My Turn: Intelligent Design vs. Evolution on Time

As I noted in War has been declared Time ran a cover story titled "God vs. Science". Keeping to my word, this is my two cents. Much to my delight it actually contained a short debate between Francis Collins and Richard Dawkins. Richard Dawkins is perhaps one of the foremost speakers in the evolutionist arena. The person representing the intelligent design was Francis Collins. I am not too familiar with any of his writings, but his street credit was being the head of the Human Genome Project, which completed mapping the human genome (DNA) in 2000. As a whole, I found the article an awesome opportunity to represent intelligent design at its finest but was left lacking and at some points greatly disappointed.

I found it interesting that Richard Dawkins primary claim to fame was his most recent book, The God Delusion. In addition to this piece, Daniel Dennet and Sam Harris, contributors in Wired's cover story were also mentioned. The scary part about their writings, they apparently are very popular, being noted as God Delusion has been on NY Time's Best Selling list currently at no. 8. Aside from Darwin's Black Box, I cannot recall when an intelligent design piece had received so much attention.

I took the opportunity to compare and contrast the articles between Time and Wired (especially since they were released the same month). I was able to gather some of the strategy the atheists are using. For instance, in the Wired article the New Atheists clearly express that they believe the faith in any kind of religion to be evil (the idea was initially put forth by Dawkins); however, no such condemnation is even hinted to in his debate with Dr. Collins. The overall tone Dawkins approaches Dr. Collins with throughout the article is rather friendly and respectful, far from what he proclaims should be the logical response to people who believe in God. Two-faced? Perhaps, I think he is simply smart enough not to be honest about his true beliefs because he knows he would gain more enemies than support to make such a claim. I believe Dawkins is using the same tactics as the earliest "scientists" that initially pulled people away from creationism.

For the sake of modern history, let's start in 1795 with James Hutton's Theory of the Earth. He suggested the way things are now has been the way things have always been. Then in 1830 Sir Charles Lyell wrote Principles of Geology in which he invents the geologic column. The geologic column, although never to be found anywhere on Earth suggested the age of the Earth to be more than 6000 years old as believed by most based on scripture. In 1859 Charles Darwin wrote The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection Or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle For Life (yes this is the real title in its entirety), he observes the variation within the Galapagos finches and then concludes all life to be related to one another. Then in the 1860's Earnst Haekel created charts of similar embryology (now known as homology) to suggest that all creatures during development look the same and thus there is no difference in their makeup with ours. Despite being found guilty for fraud and confessing the charts were false in 1875, his theory continues to be promulgated in biology books as fact.

Each person contributed a little more to the now present theory of evolution. It all had to start with doubting what was believed to be true and denying scripture. Although they are hailed as scientists, they did not prove anything. Hutton's ideas encouraged people to doubt the biblical timeline. Lyell's ideas encouraged people to doubt the age of the earth. Darwin's ideas encouraged people to deny creation. Once the foundations of who we are were unknown, man anxiously made himself god. The baby steps in logic brought people from belief to unbelief to denial. This is how Satan operates with any sin. It starts out being rather harmless and unbenunced to us or those around us and it builds. It continues to build until we are right where he wants us.

Back to the article, after the resume and recent success from the evolutionists to summarize who is speaking for "science", to introduce the hard lining intelligent designers TIME says this, "Dawkins and his army have a swarm of articulate theological opponents, of course. But the most ardent of these don't really care very much about science". I certainly feel like my beliefs were given credit as legitimate science... Perhaps it was not meant that way, but the article speaks for itself. At this point in the article the reference to science is in terms of strides in medical treatment, such as brain scans and MRI's. Not a problem, I would be hard pressed to find a bible-believing Christian to proclaim medical treatment as sinful.

