PEER-REVIEWED & PEER-EDITED SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATIONS SUPPORTING THE THEORY OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN

Discovery Institute
February 1, 2012



Editor’s Note: While intelligent design (ID) research is a new scientific field, recent years have been a period of encouraging growth, producing a strong record of peer-reviewed scientific publications.
In 2011, the ID movement counted its 50th peer-reviewed scientific paper and new publications continue to appear. The current boom goes back to 2004, when Discovery Institute senior fellow Stephen Meyer published a groundbreaking paper advocating ID in the journal Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. There are multiple hubs of ID-related research.
Biologic Institute, led by molecular biologist Doug Axe, is "developing and testing the scientific case for intelligent design in biology." Biologic conducts laboratory and theoretical research on the origin and role of information in biology, the fine-tuning of the universe for life, and methods of detecting design in nature.
Another ID research group is the Evolutionary Informatics Lab, founded by senior Discovery Institute fellow William Dembski along with Robert Marks, Distinguished Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering at Baylor University. Their lab has attracted graduate-student researchers and published multiple peer-reviewed articles in technical science and engineering journals showing that computer programming "points to the need for an ultimate information source qua intelligent designer."

Other pro-ID scientists around the world are publishing peer-reviewed pro-ID scientific papers. These include biologist Ralph Seelke at the University of Wisconsin Superior, Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig who recently retired from the Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research in Germany, and Lehigh University biochemist Michael Behe.
These and other labs and researchers have published their work in a variety of appropriate technical venues, including peer-reviewed scientific journals, peer-reviewed scientific books (some published by mainstream university presses), trade-press books, peer-edited scientific anthologies, peer-edited scientific conference proceedings and peer-reviewed philosophy of science journals and books. These papers have appeared in scientific journals such as Protein Science, Journal of Molecular Biology, Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling, Journal of Advanced Computational Intelligence and Intelligent Informatics,Quarterly Review of Biology, Cell Biology International, Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum,Physics of Life Reviews, Annual Review of Genetics, and many others. At the same time, pro-ID scientists have presented their research at conferences worldwide in fields such as genetics, biochemistry, engineering, and computer science.

Collectively, this body of research is converging on a consensus: complex biological features cannot arise by unguided Darwinian mechanisms, but require an intelligent cause.
Despite ID’s publication record, we note parenthetically that recognition in peer-reviewed literature is not an absolute requirement to demonstrate an idea’s scientific merit. Darwin’s own theory of evolution was first published in a book for a general and scientific audience -- his Origin of Species -- not in a peer-reviewed paper. Nonetheless, ID's peer-reviewed publication record shows that it deserves -- and is receiving -- serious consideration by the scientific community.
The purpose of ID's research program is not to convince the unconvincible -- critics who repeat over and over in the media that there is no such thing as ID research, that ID has not produced a single peer-reviewed paper. Rather, ID research seeks to engage open-minded scientists and thoughtful laypersons with credible, persuasive, peer-reviewed, empirical data supporting intelligent design.
And this is happening. ID has already gained the kind of scientific recognition you would expect from a young (and vastly underfunded) but promising scientific field. The scientific progress of ID has won the serious attention of skeptics in the scientific community, who engage in scientific debate with ID and attend private scientific conferences allowing off-the-record discussion with ID proponents.
We provide below an annotated bibliography of technical publications of various kinds that support, develop or apply the theory of intelligent design. The articles are grouped according to the type of publication.
Scientific Publications Supportive of Intelligent Design Published in Peer-Reviewed Scientific Journals, Conference Proceedings, or Academic Anthologies

Continue reading --->

Reservations about Returning to Christian Belief

Hi Dr. Craig. I would like to thank you for all your hard work and dedication and wanted to let you know that your work has certainly nudged me into investigating more deeply a faith I had once held, took for granted and am now trying to rediscover. My biggest hurdles are twofold:

First, from a philosophical perspective I know that the multiplicity of religious belief systems does not necessarily negate the truth of one or indeed provide for any logical inference to the non-existence of God. However I do find it at times rather unnerving when I see and experience the way followers of other faiths like Buddhism, Hinduism and even Islam seem to achieve the same sense of peace and authenticity I have come to associate with my own experience of Christianity in my own life and the lives of people I meet. It does tend to make me think that we might conclude, if not that God does/does not exist, that the christian path might not be the exclusive route to a real knowledge of God. The niggling thought does occur to me that perhaps one religion is just as good as another as far as God is concerned. Wouldn't it be the case that if God intended for Christianity to be true that other faiths would fail where ours succeeds? My observations tend to indicate that this isn't the case.

