Global warming, neo-Darwinism, casual sex, homosexuality, drug-addiction, moral relativism, abortion, pornography, instant gratification…the list goes on and on. These examples of “hot-button” topics illustrate a few of the issues that Christians deal with intellectually and emotionally every day at work, school, church and other social interactions. News stories center on these topics and how they impact American culture.

This word culture signifies something of importance to everyone, yet has many definitions. Of all the definitions for the term “culture” the following three best summarize the idea for discussing what all these issues mean today:

1. A particular form or stage of civilization, as that of a certain nation or period. (Greek Culture)
2. The behaviors and beliefs characteristic of a particular social, ethnic, or age group. (youth culture, drug culture, pop culture)
3. The sum total of ways of living built up by a group of human beings and transmitted from one generation to another. (Anthropology)

Differentiating between Western, Eastern, and developing cultures is no longer practical in certain applications. The world is fast becoming a global society. Although major differences still exist and need to be understood, when it comes to issues of morality and lifestyle - isolationism is a thing of the past. Therefore we must be aware of what impacts a culture and how to respond.

How do we do that while operating through a biblical worldview? The answer is deceptively simple. We follow the example of Jesus and his disciples.

Throughout the New Testament, the gospel is the consistent solution to what ails the world. Jesus did not organize a protest. Paul did not advocate dissent and rebellion to the governmental authorities. The writers of the New Testament clearly state that the power to change the world was in changing individual lives with the gospel—Christ died for our sins and rose from the dead.

Christians can be reasonably involved in society with grace and truth. However, believers can be most effective by exercising leadership within their sphere of influence; sharing the gospel to change hearts and minds one at a time…

Republished with permission from Evangelism.net

This is the third part of a four part series introducing logical fallacies commonly used by Neo-Darwinists, Evolutionists, and Atheists. To better understand why we should bother to know what these fallacies are, please read the introduction.

The fallacy of false alternative concerns the use of extremes. It attempts to make a case for something that could be stated like “if you’re not with us, you’re against us”, or, “the only possible choice is my choice.” In science, this completely ignores the fundamental goal of scientific inquiry. Those who study evolutionary biology (and believe in a common origin of all life) should be hungry for more data and hypotheses to consider in contrast or comparison with their own. Instead, they completely dismiss and ignore any possible alternative theories. It’s like they are saying, “well OK, we solved that problem, now we can relax”. When in fact the actual physical evidence for the origin of life only as Darwin theorized is completely lacking. Logically, you would think that a scientist whose passion is discovery would be enthusiastically open to new ideas with compelling arguments and evidence to back up those ideas. In the world of the Neo-Darwinist, there is no alternative—hence the false alternative. They make the case for evolution on a grand scale beginning with the extreme of a single progenitor, or common cellular ancestor for all living things. There is no room for consideration or even modification of that theory—which is still theory and based on philosophical conclusions; not scientific ones (since the process cannot be repeated in any type of experiment).

An example of a viable alternative is open dialogue that includes the study of change over time, which all scientists acknowledge, without the necessity of a single-cell ancestry of all life. That is a weak hinge-pin on which their whole case stands—one without hard data (you can’t reproduce history) and a “believe it or leave it” mentality. The Neo-Darwinist excludes anyone in disagreement with their atheistic worldview—not necessarily their science.

In stark contrast, scientists who pursue additional study in the realm of Intelligent Design come from a myriad of perspectives. They bring to the table (or the lab) a sense of exploration and discovery— with an openness to learn that anyone who pursues deeper knowledge must have. Only someone who is teachable can learn new things (duh). Once the Neo-Darwinists closed their minds to alternative theories, they stopped up the very process Darwin himself practiced to develop his theories.

Evangelism.net has a great podcast this month on the topic: “Dealing with people who have been turned off by Christians.”

In this episode of the Evangelism Encouragement Podcast, host Mark Rae talks with Dr. Larry Moyer as they consider some of the reasons non-Christians give as to why they have been turned off by Christians.

It is also available on iTunes here.

Enjoy! 