Upon introducing the contender for Intelligent Design, he is noted as a "foremost of those arguing common ground" in the midst of the Science vs. God debate. If Time was looking for a good debate that might actually show the sides, they should have picked someone else. Richard Dawkins is in no terms a moderate in his atheism; he is the complete front runner of the growing religion. Francis Collins by description and his explanation in belief is a middle of the road intelligent design proponent. That is, he does not deny they age of the universe currently set around 14 billion years old & he does not deny evolutionary theory. Although far more common in the intelligent design camp, it is a weaker position from the start. To have a real debate of interest would be between a creationist and Richard Dawkins; actually it would only be fair. Take the hardliner from each team and then debate, not the Goliath from the atheists and Jesse's middle son from the intelligent designers. The debate's outcome was decided before it could begin, only how badly intelligent design would be beaten was up for grabs.

TIME: Professor Dawkins, if one truly understands science, is God then a delusion, as your book title suggests?
TIME: Dr. Collins, you believe that science is compatible with Christian faith.

The first question, worded differently to each is essentially "can science prove God's existence if God does exist?" Dawkins claims that it can and that is the primary objective of science. Collins claims God is bigger than the natural world and thus science cannot prove or disprove God's existence. Dawkins wins in this situation, he takes the "a crusader for answers" approach, people want answers and he makes a promise to search for an answer. Collins went wrong by playing into the definition Dawkins presupposed by his answer. Science is limited to natural causes. The definition of empirical science is that which is observable and repeatable. Anything more than what is observable and repeatable is not pure science. It is religion and faith more than Christianity. By not defining what is meant by "science", Collins comes across as not having an answer and plays right into the "religion" side and Dawkins is firmly planted as "science's" spokesman. To go oppose "science is against reason" is logical suicide. Evolutionary theory requires far more faith in unknown variables. It places its faith in undiscovered laws and molecules rather than faith needed to believe the Bible is the real Word of God.

TIME: Stephen Jay Gould, a Harvard paleontologist, famously argued that religion and science can coexist, because they occupy separate, airtight boxes. You both seem to disagree.

The next question being setup by a claim of a late anthropologist and evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould asked if religion and science could successfully coexist because science and religion are in two different areas of thought. Dawkins was right, that position was suggested "simply to win middle-of-the-road religious people to the science camp." Dawkins continued claiming miracles completely defy science. Collins responded that there is no differentiation or separation between science and religion. While Collins might appear to take the higher road he does essentially skirt the issue. Once again if he defined science to the definition of what it is, his response would have been sufficient. My first thought to Dawkins claim that miracles contradict or defy science is "yea... that's what makes them miracles because there is no explanation science can offer". Miracles cannot exist if there is nothing more than natural causes, I dive deeper into this in When you believe in Miracles.

TIME: Professor Dawkins, you think Darwin's theory of evolution does more than simply contradict the Genesis story.

This is the ultimate death of intelligent design getting any points in the debate. Dawkins masterfully plays the "millions of years" card that can adequately explain the variation in the world today. Collins responds, "I don't see that Professor Dawkins' basic account of evolution is incompatible with God's having designed it." Instead of suggesting irreducible complexity (working systems that could not have formed or been functional without all parts present), which is the entire point in Darwin's Black Box; that is essentially a response to Dawkins The Blind Watchmaker. Dawkins did attempt to answer Dr. Behe; Dr Behe replied that such examples were not answers to the problems posed. There has been no further answer from science or atheists to address irreducibly complex systems. Worse, Collins by attempting to appease people who believe in evolution that Christian faith is compatible with evolutionary beliefs. If one wants to take scripture as the Word of God, I address that in Can Christians believe in Evolution? Collins undermines the Bible's authority and waters down the stance of creationists.

TIME: When would this have occurred?

It continues to get worse for the ID community. Collins suggests God activating evolution as a valid theory, this is like watching the goat being set out for the T-Rex in Jurassic Park... and the T-Rex in the debate devours the goat just the same. Dawkins calls out Collins that it doesn't make sense for a God to design a system that would take 14 billion years to get to a stage that we could start sinning and needing redemption. This is precisely why there cannot be a middle ground between evolution and the Genesis creation account. One of the two events happened. Sadly Collins attempts to defend his position that one cannot reason like God, while I do agree with that statement, in the context it was used it offers his theory no redemption.