Secondly, from a theological perspective; I find it hard to explain myself when pressed by skeptics on the God of the Old Testament. I understand there are a variety of interpretations afforded on the, at times, shocking depictions of the Old Testament God and I've read a work recommended in one of your talks 'Is God a Moral Monster?' by Paul Copan, but it seems that any time I come to explain myself on these matters it is dismissed as simply that 'explaining away' via a convenient interpretation afforded by the inherent vagaries of language and on one occasion was demonstrated how similar literary interpretative exercises could be performed n obviously abhorrent texts like Hitler's 'Mein Kampf' to make it seem as though it had moral viability.

I know this might be a lot to take in but I would really appreciate your patience and wisdom.

Thank you

Jon

Malta

Click HERE to read Dr. Craig's answer

What is Knowledge?

Description:

Do we, the disciples of Jesus, possess through Scripture and other means a reliable source of knowledge of reality or do we not?  We have seen that this is an important question. The possession of knowledge—especially religious and moral knowledge—is essential for a life of flourishing.  To answer this question we must, first, answer another question:  What exactly is knowledge and what does it mean to say Christian teaching provides it?  Let’s begin in earnest and see if we can find an answer to this second query.

Knowledge Defined

Here’s a simple definition of knowledge:  It is to represent reality in thought or experience the way it really is on the basis of adequate grounds.  To know something (the nature of cancer, forgiveness, God) is to think of or experience it as it really is on a solid basis of evidence, experience, intuition, and so forth.  Little can be said in general about what counts as “adequate grounds.”  The best one can do is to start with specific cases of knowledge and its absence in art, chemistry, memory, scripture, logic, and formulate helpful descriptions of “adequate grounds” accordingly.

Three Important Clarifications about Knowledge

Please note three important things.  First, knowledge has nothing to do with certainty or an anxious quest for it.  One can know something without being certain about it and in the presence of doubt or the admission that one might be wrong.  Recently, I know that God spoke to me about a specific matter but I admit it is possible I am wrong about this (though, so far, I have no good reason to think I am wrong).  When Paul says, “This you know with certainty” (Ephesians 5:5), he clearly implies that one can know without certainty; otherwise, the statement would be redundant.  Why?  If I say, “Give me a burger with pickles on it,” I imply that it is possible to have a burger without pickles.  If, contrary to fact, pickles were simply essential ingredients of burgers, it would be redundant to ask for burgers with pickles.  The parallel to “knowledge with certainty” should be easy to see.  When Christians claim to have knowledge of this or that, for example, that God is real, that Jesus rose from the dead, that the Bible is the word of God, they are not saying that there is no possibility that they could be wrong, that they have no doubts, or that they have answers to every question raised against them.  They are simply saying that these and other claims satisfy the definition given above.

Continue reading --->

What does science tell us about the way the universe will end and how does this relate to Christian views?

For millennia men have wondered whether the world as we know it will come to an end and if so, how the world will end. In ancient Judaism speculation about the world's end took the form of apocalypticism, the view that God will bring about the end of human history, exercising judgement upon the life of every person, and inaugurating His everlasting Kingdom. This apocalyptic viewpoint was taken up into early Christianity through its founder Jesus of Nazareth. The early Christians looked forward to the return of Christ at some unknown time in the future when he would inaugurate a new heaven and a new earth fit for eternal habitation. Here is how that event is described in the Apocalypse of John, the last book in the New Testament:

Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. From his presence earth and sky fled away, and no place was found for them. And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Then another book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, according to what they had done. And the sea gave up the dead who were in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead who were in them, and they were judged, each one of them, according to what they had done. Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.

Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, "Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God. He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning nor crying nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away."—Rev. 20.11-21.3 ESV

Because of its commitment to apocalypticism, one of the major categories of Christian theology came to be Eschatology. From the Greek word eschaton, which means last or final, eschatology is the doctrine of the last things, including the return of Christ, the last judgement, and heaven and hell. For millennia eschatology remained the exclusive province of theology.

During the last half century all that has changed. Eschatology has now also become a branch of physics, and, yes, the very term eschatology is the preferred nomenclature for this field of study. Physical eschatology is a sub-discipline of cosmology, which is the study of the large-scale structure and evolution of the universe. Cosmology subdivides into two parts: Cosmogony is the sub-discipline which studies the origin and past history of the universe. Eschatology, by contrast, is the sub-discipline which explores the future and final fate of the universe. Just as physical cosmogony looks back in time to retrodict the history of the cosmos based on traces of the past and the laws of nature, so physical eschatology looks forward in time to predict the future of the cosmos based on present conditions and laws of nature. The challenge for those interested in the interface between theology and science is how to arrive at an integrated perspective on the world's future adequate to the concerns of both theology and science.