What does the future hold for the existence of Christianity in the United States? That’s an interesting question, isn’t it? I think it’s often shrugged off because, after all, we live in a Christian nation, right? Can you imagine a day when a Christian could lose his or her job because of their faith; not that they proclaimed it in the workplace or even in the public schools; but outside of the institution—in their private life?! Imagine no more—the day is here. In fact, it wasn’t even the individual who was “accused” of sharing their faith that was fired—it was guilt by association! Read the story here.

I Am Beginning to Understand What “Post-Christian” Culture Means

Now I do not want to get bogged down in politics—believe me, it would be easy as I am a very politically-minded person. Nevertheless, we should be aware of what is happening in other communities as a foreshadowing of where we could be headed. Consider our European brothers and sisters in the UK. Recently, the Archbishop of Canterbury conceded that the UK will eventually have to consider incorporating elements of Sharia law into the public law. That’s an extreme step for a free European nation—and one we should watch closely. If we lose our moral compass— as some claim has happened in the UK— as a result of the weakening of Christianity, then that vacuum may very well be filled with ideologies that will create an oppressive state of affairs for believers in the US. We should all be asking and observing how far other religious extremists will go to replace Christian thought in the public sector.

We have been blessed with a freedom in this country that millions of Christians around the world do not have. Our plight is nowhere near the real persecution occurring every day around the world. However, Islam is spreading and with it, a subtle, sinister pressure on Christians to be ‘tolerant’—which is a nice way of saying we need to change and adapt to the beliefs of Muslims.

So, to back up and avoid sounding paranoid—what’s the point? Muslims are passionate. They pursue their religion and the attempt to convert others with extreme fanaticism. This is no secret, no great revelation or offensive posturing—it is simply the truth. How about believers in Christ? Ours is the message of hope for eternity and compassion for today. Are we living and communicating the message with these two things in mind? If indeed a moral vacuum exists—are we contributing to it? Like it or not, we are influencers. Compassion and tolerance are not synonymous terms—sometimes being compassionate means sharing a message that is offensive. Although we may not (but you might) have the ability to affect society in big chunks, each of us has a small sphere of personal influence. If you really want to make eternal impact on this culture for tomorrow, work with a passion for Christ and His message within your sphere today.

This is the second part of a four part series introducing logical fallacies commonly used by Neo-Darwinists, Evolutionists, and Atheists. To better understand why we should bother to know what these fallacies are, please read the introduction.

Argumentum Ad Verecundiam

An appeal to authority exists in the debate over Intelligent Design when only those who hold an atheistic world view are considered true experts in a field of scientific study. This fallacy occurs when one person’s expert opinion is assumed to be more important than another’s; even though their comparative professional credentials are equivalent. Discriminatory authority ensues because worldview affects the perception of many scientists and, like it or not, impacts interpretation of scientific study. It is not grounded by factual results of experimentation, because neither evolution nor design can be proven by repeatable methodology.

All theories of biological origins are speculative—they are based on beliefs, not observable facts. As a result, if an individual is an educated, highly credentialed, competent scientist, he or she is fully qualified to interpret the same observations, but will do so in light of their worldview. One group is open to finding a designer or creator (often in complete separation from religious overtones), the other desperately hopes not to. Why can’t both engage in rational, respectful discourse? (We already know the answer to that.)

An argument that appeals to only one group of two distinct groups within the same expertise, when neither can be conclusively proven, is fallacious. Both sides must be considered equally and given equal due—that is really what the overall debate is about. One reason the ID scientists are not guilty of this fallacy is that they are not attempting to attack or discredit evolutionary researchers. Their platform is to achieve equal ground and opportunity within scientific academia to pursue research of their own: objective, scientific research.

Ad Hominem

No doubt you have read and heard many examples of this fallacy. Now you know what to call it. This argument attempts to reject or dismiss another person’s statement or position by attacking the person rather than the statement or position itself. Ad Hominem is the most frequent tactic employed by the Neo-Darwinist movement and their supporters. The most commonly used words in the works of these scientists when addressing intelligent design proponents are: “stupid, idiots, imbeciles, ignorant, crackpots, loons, irrational (this one’s ironic considering their use of the term in an Ad Hominem fallacy)” and many, many more (some unprintable). But you get the picture. Read the rest of this entry »