TIME: Both your books suggest that if the universal constants, the six or more characteristics of our universe, had varied at all, it would have made life impossible. Dr. Collins, can you provide an example?

Although Collins does give a good example, the gravitational constant being so precise that "if it were off by one part in a hundred million million, then the expansion of the universe after the Big Bang would not have occurred in the fashion that was necessary for life to occur." Dawkins finally starts to suggest the naturalistic explanations through constants that narrow vastly improbable odds and multiple universes that Collins was able to pounce on because there is no scientific evidence for such ideas. In addition, Collins suggests Occam's razor, Occam's razor suggests the most simple and straightforward answer makes most sense.

At this point in the debate the two engage in some direct back and forth dialogue. Dawkins claims that the idea of God is just as improbable as chance. Collins responds that God does not need explanations, he is the explanation. Dawkins fires back attacking the answers God provides to be the duty of scientists to discover. Collins responds with the lacking of evidence with current ideas to counter fine tuning and then requests that people allow God as a possibility. They continue going back and forth until Dawkins belittles God by suggesting that God could be anything from God of Martians, inhabitants of Alpha Centuri or Yahweh.

TIME: The Book of Genesis has led many conservative Protestants to oppose evolution and some to insist that the earth is only 6,000 years old.

Here Collins gets a chance to offer creationists a little credit in the scientific arena. Instead Collins shoots down the Genesis account because "is inconsistent, frankly, with our knowledge of the universe's age or of how living organisms are related to each other". In this sentence Collins conceded that he believes the earth is billions of years and that he believes evolution to be true. To make it worse he cites St. Augustine's contentions that Genesis is difficult to understand if it is taken literally. The only problem with that suggestion is that science has advanced plenty far enough to explain what science in Augustine's day could not. Seeing the agreement and weakness in Collins scientific and religious stance Dawkins gets into friendly banter about the disagreement between old earth intelligent design advocates and young earth creationists. Dawkins goes as far as suggesting that creationists be dismissed altogether.

TIME: Dr. Collins, the Resurrection is an essential argument of Christian faith, but doesn't it, along with the virgin birth and lesser miracles, fatally undermine the scientific method, which depends on the constancy of natural laws?
TIME: Doesn't the very notion of miracles throw off science?

Collins appropriately applies that God is not bound by nature so he could defy natural laws when he chooses. Collins goes further to explain his belief in science and faith can intertwine, especially in the investigation of miracles. Dawkins, knowing the possibility of miracles is the very embodiment of everything he is against, proclaims that to refer anything to a miracle is a cop-out and undermines as well as invalidates any possibility of scientific credibility. To quote him "Once you buy into the position of faith, then suddenly you find yourself losing all of your natural skepticism and your scientific--really scientific--credibility." According to Dawkins anyone who prescribes the possibility of anything beyond nature, they have lost all scientific credibility. Despite any appearance of respectfulness he had or even apparent friendliness he had towards Collins, his most blunt statement confirms that he has no scientific respect and Collins has no credibility as a scientist. A fine example of the Atheist’s tactics, discredit possible competition before they are allowed to come to the table to talk.

TIME: Dr. Collins, you have described humanity's moral sense not only as a gift from God but as a signpost that he exists.

Sensing that TIME does not share similar conclusions about moral behavior, Collins refers to sociobiology or evolutionary psychology as current social studies seeking to explain good behavior amidst evolutionary origins. Collins successfully points out that since behavior applies to individuals, to be moral, selfless or altruistic, it is often not beneficial to behave in such a way thus, the concept of good must have come from something more which ought to be attributed to God. Dawkins attempts to explain the value people have for good behavior to be remnants of prehistoric life. Since the early civilizations lived in close proximity to extended families and it is natural to want to preserve genetics, "do-gooding" is based in the drive to help ourselves by helping those that share our genes around us. Dawkins uses this as an acceptable reason to explain human behavior by evolutionary benefit. What he didn't mention is that he also believes behavior such as rape, murder, theft, and other forms of immorality must have had some social benefit because the behavior continues to exist today. This is a prime example of being stuck between a rock and a hard place for Dawkins. On one hand, there is pain in world, aspects people will classify as evil. If evolution is the only cause available, because a person is nothing more than interacting chemicals reacting with one another, then for even the most disgusting behavior there must be an evolutionary benefit in order for it to still exist. Furthermore, according to Dawkins there is no such thing as good or evil, he admits there are good things that happen and evil things that happen but he does not attempt to define what is good or evil. Instead, he denies any existence of absolute good or evil.