The key to physical eschatology is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. About the middle of the nineteenth century, several physicists sought to formulate a scientific law that would bring under a general rule all the various irreversible processes encountered in the world. The result of their efforts is now known as the Second Law of Thermodynamics. As first formulated by Clausius, it stated that heat only flows of itself from a point of high temperature toward a point of low temperature; the reverse is never possible without compensation. But heat is only an instance of an even more general tendency toward levelling in nature; the same is true, for example, of gases and electricity. Without this general tendency toward levelling, life would be completely impossible. For example, because of such levelling, the air in the room never suddenly separates into oxygen at one end and nitrogen at the other. It is also why when we step into a bath we may be confident that the water will be pleasantly warm instead of frozen at one end and boiling at the other. It is easy to see why life would not be possible in a world where the Second Law of Thermodynamics did not hold.

The German physicist Ludwig Boltzmann deepened our understanding of the Second Law by showing that this tendency toward levelling is founded on the tendency of any system to pass from a less probable to a more probable state. According to Boltzmann, the probability of a state is a function of its order: more ordered states are less probable, and less ordered states are more probable. The most probable state is therefore a totally disordered state, that is, a state which is completely undifferentiated. Thus, the Second Law could be formulated: all systems have the tendency to pass from a more ordered to a less ordered state.

A third important step in the development of the Second Law was the realization that disorder is connected with entropy, or the measure of unusable energy: the greater the disorder the greater the entropy. This yields a third formulation of the law: all systems have the tendency to pass from a state of lower entropy into a state of higher entropy. In order to exlude the possibility of the system's leaking energy to its surroundings or acquiring energy from them, an additional stipulation is required: the system must be closed. This leads to a fourth formulation of the Second Law: spontaneously proceeding processes in closed systems are always attended by an increase in entropy. Thus, processes taking place in a closed system tend toward a state of equilibrium. The law in this form is virtually certain. To illustrate: the probability of all molecules in one litre of gas occupying only 99.99% of the volume instead of 100% is about 1:1010(20). For all practical purposes, therefore, the Second Law of Thermodynamics may be regarded as certain.

Continue reading --->

Can God Ground Necessary Moral Truths?

Dear Dr. Craig,

There have been a lot questions recently asked about grounding the existence of morality in God, and I have one as well. The Christian philosopher Richard Swinburne rejects the Moral Argument for God because, he thinks, moral truths are necessarily true, and so the existence of God cannot have an effect on their truth.

He comes to the conclusion that moral truths are necessary because certain events are thought to be morally good or bad; more than that, the moral goodness or badness of an event is inseparable from the state of affairs itself. So, Swinburne claims, there is no possible world in which the exact same things occur as occurred during the holocaust, and in which the holocaust is not morally abominable. It is the same with other events that are considered morally good or bad. There is no possible world in which the event is the same as in the actual world and in which the moral judgement of the event is different than in the actual world. Thus Swinburne concludes that the moral judgement of an event is necessary to the event itself. And this leads naturally to his conclusion that the existence or non-existence of God is irrelevant to the existence of the moral judgement since the moral judgement is necessary given the event.

Swinburne's argument would thus undercut one of the premises to your moral argument. I am a Christian philosophy student at a secular university where many of my professors take a view similar to Swinburne, holding that the objectivity of moral values does not depend on God's existence. I have read and heard your arguments about the absurdity of life without God, and I am currently undecided. What would be your response to Swinburne's argument?

Robert

Canada

click HERE to read Dr. Craig's answer

Who or What Caused God?

Recently, I was watching a debate on television between an atheist and a believer. The Christian had presented several arguments to support the idea that the physical universe of space, time and matter had not existed forever, but rather came into existence a finite period of time ago. He went on to argue that the best explanation for this fact is that there is a First Cause — God — who caused the universe to come into being.

At that point in the debate, the atheist responded, "If you say that everything needs a cause and so there must be a cause for the beginning of the universe, then what caused God? And if you say that God is the first cause and nothing caused Him, then why not just say that the universe itself is the first cause and nothing caused it? Postulating a God is both unhelpful and unnecessary."

Fortunately, the believer was prepared to give an answer to this response, but would you have been ready? What would you say if presented with this argument? Let's see if we can make some progress in formulating an answer.

There's Something Fishy with the Question

The first thing to notice is that there is something wrong with the question, "Who or what caused God?" To understand the problem, I need to introduce a simple notion in logic called a category fallacy. A category fallacy is the mistake of ascribing the wrong feature to the wrong thing. For example, asking, "How many inches long is the smell of a rose?" or "What does the note C taste like?" seems to assume that smells have length and sounds have taste. Both assumptions commit a category fallacy.

