A Facebook friend of mine posted a meme that showed up on my timeline. This meme said, “Your beliefs don’t make you a better person, your behavior does.” As that represents a naturalistic worldview concept, I thought I would take the opportunity to clarify with a comment of my own which represented a biblical worldview. I commented, “Behavior is the result of beliefs, not vice versa.” From that another person, who is obviously a very committed Naturalist, chimed in and we began a rather energetic dialog.
(Note: Because of the nature of the Facebook format, it is difficult to create new paragraphs. Thus, to make the conversation easier to read, I have separated the conversation into paragraphs.)
M.N. (M.N.’s first comment after my reply to the meme.)
Behavior is the result of the INSTINCTS that you are born with, tempered by what you are taught.
That is a statement based on naturalistic presuppositions which requires empirical verification. I am not aware of any experimental science capable of backing it up.
Freddy Davis Do you think that you are a “blank slate” when you are born, that everything you do is “learned behavior”? Nonsense… Read “African Genesis”, by Robert Ardrey, and you will learn all about instincts. Psychologists might dispute the conclusion he reached, but… the “empirical verification” is all around you… if your eyes are open.
So, are you going to justify your comment or not? You did not make a scientific statement, it was a religious one. Back up your belief that our behavior is strictly the result of instincts.
Freddy Davis “Religious”??? Where did you get THAT from what I said? Obviously you’ve never even HEARD of the book I mentioned… FYI, it has NOTHING to do with the biblical “Genesis”, and your “Christian” theologians had a very RACIST opinion about the SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE that it was written about. And… I did NOT say that our behavior is “strictly the result of instincts”. Instincts are what MOTIVATES what we do, but how we BEHAVE has to be learned… especially “self control”, because without that… we are “savages”. And, unfortunately… there are too many people who have no self-control because they rely on beliefs in myths… aka “blind faith”.
You obviously don’t realize the implications of your statement. You said, “Behavior is the result of the INSTINCTS that you are born with.” I have not read African Genesis, but am very familiar with its presuppositions. Ardrey is simply another evolutionary theoretician who posits the hypothesis that man evolved on the African continent from carnivorous, predatory ancestors who distinguished themselves from apes by the use of weapons. As I said before, this point of view has no empirical basis. It is a religious point of view. If you want to share the science that proves naturalistic evolution, I am all ears, but there is none.
Additionally, your comment about Christian theologians and racism is silliness since what you are assuming to be science it not. It is your point of view which is based on blind faith.
Freddy Davis Since you have NOT read the book, your “Cliff’s Notes” synopsis has more holes in it than Swiss cheese. Ardrey was NOT an “evolutionary theoretician”; he was a writer who was asked by a college classmate to gather together information about the anthropological discoveries that had been made over several decades, by people working independently, and to put it all into a comprehensive book.
The first part of the book is about animal behaviors, as per observations made by people who specialized in that, and THAT is what SCIENCE is all about … MAKING OBSERVATIONS ABOUT NATURE, whether “in the field” or in a laboratory, with OPEN EYES that are NOT tinted by “presuppositions”, ESPECIALLY those based on “blind faith”.
The “empirical basis” for Man’s being the “Killer Ape” is real, found in Robert Broom’s discovery of baboon skulls, killed by a blow to the head by an antelope bone… pure “forensic science” that any modern coroner could tell you, and that about 75% were hit by a right-handed killer… the same ratio of modern Humans.
Religion has NOTHING at all to do with SCIENCE, and that is a pity, because all science is a product of our intelligence… which is the greatest gift our Creator gave us. Unfortunately… some “religious” people choose NOT to use intelligence, but rely on blind faith instead… and that is their greatest failing.
M., you simply don’t get it. Ardrey’s naturalistic presuppositions are the problem. None of his “observations” can be true unless naturalistic evolution is true. You (and he) are assuming that to be so, but you (nor he) have presented any experimental science to demonstrate it is even possible. Your assertion that there are no presuppositions in evolutionary theory is simply a false statement. Until you recognize the presuppositions in your argument you will not even be able to understand your own bias. There is no identifiable biological mechanism known to science which can allow for macro evolutionary development to take place.
BTW: you are right, science is not a religious exercise, it is a methodology. Your problem is that you are conflating science and evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory is based purely on naturalistic presuppositions, not on science.
Freddy Davis You are so deeply into biblical theology that I expect you to next tell me that the Earth is the Center of the Universe because Galileo was put under “house arrest” by the Church for saying that Ptolemy was wrong. Ardrey did NOT make “observations” of anything himself, except his own behavior as a child, and he spent about 5 years researching, traveling, and interviewing scientists and naturalists in several countries, examining their “empirical evidence” before writing the book.