TIME: Dr. Collins, I know you favor the opening of new stem-cell lines for experimentation. But doesn't the fact that faith has caused some people to rule this out risk creating a perception that religion is preventing science from saving lives?
TIME: But to the extent that a person argues on the basis of faith or Scripture rather than reason, how can scientists respond?

The final topic of the debate, stem cell research (STR) one of the hotter topic issues that is receiving most of the objections from the religious community. Collins explains that he understands why people are against STR and will value people's opinions. Dawkins compares a killing a human embryo to killing a cow. He also refers to why religious people object to STR, "the issue is, Are they human? If you are an absolutist moralist, you say, "These cells are human, and therefore they deserve some kind of special moral treatment." What both people failed to do was explain what kind of stem cell research. There is embryonic stem cell research (ESCR) and cord blood stem cell research (CBCR). For ESCR an embryo must created (fertilize the human egg with human sperm), then killed to harvest stem cells. For CBSCR blood from the umbilical cord is saved and stem cells are harvested from there. I object to ESCR for the same reasons I object to abortion, that is exactly what it is. I have no objections to CBSCR. The funny thing is, the most recent studies, CBSCR has had far better success than ESCR. The "scientific" community wants to pursue science in a manner that requires the killing of embryos, sounds more like the abortionist community to me...

Wow, this turned out to be really long. I decided against summarizing the conclusions, each person said their peace. Congratulations if you actually read this. As always your $.02 is always appreciated

A Modest Proposal

I don't know what honestly prompted this, but I was thinking about our laws, the way things have been worded, and the recurring issues with certain moral laws. I think I have a solution, at least something California can especially benefit from. One of the things I do appreciate about the state government is the initiative system, in which, given enough support, determination, or money anyone can get anything on the ballots to vote. Granted there are certain criteria which must be met but I think with this idea put forward attaining the signatures and such should not be difficult.

Perhaps if this works out, other states may follow suit and the entire national issue might be solved. Enough of dragging you along now, here is the idea: Replace the words "Till death do us part" to "or whenever we feel like quitting" in the standard vows of legal marriage. By this change society will finally embrace in vows the practice that has been undertaken for decades. How many millions of couples have been fooling themselves in lust and giggles while they exclaim "till death do us part" only to divide their separate ways? The statistics reflect this attitude; it has been a steady climb from 50% of couples will divorce when I was a child to now it is in the 60% range. The majority has clearly expressed their desire to not follow through with their vows, and we don't want to be a nation of liars so why not tell the truth?

We can even use Carmen Electra and Dave Navarro as promoters for this! Anyone remember their reality mini-series about their wedding preparations on MTV? The show was called Till Death Do Us Part, and what happened after the show? I think it was less than 2 years and they divorced. Not a good example? What about Newlyweds? Nick Lache and Jessica Simpson, they lasted what 4 years? I even remember a couple years ago they hosted a Christmas special on how to have a successful marriage. This is so the perfect time for such a change. Enough Americans idolizes and imitates celebrities in what they wear, how they act, and how they have their relationships. Oh I can see the posters for this already; it will be a grand experiment.

