they will know that the very first piece of armor Paul mentions is the “belt of truth.” I have heard people say that it is enough to just make sure we know Jesus, but if we don’t know the truth about Jesus and are able to defend it the first person’s faith that is at risk is our own – and close behind it is the faith of our families and friends.

VK: Amen. Today as we close we’re going to do something a little different. We usually like to close with a prayer but today we’re going to give our listeners a peek at one portion of Crystal Seas’ upcoming rhymed piece on Genesis – The Genesis Saga. This portion happens to be the 5th section of The Genesis Saga and it’s entitled The Truth in Genesis. We wanted listeners to hear it because it is a form of apologetics but it is done in rhyme which can make it easier for people to absorb the message. As we’ve been talking throughout this series many studies indicate that as many as 75% of the kids raised in a Christian household will abandon their faith when they leave home. And one of the biggest reason they will do is because they won’t be prepared to respond to the world’s lies that we’ve gone over in this episode. Please don’t let that happen to your kids or grandkids. If you don’t protect them by preparing them who will?

---- THE TRUTH IN GENESIS

VK: Before we close we’d like to remind our audience that a lot of our radio episodes are linked together in series of topics so if they missed any episodes in this series or if they just want to hear one again, all of these episodes are available on your favorite podcast app. To find them just search on “Anchored by Truth by Crystal Sea Books.”

If you’d like to hear more, try out crystalseabooks.com where “We’re not perfect but our Boss is!”

(Bible Quote from the New Living Translation)

Psalm 19, verses 1 through 4, New Living Translation

Is 'string' the next big thing? - creation.com

TRUTH IN GENESIS

1. It has been many thousands of years

2. Since the start of creation’s tale.

3. So long ago was light released,

4. Now with legends of origins we’re regaled.

6. All we can touch, taste, or feel,

7. Came from nothing and nobody

8. As if such an idea could be real.

10. Have always been in existence.

11. They assuredly assert that there is no God

12. And they do so with great persistence.

14. Stretch back into eternity past.

15. They find no place for a Creator who’s good

16. In a cosmos that came from a blast.

18. Tell us all that we need to know

19. About how bright stars burn in the heavens

20. And provide light throughout the cosmos.

22. Where did the bang come from?

23. If no mind or Architect played any part

24. Wouldn’t chaos be all that could come?

26. Can design without a Designer spread?

27. And how can living creatures appear and arise

28. From inanimate particles that are dead?

30. Organized with exquisite precision.

31. Did all those brilliant molecular machines

32. Come to life with no Mind’s decision?

34. That dead things gave rise to the living,

35. When faced with those who believe otherwise

36. Often aren’t very forgiving.

38. And let their explanation of origins speak

39. But it would be easier to trust their claims

40. If from their science, the truth hadn’t leaked.

42. And some energy that enables them to link.

43. Then how does this random collection

44. Give them the ability to think?

46. Give the skill to reason and reflect?

47. Wouldn’t it take an omnipotent Being,

48. Logic with flesh to connect?

50. Of particles that had no design.

51. So why would any care what their particles dictate,

52. When their particles deny the divine?

54. Part of that image is free will.

55. If that will’s used to deny the Creator,

56. The serpent’s in the garden still.

58. As he yielded to foul temptation

59. But God knew all that would come

60. And had prepared for man’s reclamation.

62. Had selected a people to save.

63. All men sin and fall short of the goal

64. But there’s no need to lie in the grave.

66. The True Son wants your sin to bear

67. He made morning stars, he makes all things new

68. He made all creation, he can surely save you