Is It Really Wrong?

Our culture increasingly says that nothing is really right or wrong. Although people say this, I don't think they really mean it, and the fact that people really do believe in morality tells us we can trust the Bible. Let me begin to explain what I mean by asking you to take a short quiz. Just tell me if each of the following statements is a fact or opinion:

1. The best ice cream flavor is chocolate. Fact or opinion?

2. George Washington was the first U.S. president. Fact or opinion?

Clearly #1 is an opinion. One person may agree, while another may disagree, and they can both be right. The answer depends on the tastes and preferences of the one you are asking.

Statement #2 is a fact. No matter how a person answers the question, there is only one right answer. An individual may claim a different person was president first, but that doesn't make it so. Only one person could actually be the first U.S. president.

Let's continue the quiz:

3. The University of Florida is the best place to go to college. Fact or opinion?

4. San Antonio is the capitol of the United States.

#3 is an opinion (one I happen to share). But our agreeing or disagreeing with the statement doesn't matter. The answer depends on what you value most. Are sports the most important thing in determining the answer to this question, and if so, which sports? What about average GPAs, or affordability? People will have different answers to this question depending on what they value the most. There is no one right answer.

#4 is a fact. Even though it is a false fact, it is still a fact. There is only one right answer to this question. Someone can't say, "But my opinion is that San Antonio is the capitol of the United States." It doesn't matter what your opinion is, the capitol is still Washington D.C.

How about this next one:

5. Abortion is always wrong.

This is where things get interesting. This is a statement about morality. Is it a fact -- is there only one right answer? Or is it an opinion -- does the answer depend on who you are asking? If you say "opinion," you are not alone. More and more people see it that way, especially among younger generations. But the Bible clearly teaches this is a fact (whether or not it is correct is besides the point), and I think you agree that it is a fact whether you are willing to admit it or not.

Take for example the horrible atrocities committed by the Nazis. Notice by the words horrible atrocities I have already declared that the acts were morally wrong. But the Nazis might argue that is just my opinion. In their opinion they were doing what was necessary and right for the good of the pure German race. If morality is merely opinion and there is no right or wrong position, then they would have a fair point. I have my opinion, they have theirs. Who's to say that one opinion is better than the other?

I emphasized "who's" because this is the crux of the debate. If there is no God, then there are no moral absolutes. Every person has an equal claim to authority on matters of morality. Only if there is someone above mankind in authority is there someone to say which side is right.

The Bible describes God as occupying this position. He created the universe, our world, and all living things. He is therefore the rightful authority over the world. He has decreed moral laws and will ultimately hold us accountable to those laws. Questions about morality are ultimately questions about the laws God has given to us. And God has not left us without evidence that he has indeed set up moral laws, just as he set up physical laws that govern the universe. Paul wrote:

"Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them." -Romans 2:14-15

According to the Bible, we all know that there is a real right and wrong because God gave us a conscience so that we would know.

Consider the Nazis again. Do you think they were wrong to torture and murder young, innocent children? Yes, you do. Is that just your opinion? If you are honest, you know that it isn't. Suppose that the Nazis won World War II. Suppose they imposed their rule over the entire world. Suppose they rewrote every history book to celebrate their actions during the war. Suppose they killed anyone who disagreed. Suppose everyone alive today thought that what they did was good. Would that make it right? Of course not, it would still be wrong. You know it. You know when someone mistreats you that it is wrong. You know that it is really wrong, even though our culture pressures us to say it's just an opinion.

The only reasonable explanation for our awareness of moral absolutes is that God is real and that he is a real law-giver.

Trust the Bible's purpose is to grow your confidence that the Bible is true and the ultimate resource for life." You can join the Facebook group by clicking here. Trust the Bible is a weekday radio program that begins at about 8:10 each morning on WDOG 93.5 in Allendale, SC. Listen to previous programs online: www.fairfaxfbc.org/trust-the-bible.html

How to Defeat Evolution

1. Define "evolution." Evolution can mean many different things. Don't try to defeat every type of evolution, because everyone agrees in some kind of evolution. For instance, evolution can simply mean "change over time." Well, of course everyone acknowledges that life forms on earth today are at least somewhat different than they were thousands of years ago. At a minimum, some animals have gone extinct while some new variations of domestic animals (such as types of dogs) are now here. But when I talk about "defeating evolution," I mean the kind that undermines the claims of the Bible. I believe we have every reason to trust the Bible and not evolution. I am using the term evolution to refer to the theory that all life forms existing today came about entirely through natural processes. Chance, chemical reactions, and natural selection alone can account for the appearance of life and all variations of life that exist.