Furthermore, the only thing variable which has reduced the divorce rate has been people ceasing to marry altogether. Why don't they get married? They have this haunting feeling of commitment and lifelong decision hanging over their head. It is really too stressful to want to handle it for much of today's young adults. Oh, and it wouldn't have to stop there either. Since such a caveat would exist, alimony, and settlements, would be so much easier to deal with. In fact, people need not even change their names upon union just add a hyphen or parentheses so they can use their married name when convenient. We can split things right down the middle like they never attempted to sacrifice a thing going in. This may sound horrific to some, but be honest with ourselves, what has this country, our society made marriage into from what it was. Might as well make it official now. I think the great state of California is ready for such an update.

This is not the end either, I mean, if we can change the goal/depth that the marriage will last we can revamp the entire institution altogether. Marriage is far too infringing on our desire for a more comfortable lifestyles. Think of the joy people would experience, they could change any aspect they want and it will still legally be called marriage. This is truly a revolutionary problem solver. Conservatives ought to be satisfied in the institution being honest. Liberals ought to be joyous they could customize its practice without regret.

Where better to start such a revolutionary idea? I noticed Democrats have more or less swept the House elections, last I saw 11/13 seats up for grab went to Democrats. This country has spoken it is in the mood for change, and this fits right into the ideology of such social liberation. Think of the relief so many couples would have from this change. They wouldn't feel the burden to last through terrible years with the same person for their entire life... People will start their final step into the most cherished relationship with a clearer idea as to how much they ought to give into it, as much as they want, and if they don't want to give more of themselves they don't have to!

For those of you that still don't see where I am going with I am merely suggesting the institution modernize with the current society. Maybe I should propose this idea on some Danish forums to see how they go with it first? They seem to be willing to try anything but the traditional. Remember, we live in a society that exclaims “there is no right or wrong!” We should not judge what someone does, people might become offended. This is the 21st century people; it is about time that we finally started to go with the flow. What better way than to modernize the backbone of society? I can just imagine the millions of people feeling all warm and fuzzy with this revolutionized marriage, can you see it too?

Although, for some of people, a rather small majority that tends to think marriage is something special, they might put up a bit of a fuss. Not a big enough one to make a difference once this gets started. The "religious right" will likely try to take a stance against it, but come on, when was the last time Christians made an imprint on changing the moral direction of this country? What happened when they tried to declare an Amendment to define marriage in its traditional sense? It failed miserably! The political clout of the religious right during the days of Pres. Regan are only memories. The only reason they were successful in those battles was because of the propaganda of communism knocking on our front door was apparent...If this gets big enough, perhaps this is what the Constitution could use to define marriage! Define it on feelings, just the way millions have based it on. Let's get with the times people. Marriage means close to nothing in so many hearts, lets make in mean close to nothing in law as well.

War Has Been Declared!

While browsing magazines during lunch I came across a fresh issue of Wired. Granted I had never actually heard of Wired before watching the Italian Job (Lyle wanted to be on the cover of it). It is a technical magazine I think somewhere along the lines of Popular Science. Anyways, there was a rather catchy and unexpected cover page entitled "The New Atheism: No Heaven. No Hell. Just Science"(The linked version now has a less controversial title). Well knowing me I could not   pass up something like that. I was reminded upon reading the article of Ephesians 6:10-13.

After the initial skim it was clear Richard Dawkins was the most prominent figure interviewed. I was in luck because I was rather familiar with some of his writing. In the article, he was portrayed as the foremost Atheist in in the “New Atheism”. I knew about his feelings toward religion in general but to have it published in a wide circulating magazine, I found to be a bold move. Especially considering the more harsh logical approach he had with his philosophy. The article starts with, "The New Atheists will not let us off the hook simply because we are not doctrinaire believers. They condemn not just belief in God but respect for belief in God. Religion is not only wrong; it's evil. Now that the battle has been joined, there's no excuse for shirking." In addition to Dawkins, it also featured Daniel Dennett, and Sam Harris; the author phrased his research that "I wanted to find out what it would mean to enlist in the war against faith." As a whole I was rather pleased with the article's content, I thought it contained less bias than what I expected. I also was impressed how open the interviewees were about the implications of their anti-faith.

