Could complex speech and abstract thinking evolved by blind chance? Many years ago, this was a question I had and now pose, in conversations with atheists who believe that macroevolution is “fact.” This post is going to investigate the question of complex speech and abstract thinking and show that these characteristics come by way of design and not by random blind chance processes, known as evolution.
If you are holding to a liberal view of morality, you are going to vote for the candidate that best fits your views. If you are holding to more of a conservative stances on the aforementioned issues, then you are going to vote for the candidate that best fits you conservative values.
So please do not say, “Don’t push your morality on me!” Because when we do vote, we are voting for the candidate that best lines up with our moral underpinnings. And when you cast your vote, guess what you have just done?
There is no escape hatch for not legislating morality. We do it all the time. And the flip side of the coin is that I still thank God for those who don’t hold to an absolute standard and yet act morally.
There are many questions that are a challenge to the Christian faith, but this one came up the other night in a group that our family fellowships with. The person asking it during our group meeting really put some thought into it, and it is one worth our posting a response to it. Perhaps you have heard this one as well. Here is the question:
If God has infinite knowledge, WHY did He create beings that He foreknew would sin and then sacrifice His Son to redeem them?
As it is with my opening illustration, a similar challenge is often thrown down when Christians are conversing with atheists on the issues of faith and science. In those conversations, the atheist may throw down a question where the Christian’s only answer is “God” to their vehemently skeptical inquisitor’s question. The atheist then accuses the Christian for throwing down what they call “god of the gaps” and dismisses the answer. How should the Christian respond to this?
The origin of this objection comes from the influential German philosopher, Ludwig Feuerbach who pontificated this idea that God was made in the image of man and that God was a creation of the human mind. And then Sigmund Freud also contributed to this “A theological dogma might be refuted to a person a thousand times, provided however, he had need of it, he again and again accepts it as true.”
Whenever I do a series of posts, look for a post listing the links for the series. You might find it rare that skeptics know the Bible. Sometimes Muslims might bring up the challenges that were addressed in these posts. At any rate it is good to have a good handle on hermeneutics and understanding the harmony of the gospels.
In this final posting for this series, the challenge I will be addressing is rather interesting. It is interesting because each of the gospel writers present a unique picture of their own with respect to the responses which came from the women following the dialogue with those they encountered at the tomb of Jesus.
Continuing with the fifth posting in this series, we have seen up to this point that the Garden Tomb accounts demonstrate very clearly that the gospel writers’ personalities were intact toward what the Spirit had inspired each of writers. Each writer of the gospels chose what they wrote under the guise of the Holy Spirit.
For skeptics like the one who challenged me, this next posting is going to reinforce the points that I have presented up to this point.