Evolution, as written about by Darwin, was not a new theory even in his time. It was proposed by ancient Greeks, Anaximander and Xenophanes, who theorized the origins of Man from the sea and observed ancient fossils to determine that animals, and Man, too, have changed physically over time. Even in Darwin’s time, Gregor Mendel was working to find the mechanism by which those changes occur… and he did.
Evolution is NO LONGER a mere “theory” ; it is proven FACT, and NEVER WAS based on “presuppositions”. NO true science ever is… because science is not “methodology” … It is the study of how everything was created. When a toddler takes a toy apart to find out how the pieces fit together, that is science, or when a 2 year old girl helps her uncle put together barrel locks for vending machines, by watching him put the pieces together in order, she is learning “scientific methodology”.
Finally… I have NO “bias”, because I grew up seeing the NATURAL world, in Massachusetts, and studying my environment, BEFORE I started school and was exposed to the limited information available there. A college professor in a class I took 41 years ago used to say he had “an insatiable appetite for knowledge”, and that is a motto I’ve always lived by, even before I started school.
M., that is a rather condescending comment. You still don’t see that the problem is not with Ardrey’s observations, but with his analysis of the observations. The observations are scientific research, but the presuppositions he uses to conclude that the differences he sees are based on naturalistic evolution are based on faith. New theory or not, naturalistic evolution is not based on experimental science, but on the belief that the natural universe is all that exists. If you want to prove me wrong, all you have to do is prove naturalistic presuppositions – which cannot be done because they are based on faith assumptions, not on science.
Your statement that naturalistic evolution is no longer theory is simply false. I defy you to show where someone has demonstrated macro evolution to be an actual process that can be duplicated in a lab. It simply has not been done.
As far as the nature of science, contrary to your assertion, science is a methodology. That’s why they call the practice of science the use of the scientific method. But again, the problem in your analysis is not the observation and experimentation (the use of the scientific method), but the conclusions you (and “evolutionary scientists”) make based on factors that cannot be measured.
That is rich saying you have NO bias. Like I said before, you will never understand even your own beliefs until you realize your own presuppositions. Having an appetite for knowledge is a good thing. I have that myself, but at least I do understand my own presuppositions and grasp those in the context of the other possibilities.
BTW: Theism and Naturalism are not the only possibilities out there.
Freddy Davis You have just made several disconnected assumptions that are so wrong… that I have to say this : Your persistent and abject obsession with “presuppositions” that DO NOT EXIST in Ardrey’s book is absolute PROOF of your OWN “presupposition” that anyone who disagrees with your “faith based logic” is wrong. The problem with that kind of thinking is that it is based on the philosophies of Aristotle and Plato, who were both deniers of the observations of the naturalists who preceded them.
“Naturalistic evolution” has never claimed that the “natural universe is all that exists”, and, BTW, “experimental science” is NOT the only science that exists, because if it were, the works of Mendel and hundreds of others who worked before and since his time, would amount to nothing… as it seems to in your eyes. Ardrey’s conclusions were NOT “faith based”… and actually went AGAINST the teachings of Christian Fundamentalist theology.
Macro evolution happens all the time, as the CDC knows… because disease-causing viruses and bacterium are constantly changing, to become more resistant to antibiotics, which is EXACTLY how evolution occurs over eons of time.
As for “faith”… The more we find out about the mysteries of the Universe, the less we find that we actually know about where and how it all came to be, so no one except an egocentric FOOL believes there is only one answer, and that the answer is in one ancient book that began as oral tales told to peasants by wise men.
So, you don’t think Ardrey begins with any presuppositions? You really believe that he does not begin with the presupposition that naturalistic evolution is possible? Does he question whether or not it is possible? The answer is NO! He does presuppose it, and he does so without any experimental science to back it up. You are simply in error on this.
This is not a matter of faith vs. logic. It is a matter of one faith opposed by another faith. And the logic that is used to express both are necessarily based on the presuppositions of the faith. Your logic is absolutely as faith based as mine, only it is a different faith. As I have already said a couple of times, until you grasp this concept, you cannot even understand your own argument.
I never said experimental science is all that exists. That is an unfounded assumption. My point is that if you are going to propose a conclusion (that macro evolution is possible) and you are going to claim it as a verifiable scientific fact, you are going to have to prove it by experimental science. Until you do, it is nothing more than naturalistic BELIEF.
