1. science

August 2010 Newsletter
Reasons To Believe
Austin, Tx Network
Aug. 1, 2010
Volume 3 Issue 8
Contact us at
Austin@reasons.org
Upcoming RTB Austin
presentations:
Logan Turner and Ashton Murphy on How to Reason
Rightly …. and Gracefully
In April 2009, two high
September—Concordist
schoolers
at Grace Academy
Vs. Non-Concordist
in
Georgetown
got the attenView of Scripture and
tion of Hugh Ross and other
Creation (John Weber)
RTB scholars when the Headmaster of Grace Academy
Beginning in October
sent Dr. Ross a paper the
new series geared for
two students had written imcollege students
mediately after the University
Skeptics Forum.
Also in This News-
letter
Steven Cunningham
reviews John MacArthur’s Battle for the
Beginning on Page 3
Agenda for Aug. 14
meeting and directions
to our meeting place.
Page 4.
The paper, which identifies
logical fallacies employed by
Dr. Michael a Shermer, a
well known member of the
atheist community, is presented on p.4-5 in this newsletter.
The two students, Logan
Turner and Ashton Murphy,
Continued Page 2
Coordinator’s Corner—by
.Bob Davis
Logic. It’s a word we use all the
time—usually as an adjective as in
“That’s just not logical.” Knowing
when a seemingly convincing statement—made by ourselves or others—is not logical is an important
part of our work as Christian apologists. Let me illustrate by two examples: one using good logic, the
other, poor logic.
cosmology.
Premise 1: “All things that begin
to exist owe their existence to
something outside of themselves.”
Premise 2: “The universe began
to exist.”
Example of valid use of logic
Conclusion: “ Something outside
of the universe (i.e., outside of
time, space, energy, and matter)
caused the universe to come into
existence.”
One the arguments for the existence of God is a simple logical argument using two premises and a
conclusion drawn from Big Bang
Once convinced of the logic, we
move on to demonstrate how this
“something” is actually
”Someone” by matching the at-
tributes of the God of the Bible
with what we know about Big
Bang Cosmology. (If you are interested in this complete presentation request it at Austin@reasons.org)
Example of bad logic
Many times do well meaning
Christians engage in discussions
with non-believers and start out
with the statement: “The Bible is
the word of God,” and then when
challenged as to how do they
know this to be true, respond by
saying, “because the Bible says
it’s so.”
While the statement may be
true, the reasoning is circular. To
Page 2
August 2010 Newsletter
gument!”
will be our featured speakers at our
upcoming RTB monthly meeting on
August 14 (see details on location
and time on page 5 ).
They will present nine logical fallacies and then illustrate them in a
mock debate where we in the audience will be invited to interrupt the
debate when we spot one of the nine
logical fallacies.
Lacy Murphy is the mother of
Ashton as well as the logic teacher at
Grace. “We teach logic to 7th and 8th
graders because it is at that age
when kids are naturally argumentative. We teach them how to argue
well,” said Lacy. “
As my husband John likes to say,
slamming the door is not a good arCoordinator’s Corner continued
illustrate, let’s say you are arguing
with a Muslim who has just told you
that Koran is God’s word. You ask
him how he knows, and he says,
“because it says so.” Does that convince you? Why should we expect
our equivalent form of reasoning to
convince a non-believer.
Circular reasoning is one of many
logical fallacies. Logical fallacies
are arguments that may sound convincing, but are based on faulty reasoning. Knowing about logical fallacies can help us as Christian apologists from falling into lazy, haphazard, incorrect thinking as we share
with others the validity of the Christian worldview. Similarly, we can
kindly and gently point out erroneous thinking on the part of those we
are witnessing to by showing how
their logic—including the veracity of
their premises—is wrong.
Our next meeting of the Austin
Reasons to Believe network will focus on identifying logical fallacies.
Knowing how to think straight is
Although the paper rebutting
Shermer struck many of us as extraordinary, Lacy says that any of
her students could have done it.