You can commit a category fallacy about something even if that thing does not exist, as long as you have a concept of what the thing would be if it were to exist. For example, unicorns do not exist, but we have a concept of what a unicorn would be if it were to exist, namely, a one-horned horse. Given this concept, the question "How many iron filings does a unicorn attract?" commits a category fallacy (it falsely assumes that unicorns have magnetic properties which, given our concept of a unicorn, is a confusion of categories).

Now, the question, "What caused X?" can only be asked of things that by definition — by their very concept — are causable sorts of things. I can ask, "What caused the Earth to come into existence? What could cause unicorns to exist if there were such things? What caused the universe to come into existence?" because all these things — the Earth, a unicorn, the universe — are things that by their very nature have, in fact, come into existence. So it is not a mistake to ask a question about what caused something if the object itself is the sort of thing that could be, or in fact, was caused to exist.

Now the universe could not be the First Cause. Among other things, the Big Bang theory is still the most widely accepted view of the origin of the universe, and it entails that the universe came into existence, a fact that disqualifies it from being the First Cause. The universe is like a borrowing lender. By contrast, an immaterial, spaceless, timeless being is the proper candidate for such a First Cause. And while I cannot argue the point here, it should be obvious that the God of the Bible satisfies this description of the First Cause. In any case, it is a category fallacy to ask of the First Cause what caused it. Otherwise, it wouldn't be first.

But the very concept of God in the world's monotheistic religions is a concept of a necessary being, "the uncausable Creator of everything else." Given this concept of God, the question "Who or what caused God?" becomes this question: "Who or what caused something which, given a widely shared concept of God, whether He exists or not, is an uncausable thing?" Or more briefly, "Who caused God which by definition is uncausable?" It is a category fallacy to ask about the cause of something that by definition is not causable. You can only ask such a question of causable things. So the question, "Who caused God?" is like the question "What does the note C taste like?" It's a pointless mistake.

It's a Fishy Answer, Not a Fishy Question

Continue reading --->

Can Atheists Justify Being Good Without God ?

There is a new atheist’s ad out with a picture of  Santa Claus and the words: “Why  believe in a god? Just be good for goodness sake.”  This is clever, but is it possible?  Let’s analyze it more carefully. 

First, if there is no Moral Law Giver (God), then how can there be a moral law that prescribes: “Be good.”  Every prescription has a prescriber, and this is a moral prescription.

Second, what does “good” mean?  How is good to be defined.? If it can mean anything for anyone, then it means nothing for anyone.  It is total relativism. Being “good” for some (like Nazis) can mean killing Jews.  But for Jews it is evil.  Hence, on this view there is no objective difference between good and evil.

Third,  what does “goodness” itself mean in the atheist slogan.  Being good “for goodness sake” implies that something is just plain good in itself.  That is, it is an ultimate goodness.  But this by definition is what Christians mean by God.  Everything else hasgoodness, but only God (the Ultimate) is goodness.  In this case, the atheist is using “goodness” as a surrogate or substitute for God.  

This maneuver is not uncommon for atheists. Before the Big Bang evidence, atheists were fond of doing this with the word  “universe.”  It was supposed to be eternal and, hence, needed no Cause since only what begins needs a Beginner.  Carl Sagan employed the term “Cosmos” as a God-substitute.  He said, “the COSMOS is everything that ever was, is, or will be.”  It sounds a little like what Psalm 90 declares: “From everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.”  Bertrand Russell attempted the same tactic in his famous BBC debate with Father Copleston.  When asked what caused the universe, he replied that nothing did.  It was just “there.”  But how does an eternal, uncaused universe from which everything else came to be differ from an Uncaused Cause (God)?

However, in the light of the Big Bang evidence that the universe had a beginning, these answers lack scientific support.  As agnostic Jastrow put it, "The scientist’s pursuit of the past ends in the moment of creation."  And  "This is an exceedingly strange development, unexpected by all but theologians.  They have always accepted the word of the Bible: `In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth'" (God and the Astronomers, 115).

Continue reading --->

Pt.3 - "Who is Jesus, Really?" - Pastor J.

Can you answer this question during the Christmas season?

(pt.3 of 4)  This is perhaps the most important question, apologetically and evidentially, regarding Jesus Christ in all of the Scriptures.  If the Bible is true, then how a person answers this simple question will determine where an individual will spend their eternal destiny.  Especially at this crucial time of celebrating the Christmas season, are you personally able to answer the skeptic's or seeker's question of "Who is Jesus Christ, really"?