There were several interesting factors from the beginning. First, I noticed they never claimed atheism as a religion; instead it was phrased as an antithesis to religion when in fact it is a form of religion by a fair definition. It was a bit of irony to have a religion devoted on the anti-religion. Their goal was to alienate all faiths. New Atheism is not just targeting Judeo-Christian faiths. Such examples Dawkins gave about his respect for religion was to parallel them with belief in garden fairies, unicorns and the sort. Dawkins went so far as to proclaim his personal condemnation on parents who teach faith to their children. He equated such acts as though they willfully were spreading a dangerous virus. Dawkins termed the lingering idea of faith as a "meme" some kind of immaterial (ironic for such a strict materialist/naturalist) thing that influences thought and spreads by mental proximity. I tend to call it the Holy Spirit. Harris compared the existence of religion as a plague in society on the similar level as rape, "religion may be a vestige of primitive nature". Harris pronounced that religion and its tolerance rivaled the social acceptance slavery once had in society. He looks forward to the day when simply believing in God will be too embarrassing to handle. Thanks for putting the most precious area of my beliefs on a pedestal of respect gentlemen.

Dennett seemed to be the most moderate of the bunch; he encouraged public schools to scientifically examine religion. I wonder if he also intended his atheism to be put under the same scrutiny of old science? Dennett is also very much aware of the implications of his beliefs, he could not pinpoint a point when human life began nor justify an inherent value for human life. I wonder if he has considered the deeper implications of such admission? If people do not have an inherent value then how much are we worth? I do wonder what his personal belief of self worth was? I am glad to know I am worth one Jesus to God.

The article certainly attempted to address an age old question, "Is science compatible with faith?" From the group interviewed, it is not. The question in general was not anything new or difficult to answer with a little searching and reading but even that much effort seems to be too much of a hassle for most people. After all, there are so many more important issues at hand, like “who I am going to field for Fantasy Football?” A rabbit trail, I am rather irked by the general population who claims to have passionate beliefs but leave those beliefs as talk and ideas often with insufficient evidence of their faith. I highly encourage you to go and read it yourself. I have long battled having a decent consistency in my ever changing schedule of some kind of quiet time, but over the last year and a half, my desire and pursuit of knowledge has held my attention longer than any other study I have done before. This was more broadly addressed in Why Don't I?

I found the militant approach to religion and faith as an evil to be comforting in a strange way. They were honest with their position. The lines were drawn. We know where they stand. In my mind, identifying such definite positions is one of the hardest parts to ascertain when talking to people. It takes a long time, if it happens at all, to be able to find out what people believe, or at least claim. Lifestyle is the clearest way people speak their beliefs. In addition to the aggressive approach, the utter arrogance was astonishing. By claiming they only believed in science/reason it  implied those who have faith in religion could not also do science or be reasonable! They held themselves so mentally superior to those around them, they could not respect different beliefs. That type of religion just makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside! Dawkins talked about how he got his kicks by "pissing people off", through his pride in his atheism.

The New Atheists are not the only ones to take such an arrogant stance. Brights, a new description of people which originated in Sacramento. They formed this new noun to designate naturalistic worldviews to categorize the idea of God in the same way as superstition and magic. The author did visit a youth group in the midst of his research while attending an Atheist get together the following morning. He had an interesting summation, a meeting of Atheists United on a Sunday morning spoke it message "We're lagging among the lower 95%" versus an offer from Pastor Matt at the youth rally "You are kings anointed by God".

I mentioned I was previously very familiar with Richard Dawkins. In Darwin's Black Box; he was the primary object to answer who argued for evolution in the Blind Watchmaker. Furthermore, I have yet to come across an in-depth intelligent-design book which has not mentioned Richard Dawkins as a primary critic. The article provided a candid simplification of this issue. Dawkins stated, "My answer is that the big war is not between evolution and creationism, but between naturalism and supernaturalism." That reminded me of When You Believe in Miracles. Something not mentioned by any of the interviewees were their motivations for Atheism. They simply asserted an a priori belief that their view was nothing more than what our physical senses could detect. They then carried on with attacking anyone who would oppose them.