She says that middle schoolers—
that’s when Grace teaches logic—
are attracted to logic because they
like to argue and discover the
“gotcha” moments in their opponent’s arguments.
Logan and Ashton have gone
from the “gotcha-seeking “stage to
using their skills in a more Christ
like fashion as they season their
arguments with grace.
The need for presenting our arguments in a spirit of humility will be
part of their presentation to us on
Aug. 14.
something
best learned
as a youth.
Why? Because
our worldview
is really a series of choices
about what to
believe. Once
acquired, most
people continue in the
way they view the world without critically examining why they believe what
they believe.
Our instructors in this overview of
logical fallacies are a pair of high
schoolers who have learned their critical thinking well (See an example of
their work on Page 4 ).
Lets make a special effort to bring
young people to our meeting to learn
how to thing critically and perhaps inspire them to follow in the footsteps of
these high schoolers who have begun
to engage the unbelieving world by
providing valid “reasons for the hope
that they have” in Christ (I Peter 3:15).
Want to learn more about how
. think?
to
If our presenters this month whet
your appetite to learn more about
critical thinking skills—especially
as it applies to Christian apologetics, you can learn more through
Reasons to Believe Institute—an
online distance learning series of
courses coordinated by Dr. Bob
Stuart of RTB. Several of the Austin RTB members have benefited
from the outstanding program
which involves almost daily contact with a qualified instructor.
Following is the course offering
for critical thinking. Check out
the RTB website
(www.reasons.org) and sign up for
the January classes.
CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS
[RI0501] Register Now!
Next term begins January 10,
2011.In this intensive 5-week
(undergraduate) to 7-week
(graduate) course, Kenneth Samples, RTB's senior theologian,
teaches what it means to love God
with all your mind. The ability of
Christians to effectively address
the many arguments skeptics present is an ongoing challenge.
This course deals with the various
aspects of deductive, inductive,
and abductive reasoning as they
are applied to different forms of
argumentation. Different ways of
testing arguments and truthclaims are evaluated for validity,
cogency, and strength. Students
will learn to assess how arguments break down, how to recognize and categorize fallacies, and
how to recognize when areas of
logic are violated.
August 2010 Newsletter
Review of John MacArthur’s
Book, The Battle for The Beginning.
By: Steven Cunningham, RTB
Austin
Dr. John MacArthur is a respected and very well known
evangelical minister. Over the
years, he has authored a long
running radio show entitled
“Grace to You,” penned countless articles, and built a college
and seminary in California.
He has certainly earned the
right to be considered a significant authority in many matters
that concern the modern evangelical Christian believer, but in
writing the book The Battle for
the Beginning, he proves that he
can stumble as easily as the rest
of us and appear quite mortal
indeed.
The Battle for the Beginning is
a book that attempts to highlight
the importance of an accurate
view of Genesis in maintaining
the transcendent veracity and
perspicuity of all Scripture. In
doing so, MacArthur attempts to
coronate a Young Earth Creation
(YEC) exegesis of Genesis as the
only “non-secular” and, therefore,
the only permissible view of the first
and second chapters of Genesis.
While it is certainly fair to argue this
position, an alert reader would be
wise to pay close attention not only
to the Biblical exegesis, but the
care or the lack thereof that the
author pays to the related science
issue in question.
Almost no one questions Mr.
MacArthur’s command of Scripture.
That being the case, it is surprising
how badly he stumbles in handling
issues that deal with the interface
between Scripture and science and
the philosophy of science. There is
no reference in MacArthur’s book of
Old Earth Creationism (OEC) as another literal interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2. Hebrew scholars agree
that the word “Yom” may be rendered, “12 hour day,” “24 hour
day,” or “long period of time.” It is
valid to challenge the “epoch” rendering, but by ignoring the grammatical debate altogether, or
worse, referring to OEC Christians
as “secularists,” one has to wonder
if this is either sloppy thinking or
even rank dishonesty.