If not, my aim in this 15 min. video is to begin to teach you the 4 central truths concerning the identity of Jesus Christ, as taught in the New Testament.  If you take the time and learn these 4 central truths concerning Christ, it will enable you to not only stay free from error and false teaching about Jesus, but it will also allow you to be much more effective in explaining Christ and His Person to those who will ask you for help and answers this Christmas season.

Here is how to T.H.IN.K. rightly concerning Christ:

1. T rinity - Jesus is the second Divine Person of the Triune GOD.  He is eternally, God the Son.
2. H ypostatic Union - Jesus took upon himself a second nature, a human nature, when conceived.
3. IN carnation - Jesus, the eternal Son, took upon Himself a fully human body and existence.
4. K enosis - Jesus willingly chose to limit his use of, or access to, His divine attributes while on the earth, though He never lost them or ceased to be God the Son. 

Join me for these 4 short video teachings from a sermon I recently taught.  I hope it will be a blessing to you, and help equip you to be a more effective ambassador for Christ, during this Christmas season!

Be blessed, be bold,  and have an Intelligent Faith this Christmas season!

- Pastor J. 

Pt.2 - "Who Is Jesus Christ, Really?" - Pastor J.

Can you answer this question during the Christmas season?

(pt.2 of 4)  This is perhaps the most important question, apologetically and evidentially, regarding Jesus Christ in all of the Scriptures.  If the Bible is true, then how a person answers this simple question will determine where an individual will spend their eternal destiny.  Especially at this crucial time of celebrating the Christmas season, are you personally able to answer the skeptic's or seeker's question of "Who is Jesus Christ, really"?

If not, my aim in this 15 min. video is to begin to teach you the 4 central truths concerning the identity of Jesus Christ, as taught in the New Testament.  If you take the time and learn these 4 central truths concerning Christ, it will enable you to not only stay free from error and false teaching about Jesus, but it will also allow you to be much more effective in explaining Christ and His Person to those who will ask you for help and answers this Christmas season.

Here is how to T.H.IN.K. rightly concerning Christ:

1. T rinity - Jesus is the second Divine Person of the Triune GOD.  He is eternally, God the Son.
2. H ypostatic Union - Jesus took upon himself a second nature, a human nature, when conceived.
3. IN carnation - Jesus, the eternal Son, took upon Himself a fully human body and existence.
4. K enosis - Jesus willingly chose to limit his use of, or access to, His divine attributes while on the earth, though He never lost them or ceased to be God the Son. 

Join me for these 4 short video teachings from a sermon I recently taught.  I hope it will be a blessing to you, and help equip you to be a more effective ambassador for Christ, during this Christmas season!

Be blessed, be bold,  and have an Intelligent Faith this Christmas season!

- Pastor J. 

On the Goodness of God

I used to be a Christian, by that I mean, really believed and actively practiced my faith. I truly accepted Jesus Christ as my Lord and saviour, I ran Bible studies, took kids to and ran kids clubs, led sunday school lessons, ran Alpha sessions, led a house group, attended weeks of prayer and more. I wasn't messing around. So why did I give it all up? I had a lot of questions that I was often too scared to ask, because I felt if I asked them it would show my inability to continue running the activities I ran. I also kind of shot myself in the foot because when non believers asked me questions and I gave them answers, they never followed up with the questions I had in my head, the questions I myself was too scared to ask, so I never aired my questions. So what we're the questions?

I guess that they all boil down to one major question: How do we know God is good? Christians believe Jesus is the son of God and they believe that because, according to the Bible, he was without sin. It also follows (according to mainstream Christianity) that Jesus is also God. We can therefore conclude that God is without sin, He is morally pure. So does God stand up to moral scrutiny? It appears not. when Herod had his authority threatened by the birth of Jesus he gave orders for infanticide to ensure the death of this newborn king of kings. This is an awful event in history, that a person should order the slaughter of hundreds of children to protect his authority. Herod's behaviour is morally wrong. We can conclude that Herod is not God (bear with me). When Pharaoh refused to let God's people go after being ordered to by God, through Moses as a messenger, God decided that action must be taken. God's authority was in danger, he was being challenged. God's final action was to order the killing of the first born children in Egypt. Yes, there was a get out clause, the blood above the door, but none the less he ordered the killing of Children, and sure enough Children died. What makes this worse is that God hardened Pharaoh's heart, he forced Pharaoh's hand, God knew that Pharaoh could not say 'I will let your people go.' God was killing those children no matter what. We can therefore conclude that God is not morally pure. That means that God is not really God, he is not who he claims to be. Now I'm fairly certain this is not a water tight argument, but as yet I have not heard a rational response.