Is the direction of society’s "tolerance"? How many of their free thinking compatriots would respond to their absolute intolerance to different beliefs? I suppose in their mind, I am of the greatest evil because I attempt to spread the love of God. Then again, since I don't try to spread religion I try to spread Christ does that make it okay? There were some interesting bits I noted, such as the Atheist’s prayer, "that our reason will subjugate our superstition, that our intelligence will check our illusions, that we will be able to hold at bay the evil temptation of faith." Romans 1:21-22 Anyone? “For though they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened. Claiming to be wise they became fools.”

Although I was familiar with the content of the article, I found it very important considering the type of magazine and the target audience this article sought to reach. When I first saw the cover sheet I thought "Why on Earth would a tech magazine have this cover story?" That was when it dawned on me, that was precisely who the article intended to speak to. The well educated science proclaiming tech folk. This article likely would not have flown in something like Home & Garden, or Good Housekeeping. The target audience was single educated men, the potential leaders of society. This will likely serve as much more than an exposé on a new up and coming belief system. Instead, it will likely spur a growth of many other self-righteous accomplished "freethinkers" to further become intolerant to the faithful. Is anyone else curious when the ACLU will come to our rescue when we receive persecution from this new religion?

The other important factor is to be current with what is happening in American popular culture. I want to say every 6 months or so Newsweek will run a cover story of religious nature. I think it is important to read these articles to get a gauge of where the country is going or which newest belief is becoming popular. Probably the most face time in the media Christianity has received would either be a news update about Fred Phelps or perhaps the apprehension of Warren Jeffs.

I found this at a rather appropriate time in my personal development. After reading Hard Questions, Real Answers, I was presented with the idea of being a Christian scholar. Although the main message of the book was not incredibly new or challenging, the introduction rocked me. The author challenged the present condition of Christian faith that has been based in feelings and not much in doctrine. I firmly believe we must have a foundation of knowledge to accompany our faith and even strengthen it. What hit me the hardest, there was a list of 10 subjects listed that the author asked us to answer for ourselves how familiar we were with the subjects. I think I scored 7/10 for having an answer and 5/10 for having a good answer. Knowing how much reading I do I was rather disenchanted with my lack of actual church history and writings. My response, the next trip to Amazon I am going to check out some of the writings of the early church fathers like: Origen, Thomas Aquinas, Augustine, Martin Luther and the sort.

The topic of current Christian scholasticism was also addressed in the article. "Even today, the charismatic movement is somewhat careless of doctrine. There is room for theistic evolutionists, non literalists who hold that each of God's days in Genesis was the equivalent of a geological epoch, even for the notion that a check made out properly to the Lord can influence divine whim... such deviations are generously tolerated in practice." It is one thing to be called out by one of our own in the loving manner that was presented in the book; when those who do not share our beliefs see the dissimilarity and lack of concern for our own beliefs that is embarrassingly sad. It was the inadvertent slap in the face. Many of the base principles of what it is be a Christian is in the doctrine, doctrine the majority of self proclaiming Christians have little or no interest in. That is not so much to address people that have been living the Christian life as much as those who adhere to the civic religion.

What is the purpose of me writing all this? Hopefully the urgency of reason, logic, validity, and importance of apologetics has been made known in our current culture. If we hope to be able to reach people who have not been broken and are desperate for love, or who are at a place but reservations of their reason prevents them from accepting Christ, the importance of knowing how to present Christianity in thought is immeasurable. Not to add enough of the to-do list, we can't under emphasize the personal relationship with Christ. To have the certainty of salvation in the heart and mind unleashes so many reservations about living boldly for Christ. To make the conclusion official here's some good words:

“Now who is there to harm you if you are zealous for what is good? But even if you should suffer for the righteousness' sake, you will be blessed. Have no fear of them, nor be troubled, but in your hearts regard Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect, having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame. - 1 Peter 3:13-16

Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints. - Jude 1:3