“...MacArthur attempts to
coronate a Young Earth
Creation (YEC) exegesis
of Genesis as the only
“non-secular” and, therefore, the only permissible
view of the first and second chapters of Genesis.”
OEC Christians could possibly be
wrong on the correct rendering of
“Yom,” but they are not “nonliteralists” and certainly not
“secularists.”
In order to grant a maximum level
of Grace to Mr. MacArthur, it is im-
Page 3
portant to stress that he is not a scientist, and in the book declares that
he is not an authority in scientific
matters. Having said that, it could be
argued that he should at least be
minimally versed in the philosophy of
Dr. John MacArthur
science, particularly when his intent is
to write a book that relies so heavily
on this information.
One of the most egregious and oftrepeated errors he commits is in the
conflation of abiogenesis, evolutionary biology, and cosmic origins (The
Cosmic Singularity, the age of the
universe, et al). He frequently and
carelessly uses the term “secularism”
or “evolutionary theory” to refer to
any or all of these concepts interchangeably and without differentiation.
Consider the following example from
the text:
“ On the other hand, if we accept the
evolutionists’ theory that the universe
has existed for countless
epochs,
we must adjust our interpretation of
Scripture to accommodate an old
Earth and therefore capitulate to
one of evolution’s most essential dogmas.” (478-80, Kindle Reader).
It is not only evolutionists that suggest that the universe is old. The
Continued on Page 6
Page 4
August 2010 Newsletter
branch of Begging
the Question.
Example: Dr. Shermer assumes
that supernatural and natural cannot coexist. He demands 'natural'
explanations be brought before
him. He rejects certain evidences
on the basis that they are
'supernatural'.
Paper Prepared by Ashton
Murphy and Logan Turner
as Submitted by Grace
Academy Headmaster to
Hugh Ross of Reasons to
Believe Ministry, April
2009
. Shortly after the debate between
Hugh Ross/Fuz Rana and Michael
Shermer and some UT atheists in
April 2009, Dr. Tim Deibler, Headmaster of Grace Academy in Georgetown
sent us this critique of Dr. Shermer’s
arguments by a freshman and a
sophomore at Grace. A full year
wiser now, these two students will be
our presenters at the August 14,
2010 monthly meeting of RTB Austin.
Dr. Michael Shermer
uses the similarity of cells and their
parts to modern day machines to
indicate an intelligent designer.
This is the construction that we
noticed most often.
Ad Hominem
Definition: Accusations that distract
from the issue at hand by focusing
attention to negative aspects of the
opponent himself. Ad Hominem
Shermer Debate Critique
Abusive is a particular branch cenAs we watched the presentation by tered on ridiculing an opponent. Ad
Michael Shermer at the most recent Hominem Circumstancial focuses
on discrediting an opponent’s view
UT Skeptics Forum, we were surby casting light on the opponent’s
prised to find simple fallacies dispersed throughout his presentation. background.
Having had some high-school-level
Example: “Good Science, Bad SciLogic courses, we challenged ourence…Non-Science and nonselves to respectfully bring out and
examine the most blatant of the falla- sense. You’ve heard some
(nonsense) tonight in my opinion.”
cies we noticed.
Dr. Shermer did not use the blatantly obvious version of Ad
Straw-man Fallacy
Definition: Attempting to disprove an Hominem Abusive. However, inopponent’s argument by presenting it stead of outright using degrading
names, his entire demeanor spoke
in an unfair, inaccurate light.
disdain of his opponents, as seen in
the quote above, and seen in nuExample: Dr. Shermer represented
merous other instances.