There are a couple of problems with your virus and bacteria argument. First, viruses are not life forms. They can’t survive or replicate without a host cell. Bacteria are life forms, and the changes that occur within them are in the realm of micro, not macro, evolution (which are the limited changes which occur in all living things, and which no Christian I know would question). Christians are not anti-science as you seem to believe. But we do know how to distinguish between what is faith and what is science.
As for your characterization of the Bible, I see you have your presuppositions there, as well, that you just throw out without having any kind of in-depth knowledge. Your characterization has no basis in reality.
Freddy Davis What you are saying is that you simply DO NOT BELIEVE anything that you do not SEE with your own eyes… that the work of Gregor Mendel does not count because he did not have the equipment, i.e. an electron microscope, to prove the existence of a substance that causes the “traits” we attribute to DNA and chromosomes. Well, Boyo, unless you have been in a laboratory YOURSELF to see that (or any) “experimental science” , everything you believe is “faith based”. I took science classes in school, and the experiments I saw and sometimes participated in had NOTHING to do with “faith” or “presupposition” because THAT is “bad science”… assuming something to be true, then setting out to prove it, DISREGARDING everything that proves your theory wrong. Actually, that is called RELIGION… an absolute belief in something for which there is absolutely NO EXPERIMENTAL SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF… such as the Story of Creation as told in your Bible.
REAL science has already proven that, through the FACT that all living Humans today have IDENTICAL “mitochondrial RNA”, which is found in the cell WALLS, not the cell core where DNA is found, which means we get it from our MOTHERS, and NOT our fathers… that “Eve” was “Adam’s” MOTHER, and NOT his “help-mate”, created from one of his ribs. I learned this in high school, several years before I read about mitochondrial RNA in newspaper and science magazine publications. And, it was in a “faith based” school… Immaculata-LaSalle, then being run by the Brothers of LaSalle, a well respected teaching order.
As I told YOU, my “logic” is NOT “faith based”, because I started OBSERVING the “natural world” BEFORE I started going to school at all, when I was about 4 years old, in Massachusetts…
As for your Bible… It DID begin as oral tales told by wise men to illiterate peasants, passed down as all “folklore” is, through several (uncountable) generations before it was first written, then translated several times, into Greek, then Latin, and EDITED (censored) into several sometimes contradictory editions… even by one of our own Presidents.
Macro evolution IS possible, and IS happening all the time, both in and out of laboratories.
As for “naturalistic evolution”… There was no “presupposition” that it was possible when Darwin made his observations, and… just as people like YOU are STILL doing… the prevalent attitude was that it was NOT possible, that “Biblical Creationism” was the Absolute Truth… even though THAT theory had never been PROVEN by “experimental science”… and STILL cannot be.
Ardrey was merely a writer, NOT a scientist with any “presuppositions” to prove or disprove, and the people who were out in the field, digging for old bones and fossils, had NO IDEA of WHAT they were going to find, which is what makes anthropomorphic archaeology such a fascinating subject for truly curious minds.
There is a lot MORE to the Universe than what is in your Bible, and it’s a pity that you don’t want to know about it.
What are you talking about? I have said almost none of the things you are accusing me of. You seem to think that I don’t believe in science and that is simply false. What I am saying is that much of what you are calling science is not science, but is philosophy. We are not disputing the facts of science, but the presuppositions which determine how you are going to interpret the facts. What I am saying is that the beliefs that naturalistic evolution are based upon are not facts, but are beliefs.
When you begin with the BELIEF that the life forms that currently exist on earth arrived here based on naturalistic evolution, then you are going to interpret the facts of the existence of these life forms in ways that assume that your BELIEFS are true. So, what I am requiring of you is that if you are going to take that point of view, you must prove that those naturalistic presuppositions are true. If you can, you win the argument. But the truth is, you haven’t and you can’t. Your approach is a faith based approach in spite of the fact that you don’t seem to understand your problem.
I do recognize the faith basis of my beliefs, and I own them. The problem is, you are now requiring of me something that you are not requiring of yourself. You are insisting that I prove my beliefs using naturalistic presuppositions when you are not willing to do that with yours. This, in spite of the fact that Naturalism requires this kind of experimental proof and Theism does not. Your reasoning is completely backward.
You don’t seem to realize that Christians absolutely respect the fact that the universe is objectively real and operates by objectively real natural laws. In fact, we believe that the reason it is so, and the reason science is a viable discipline, is because God created it to work based on fixed laws. Your accusation that because we believe in God we do not believe in science is ludicrous. And, once again, until you somehow come to grasp the non-scientific presuppositions of your naturalistic worldview BELIEFS, you will never understand the fallacies of your own arguments. You are saying things that simply are not true and are accusing me of believing things I do not believe. I will not respond to the last part of your comment because I have already addressed it several times. Perhaps you should reread what I have already written.