2. Explain the problem of evolution. God's Word tells us that "what may be known about God is plain," and that "his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made" (Romans 1:19-20). If we look at a famous painting of George Washington, we know right away that someone painted it. We know that the wind did not knock over a set of paints and -- out came a wonderful portrait! The painting is proof of a painter. In the same way, when we look at creation, it tells us there is a creator. The amazing complexities of life tell us there is a powerful and creative God who designed life on earth. I am saying evolution is a problem because it suppresses the truth about God. God warns against this, stating that "the wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness" (Romans 1:18). This warning specifically targets those who suppress the truth about God that is evident in creation. God says creation itself makes it plain to us that He is real. Evolution tries to say, "No, that is not a necessary conclusion, it actually came about without any divine involvement whatsoever." If that is true, there really is little reason to believe in God at all, at least not like the God of the Bible. But if it is false, then we have every reason to believe in God.

3. Keep it Simple. You don't need to argue against every step in the process of evolution. Many Christians will object to the whole concept of "defeating evolution." They may say, "But I believe God used evolution to create life on earth." We could debate how much evolution played a role in creating different types of life. We all agree that evolution played some role. Debating the extent of evolution's role can get complicated. Tackling a broad range of topics is overwhelming and that is exactly why you must define evolution at the start. The moment a person says they think "God used evolution to create..." they are talking about a different kind of evolution. They are not talking about an evolution that seeks to explain how all life came about by purely natural processes. They are acknowledging that natural processes alone cannot account for the origin of life, and that is the most important point for people to see. A discussion about how much of a role evolution played is an important exercise in interpreting Scripture properly, but it is not necessary to defeat evolution the way that evolution is most commonly used and the way it is defined above.

4. Focus on the origin of life. With the "keep it simple" principle in mind, always focus on the origin of the first living thing when you are trying to defeat evolution. You could argue specifically against human evolution. Or, perhaps against the ability of natural selection alone to account for great advances in the complexity of life forms. But it is easy to get bogged down in the details. To defeat evolution, you only have to show that evolution is implausible in one area, and the origin of life is evolution's weakest point. Everyone agrees that at one time in history there was no life on earth. Then, in the next moment, there was a living thing. The trouble with evolution is that no one can explain how this happened through purely natural processes. You can see this come out in an interview with one of the world's leading proponents of evolution, Richard Dawkins.  Ben Stein asks him how life began in the movie, "Expelled." If you have not seen this before, it is only six minutes long and is well worth your time: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlZtEjtlirc&t=287s
Dawkins has no ability to answer the question. Science has greatly advanced our understanding of how incredibly complicated even the simplest life forms are. Each one is a machine made of many separate machines with intricate parts working together to make an organism live. In the past it may not have seemed implausible that, given enough time, life could arise spontaneously. However, advances in our understanding of the cell demand some explanation as to how the first life could develop from non-life. There is simply no way to imagine it all coming together randomly.

Responding to Objections:
The "God of the gaps" argument: In this response the evolutionist admits that there is no known scientific explanation of where the first life came from. However, they add that this does not mean one should jump to conclusions that God did it. Such an approach is to find proof for God in every gap that exists in scientific knowledge. In time, science will find explanations that offer better solutions than God.
This argument has two problems. (1) It assumes that there is a scientific answer that is better, we just haven't found it yet. This is a "science of the gaps" argument. Every time a gap in our ability to explain things through nature arises, just assume that science is the answer and not God, even though no scientific evidence currently exists. This is nothing more than blind faith in science. (2) Gaps in naturalistic explanations for the origin of life are not shrinking, they are growing. The more we know about the processes inside the simplest organisms, the more difficult it is becoming to account for how these could have come about through natural processes alone. In other words, there is growing evidence that science will never close this gap. It is a gap that only grows bigger as science advances. It is much more reasonable to actually follow where the evidence leads, not put blind faith in what you want to be true. The evidence from the existence of life points to God, just as the Bible says.

"But there is so much evidence for evolution": Much of the evidence is not really evidence that favors evolution instead of creation. Rather, it is evidence that evolution is the best explanation if we assume there is no creator. Much of the argumentation for evolution states at the outset that science is the search for the best natural explanation. So evolution may win the argument that it offers the best natural explanation for the development for life, but that doesn't mean it is the best explanation, only the best explanation when the main competing argument, creation, is taken off the table from the start. For example, many textbooks supporting evolution contain charts pointing to similarities in the structure of different organisms, like the bones in the arm of a man, chimpanzee, and a bat. If there is no creator, than a physical relationship is the best explanation for these similarities. However, these comparisons make just as much sense if the same creator designed them all.

In addition, even if there is a lot of evidence for certain steps in the process of evolution, the theory still falls apart if one of the phases lacks support. I believe that is the case when it comes to the origin of life. There is no evidence for a natural origin of life, and loads of evidence that there could not be one. We can trust the Bible when it says "what may be known about God is plain." 

Trust the Bible's purpose is to grow your confidence that the Bible is true and the ultimate resource for life." You can join the Facebook group by clicking here. Trust the Bible is a weekday radio program that begins at about 8:10 each morning on WDOG 93.5 in Allendale, SC. Listen to previous programs online: www.fairfaxfbc.org/trust-the-bible.html