Reasons' position as being an attempt to fill in the gaps of science by
Reply: This is not a form of arguusing God.
ment that you can effectively argue
against. Drs. Ross and Rana spoke
Reply: The scientists at Reasons to
Believe are not simply trying to fill in respectfully and ignored the ridicule
from some of the other scientists,
the 'gaps' left by modern scito which we tip our hats.
ence. They are making a biblical
case for why the presence of God
solves these gaps, but they also use Begging the Question
instances that are 'proven' to support Definition: When an opponent asGod as creator as well. This is seen in sumes what he is trying to
prove. Circular Reasoning is also a
Dr. Rana's arguments, in which he
Reply: What RTB is trying to prove
at the debate, at the basest level,
is that 'natural' science and
'supernatural' God coexist, and
that natural things were created by
supernatural events. Dr. Shermer
cannot fairly reject certain things
because they are supernatural. Logically, he must prove that
God and Science cannot coexist,
before using it as one of his premises.
Bifurcation (also called either/or)
Definition: An argument that
frames the debate such that only
two options are possible, when
other possibilities may exist.
Example: Dr. Shermer claimed that
what cannot be naturally explained
by creation scientists must be attributed to supernatural intervention.
Reply: This argument limits events
to being explained naturally or supernaturally, but not both, and
leaves out the option where God
works miracles through His chosen
physical laws.
According to Reasons to Believe:
"Supernatural interventions, according to the Bible, are not always
transcendent miracles (those only
explained by a God acting independent or outside of matter, energy, space, and time). ...Far more
frequent are the miracles God performs within His chosen physical
laws."
Sweeping Generalization
Definition: Arguments that take a
generalization and apply it to
August 2010 Newsletter
cases
that can be legitimate exceptions to it.
Example: Dr. Shermer compares Christianity to several other religions. He
implies that religions are ridiculous and
cites many cases of absurd religions. Dr. Shermer makes the case tha
t Christianity is just like these religions.
Page 5
Austin Reasons to Believe
Fourth Floor, Bldg A, Hill
Country Bible Church NW
10 a.m. to Noon
Reply: While there certainly are many
absurd religions, and most of them are
wrong, Christianity does not have to be
either. The generalization that religious
people are irrational and unscientific,
we believe, does not apply in this case.
Irrelevant Goals or Functions
Definition: Arguments that distract by
measuring the opponent’s plan or policy according to things it wasn’t intended to do.
Example: At the end of his presentation, Dr. Shermer has compiled a list of
questions, which he asks RTB to answer, based on their model and the Bible.
transferred to the audience, who began to turn polite applause into a
Reply: Not only were some of the
battle to see who could be the loudquestions irrelevant (why doesn't God
est. We left Gregory Gymnasium
heal amputees?), most of them could
disappointed, not because we lost,
not be answered without the help of the not because our faith was in danger
gift of prophecy. Drs. Ross and Rana
of being shattered, but because we
did not compile their model in order
heard our beliefs presented to the
that it would answer every philosophiaudience in an unfair, biased light.
cal question known to man; they compiled it as a biblio-scientific hypothesis
We left disappointed because the
arguing for an intelligent creator.
search for truth was abandoned in
favor of sarcasm and disrespect.
We left disappointed because many
So, after all of that, who won? Was it
of the crowd left without any respect
Dr. Ross and Dr. Rana, who formulated for either position, and that is a pity.
a strong biblio-scientific case for an in……………………………………………………..
telligent designer, specifically the God
of the Bible? Was it Dr. Shermer, who, By
while committing many fallacies, was
an excellent showman and clever rheto- Ashton Murphy (Freshman),
rician?
and Logan Turner (sophomore)
with assistance from Hannah Thoms
We personally believe that, if the
(sophomore)
purpose of the debate was a structured
intelligent search for truth, no one
Grace Academy
won. The flippant way Dr. Shermer
Georgetown, Texas
seemed to view the debate was quickly
Agenda For August 14 RTB
Network Meeting
9: 30 a.m. Coffee time and
fellowship
10 a.m. Prayer and introduction of guests and
speaker
10: 30 a.m Presentation:
Reasoning Rightly and
Gracefully by Ashton Murphy and Logan Turner
11:40 am Update on RTB
Austin Change in Directions—John Weber
11:50 a.m Update on the
National Pastors Conference on Faith and Scripture
in October—Larry Linenschmidt.