I really want an answer to this question. I don't want to hear silly answers that don't make sense. For example : "God is good, we don't understand his reasons for everything" This ignores the question, how do we know he's good? "God is beyond our understanding and he does things for reasons we can't comprehend." Again this answer makes no sense if he is beyond our understanding how can we understand anything about him, where is the line of understanding drawn? It's a cop out to say this because as soon as we get to something we can't explain we just say "that's because God is beyond our understanding." "Satan has blinded you." if this is the case that means Satan hasn't blinded you so please answer the question for the sake of those who have been blinded. "the very fact you are talking about God, proves there is a God." we can talk about a lot of things that don't exist... There are more but please try and analyse any responses and see if they make sense. I look forward to your response, let's try and dig down into the truth.

David

Click HERE to read Dr. Craig's response

How do You Choose a Religion?

Hey, I gotta question!" yelled a student from the back of the room. I was sharing the claims of Christ at a University of Massachusetts fraternity house when he interrupted me. "Yes, what is it?" I queried. "I think Jesus is great for you, but I know Buddhists and Muslims, and they're just as sincere as you are. And they think their views are true just like you do. There's no way a person can know his religion is the 'right' one, so the best thing to do is to just believe everyone's religion is true for them and not judge anyone."

Ever heard something like this? It's hard to believe you haven't. What should we make of these ideas? How should we respond? I think there is a good response to this viewpoint and I hope to provide it in what follows. But before I do, we should carefully note what seems to underlie such a claim. The student was assuming that there are no objective principles that, if applied to one's religious quest, would help one make the best, most rational choice of religious options. In the absence of such principles, any choice is either purely arbitrary or totally based on emotion or upbringing. In either case, such a choice would in no way put a person in a position to judge someone else's choice as being wrong.

Are there objective principles to guide one in choosing a religion? Indeed there are. I believe the following four principles should be used to guide one in choosing which religion he or she will follow and, if properly applied, I believe they will point to Christianity as the most rational choice.

Facts About Creation

Principle 1: A religion's concept of God should harmonize with what we can know about God from creation.

First, some readers will object that all we can know about God is what he has revealed to us through the Bible. The Bible, however, makes it clear that, from creation alone, even those who have never read the Bible should know certain things about God (Psalm 19:1-4; Romans 1:18-23). This means that when one begins to search for God by reading the various "Holy Books" of different religious traditions, one does not begin with a blank slate. One has had the opportunity to "read a book" — the book of creation — every day of one's life before one picks up the Bible, the Koran or anything else.

Moreover, while I will not develop the argument here — I want you to look into the matter for yourself — but a powerful intellectual case can be made from facts about the creation that a single personal God exists (For a good place to start learning how to make this case, see Francis J. Beckwith, William Lane Craig, J. P. Moreland, eds., To Everyone an Answer). This case claims that the existence of one personal God is the best explanation for (1) the existence and beginning of a finite universe, (2) the beauty and order of the universe, including the existence of biological information, (3) the existence of finite minds such as our own, and (4) the existence of objective moral law and the equality of human rights.

Please note that Principle 1 points to monotheism, not because the Bible requires it, but because monotheism is the best explanation of these facts about creation. Principle 1 leaves Judaism, Christianity and Islam in the running.

Miracles

Continue reading --->

A Question for Christmas: "Who is Jesus Christ, really?" - Pastor J.

Can you answer this question accurately and effectively?

(pt.1 of 4)  This is perhaps the most important question, apologetically and evidentially, regarding Jesus Christ in all of the Scriptures.  If the Bible is true, then how a person answers this simple question will determine where an individual will spend their eternal destiny.  Especially at this crucial time of celebrating the Christmas season, are you personally able to answer the skeptic's or seeker's question of "Who is Jesus Christ, really"?

If not, my aim in this 15 min. video is to begin to teach you the 4 central truths concerning the identity of Jesus Christ, as taught in the New Testament.  If you take the time and learn these 4 central truths concerning Christ, it will enable you to not only stay free from error and false teaching about Jesus, but it will also allow you to be much more effective in explaining Christ and His Person to those who will ask you for help and answers this Christmas season.

Here is how to T.H.IN.K. rightly concerning Christ:

1. T rinity - Jesus is the second Divine Person of the Triune GOD.  He is eternally, God the Son.
2. H ypostatic Union - Jesus took upon himself a second nature, a human nature, when conceived.
3. IN carnation - Jesus, the eternal Son, took upon Himself a fully human body and existence.
4. K enosis - Jesus willingly chose to limit his use of, or access to, His divine attributes while on the earth, though He never lost them or ceased to be God the Son. 

Join me for these 4 short video teachings from a sermon I recently taught.  I hope it will be a blessing to you, and help equip you to be a more effective ambassador for Christ, during this Christmas season!