August 2010 Newsletter
strongest evidence for that lies in
the observation of the Earth and the
cosmos and the analytic methods
that accompany that enterprise (ice
cores, radiometric dating, General
Relativity, stellar dynamics, mathematic principles, etc). Interestingly, the old universe time lines
that cosmology is yielding are not
particularly helpful to evolutionary
biology because they indicate a universe that is far too young for naturalistic origins of life. (See sidebar
at right ).
MacArthur also rolls out some of
the already disproven arguments of
many YEC adherents, including the
argument that the second law of
thermodynamics does not allow for
an increasingly ordered biological
structure. There are some good
arguments against many of the elements of Darwinian evolution, but
this is not one of them.
For example, water turning into
ice in your freezer definitely represents a localized increase in order
and structure while representing an
overall increase in entropy in the
system at large. This argument has
no scientific merit, and appears to
be as timeless as it is false.
MacArthur does what many YEC
advocates do when he associates
belief in The Big Bang, ie, The Cosmic Singularity, with “secularism.”
He does not even mention that The
Cosmic Singularity was a mathematical derivation that was actually
very much disliked by secularists
when the theory first came out, because it worked against secularism
and toward an uncaused first cause
or transcendent beginning.
Finally, MacArthur commits the
same error that many nonChristians commit when they attempt to disprove the truth claims
of the Bible—he misrepresents and
limits the true nature of the enterprise of science, limiting it to only
what is repeatable and falsifiable in
a laboratory setting.
This is Karl Popper’s criteria
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Karl_Popper], and is useful for certain types of scientific inquiry, but is
far too limiting a principle for the
acquisition of all physical truth.
Our quest should be to find truth
without limitation by artificial human boundaries. The physics of
the Cosmic Singularity are not repeatable in the lab, but that does
not mean that it didn’t happen as
the mathematics and the multiple
lines of independent observational
evidence are indicating.
Dr. MacArthur is correct in describing the critical importance of
the book of Genesis in evangelism.
On that we can all agree. He would
better aid the cause of evangelism,
however, by not getting in its way by
ascribing a worldview to OEC Christians that they do not hold in front
of watching non-believers.
Science-faith evangelism is a mission field that will no doubt be extremely fruitful in the years to come
as new discoveries demonstrate
and affirm the exquisite design of
the universe. Many scientists and
scientifically minded people are
looking on with great interest and
carefully checking the truth claims
made by Christians. They can
quickly detect misrepresentations
of science and so we must be especially careful not to not misrepresent science in order to establish a
Page 6
base of
credibility sufficient to gain their
trust.
The Battle for the Beginning is
not a well researched or well
written book. However, we can
certainly return MacArthur’s
maxim and give “Grace To Him”
in this matter. Our Lord would
expect no less.
Is 4.6 billion years enough
time to support a naturalistic
origin -of-life scenario?
By Bob Davis
As Steven Cunningham notes in
his book review, the concern that
young earth creationists have that a
4.6 billion year old earth provides
enough time for life to develop by
natural processes (and thus provide
support to macroevolutionary Darwinism), is unfounded.
Sir Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wikramasinghe estimated that the
probability of naturalistic formation of a single enzyme is only
one chance in 10 to the 20th power
or 1 in 100,000,000,000,000,000,000.
The simplest living cell requires
thousands of different enzymes.
The two scientists—neither a creationist—estimate that the odds of a
naturalistic process for creating a
single bacterium are 1 in 10 to the
40,000 power. Since there are only
10 to the 80th power atoms in the
universe, the only possibility of a
naturalistic formation of a bacterium is a time span of infinite
length. Big bang cosmology refutes an infinitely old universe and
hence also a naturalistic scenario
for the origin of life.
For details on these and similar
calculations see: A Case against
Accidental and Self Organization,
by Dean Overman,; Rowan and
Littlefield Pub. 1997. pp 58-65.