Be blessed, be bold,  and have an Intelligent Faith this Christmas season!

- Pastor J. 

Answering the Skeptic

In spite of the shortcomings of the hit movie, The Matrix, the first film in the trilogy raised important questions about human knowledge.

For example, how did Neo know when he was in the Matrix and when he was in the real world? If his experiences before taking the red pill were produced by the Matrix, how could he be sure his experiences after taking the red pill weren't also produced by the Matrix? In other words, how could Neo be certain he ever left the Matrix? How could he be certain that his experience of leaving the Matrix wasn't itself produced by the Matrix?

Much more importantly, if Neo could never be sure that he wasn't in the Matrix, how can you and I be sure that we're not in the Matrix? And if we can't be sure — if we can't offer an airtight argument for the conclusion that we're not — how can we claim to know anything?

Let's call this line of questioning "skepticism." In this article, I'll critique skepticism by showing that it makes indefensible assumptions about knowledge.

The Problem of the Criterion

We can distinguish two different questions relevant to the human quest for knowledge.

Which of my beliefs count as knowledge?

What are the criteria for knowledge?

Question (1) asks about the specific items of knowledge you possess; answering it gives you a picture of the extent and limits of your knowledge. Question (2) asks about the specific circumstances in which a belief would count as knowledge — it asks what all instances of knowledge have in common with each other.

Now suppose you want to appraise the intellectual respectability of your worldview and, in order to do so, decide to sort all of the beliefs that compose it into two groups: those that count as knowledge and those that do not. How should you proceed? Can you sort your beliefs with any accuracy if you don't know what the criteria for knowledge are? If not, then it seems that you should start by answering question (2). But the only way to answer question (2) is to look at instances of knowledge and see, first, what they all have in common and, second, how they differ from beliefs that don't count as knowledge. But you can only do this if you've already answered question (1).

So you can't answer question (1) if you don't first have an answer to question (2), and you can't answer question (2) if you don't first have an answer to question (1). And if you can't answer either (1) or (2), then how can you know anything at all? This predicament is what philosophers call the problem of the criterion (See Roderick Chisholm's The Problem of the Criterion (1973) and Robert P. Amico's The Problem of the Criterion (1993).

Skepticism, Methodism and Particularism

Continue reading --->

The Lost Tomb of Jesus: A Response to the Discovery-Channel Documentary Directed by James Cameron

by Dr. Gary R. Habermas and Colleagues

Jesus Burial Tomb?

Recently, questions have been raised regarding the historicity of the death and resurrection of Jesus.  These issues emerged from the directorial genius of James Cameron and is entitled, "The Lost Tomb of Jesus." This new Hollywood-quality documentary is set to air March 4th, 2007 on the Discovery Channel. However, this documentary is poorly supported by the historical and scientific data, regardless of how well the film has been made.

Good TV, Bad History & Science

	"[The Lost Tomb of Jesus] will make good TV but involves a bad critical reading of history. Basically, this is old news with a new interpretation. We have known about this tomb since it was discovered in 1980. There are all sorts of reasons to see that this is much ado about nothing much."
	-	Dr. Ben Witherington, New Testament professor at Asbury Theological Seminary and author of What Have They Done With Jesus?

An incredible number of problems are present in the recent claim that Jesus' grave has been found.  In the end, the time-honored, multi-faceted evidence for the Gospel data of the Deity, death, and bodily resurrection of Jesus are more convincing than ever. Even the early opponents of the Christian message acknowledged that Jesus' tomb was empty. And the evidence for Jesus' bodily resurrection appearances has never been refuted.

I've known about "The Lost Tomb of Christ" and the story behind it for quite some time.  Last summer (2006), I interviewed James Tabor, the main scholar involved with "The Lost Tomb of Jesus" project.  James was very helpful in answering my questions about the Talpiot site and we have become friends.  Still, I am convinced that he is mistaken at virtually every evidential turn in the road.  There is no way this should challenge a Christian's faith.

• The tomb was discovered in 1980; it is a very old story and it did not take anyone by surprise.
• The BBC did a documentary on the tomb in 1996.
   ... So why is this situation suddenly getting media attention?

Continue reading --->

Can the number "1" demonstrate GOD's existence?

This is a short excerpt from Dr. Ronald Nash from Reformed Theological Seminary in which he gives a brief walk thru of the Conceptual Argument for God's existence.  This unique and interesting argument is one of the most fascinating ones that can be used to point a sincere truth seeker towards the definite existence of God.

While most naturalists and materialists would/will scoff at this idea, there is no plausible explanation from those world views as to how/why abstract objects such as numbers, the laws of logic, mathematical equations, geometric shapes exist as universal concepts in the mind of man.  If these are unchanging, transcendent concepts and ideas, then a strong worldview must give a plausible explanation for them.

The formal argument goes like this:

1. Either eternal, unchanging, necessary ideas exist or do not exist.

2. Eternal, unchanging, necessary ideas do exist. (i.e. numbers, geometric shapes, laws of logic and mathematics, etc...)

3. These ideas either exist independently, originate from human minds, or originate from an eternal, unchanging, necessary Mind - God.

4. These ideas do not exist independently. (Platonism - metaphysically incoherent)

5. These ideas do not originate from human minds. (The laws of logic, mathematics, geometric shapes, numbers have existed long before man arose)

6. Therefore, these eternal, unchanging, necessary ideas originate from an eternal, unchanging, necessary Mind - God.  (Note: The number of these concepts and ideas is infinite in number, so this necessitates that this Mind posses infinite knowledge - omniscience.) 

For more info on the "Conceptual Argument" for God's Existence, check out Dr. Craig's book "Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview" or you can watch me explain it in a short video HERE on my YouTube Channel. 

- Pastor J. 

** FREE Podcast ** Are you able to answer the "New Atheists"?

For all of our "Intelligent Faith 315" viewers, we have recently published a new podcast on Itunes entitled "REASON TO BELIEVE - A Rational Defense of the Christian Worldview".

This is an Apologetics Training Class that the IF315 team is currently teaching, which covers the following topics and more:

• 5 Reasons The Christian Worldview is Unique
• The Moral Argument For God's Existence
• The Conceptual Argument For God's Existence
• The Kalam Cosmological Argument For God's Existence
• Has Science Killed God?

We encourage you to subscribe to it for FREE on Itunes by clicking HERE, and you can also download all the class notes for your own personal study.

We hope that "Reason To Believe" can help train you to be able to have an "Intelligent Faith" and give people good answers when you are asked!

- Pastor J. 

The Plausibility of Grounding Moral Values in God, Question of the week by Dr. Craig

Dear Dr. Craig,

Thank you so much for your faithfulness, zeal, and integrity in serving the Lord. I'm one of the Reasonable Faith Chapter Directors, and I recently have been discussing the ontological ground of morality with the President of my university's philosophy honors society, Phi Sigma Tau.

My friend is a moral realist, but he isn't persuaded that God's nature can sufficiently constitute the Good. He's recently advocated the position of G.E. Moore, the British ethicist who held to ethical non-naturalism.

The crux of Moore's argument is that "Good" is ineffable, beyond definition. He gives the following "open-question" argument:

If God's nature is the Good, then saying "The Good is God's nature" is equivalent to saying "God's nature is God's nature", which isn't saying much.

I've proposed the following answer to define/understand what and why the Good is in God's nature, and I'd love your help and feedback.

1) Are qualities like 'compassion', 'love', 'justice' good because they are found in God's nature, or good independently of God?

2) To claim they are good independently of God is to propose Platonism.

3) Platonism fails.

4) Therefore, they are Good because they are found in God's nature.

But why should they be Good because they are found in God's nature? Put in other words, why is God's nature good?

6) That which is good is intrinsically valuable, and ought to be valued, appreciated, or pursued.

7) God is, by definition, the Greatest Possible Being.

8) The Greatest Possible Being is that which is most valuable, worthy of appreciation, and pursuit. <== This is the crucial premise.

9) Therefore,God is that which is perfectly valuable, worthy of appreciation and pursuit.

10) From (6), (7), (8), and (9), God's nature is the Good.

My question back to him: If God does not exist, what is intrinsically valuable and ought to be valued, appreciated, or pursued?

1) If God does not exist, then there is nothing transcendent in the universe.

2) Everything in the universe is fundamentally the same stuff (quarks & waves)

3) Therefore, nothing in the universe is qualitatively different from something else, and therefore does not lay claim to valuing anything more than anything else.

4) No composite thing is more valuable than anything else.

5) Everything is of the same value.

6) We ought to value everything (atoms, plants, planets, people (made of brains, carbon, etc.), volcanoes, dogs, etc.) the same.

7) It is irrational to value people more than rocks.

8) Therefore, it is not true that we ought to value people more than rocks--they're the same.

But, if we bring the GPB back into the picture, there is now something transcendent to, and greater, than everything else. This thing therefore deserves to be valued more than everything else. And once again we have a grounding for valuing things in accordance with God (such as love, compassion, etc.) more than other things.

I'll actually be debating this person on campus in about a month's time, and so would love your help on this.

Thank you again Dr. Craig. You're an inspiration to me for the need and example of Godly Christian scholars.

Sincerely,

Devin

Click HERE to read Dr. Craig's answer