Freddy Davis FYI… I am NOT a scientist who has a lifetime of work product at had, documents to fax to you, as “proof” of anything I have said, which you would deny, anyway. You have already denied the FACT that evolution is real, that it is taking place, because all evolution begins on a MICROSCOPIC level that you cannot see. Plague viruses evolve to become resistant to antibiotics, so new drugs or antibodies (within our immune systems) must develop to combat them. The changes that reduced the sizes of crocodiles and alligators from what they were millions of years ago did NOT happen “overnight”, but over eons, because that is the way evolution works… tiny changes to DNA that result in change to the body, some of them NOT good, so they don’t work, and are no passed into future generations. Changes that DO work do get passed into the future generations. As I have said… scientists do NOT go into the field with “presuppositions” because they really do have NO IDEA of what they are going to find when they start to dig holes in the ground. When they find a fossil bone that is 20 ft. long, it is a “fair assumption” that the animal it came out of was probably very big, so digging in the same area and EXPECTING to find other bones to prove that is not a “presupposition”. Scientists have traced DNA samples back thousands of years, even beyond the “6,000 year age limit” of the Earth that your “Biblical Scientists” claim is the point of Origin, the time of Adam and Eve, to prove the direct descendancy of modern animals and even people from ancestors, bu of course, I cannot “prove” to you that these news stories or articles I read about this are true, so they must be “faith based” or “philosophy, right? NONSENSE. Your obstinate refusal to believe anything but your own words is extremely arrogant and egocentric… and TEDIOUS beyond belief. Stay in your own little world, if you must… but without any more conversation with me.
First, naturalistic evolution is a theory based on naturalistic philosophy. It takes the “facts” (bones, other fossils, artifacts, etc.) and attempts to understand their origin and development. The basic premise of Naturalism is that everything has a natural origin. That is not science, it is a philosophy. There is no experimental science that is able to demonstrate it to be true. So, based on that initial “presupposition,” it takes the “facts” and attempts to interpret them to make sense (within the parameters of the presuppositions). If you want to prove naturalistic evolution to be true, you must first prove the presuppositions – which you say don’t even exist.
As I have said before, I do not deny that evolution takes place, BUT only on the micro level, not the macro level. Science actually has demonstrated micro evolution and we see it not only in nature, but in the work of people who breed plants and animals to produce particular traits they are interested in. You are conflating the two things and calling both science. You need to learn to make that distinction. You give examples of micro evolution and generalize that to macro, and that is simply not legitimate.
Second, you need to learn where the lines are between science and philosophy. You have spent a lot of effort saying people do not begin with presuppositions when that is patently false. EVERYBODY begins with presuppositions. Your example about bones does not even address the issue. The presuppositions are in the interpretative philosophy, not in the search for specific facts.
Third, you have once again generalized concerning biblical interpretation in a way that is simply not accurate. There are some who believe in a young earth, but to say that all do is simply false. The biblical text does not require that interpretation, and there are many Christians who interpret that in a different way. Beyond that, your biblical argument is nothing more than a distraction since it does not even address the problems of evolutionary theory.
Finally, you have spent a lot of time insulting me based on your beliefs. Insults are not an argument. You are certainly free to hold any belief you want. God created us with the ability to choose what we will believe and how we act (something else naturalistic philosophy cannot account for). So you can live with the fantasy you have proposed if you like. But you have also made a big deal about your own “insatiable appetite for knowledge.” Perhaps you would do well to put that to use and learn worldview distinctions so you will know where to draw the line between truth and fantasy.
Freddy Davis To begin with…”Philosophy” is the “art” of thinking about thinking while doing nothing. It is not related to “science” in anyway whatsoever, ergo… it is a waste of time and energy.
Second… Your persistent denial of the simple fact that the scientists who have studied anthropology and archaeology for several centuries started their work without [Note: I think he meant “with” here.] “presuppositions” about what they would find borders on an obsessive psychosis.
Third… Whatever happens to DNA on the MICRO level causes changes on the MACRO level, and that has been proven time and again in both laboratories and in field work, which is the basis of breeding plants and animals for specific traits. “Natural Evolution” is exactly that same process, but on a global scale that began without Man’s influence, millions or billions of years before Man resulted from it.
Fourth… Only Atheists deny a “Divine” source for Creation, and that is what “sticks in your craw” as a religious “dependent”, your FEAR that scientists will someday prove that all of the great, fancy, mythological stories in the Bible will be false… fiction… including the very foundation of your beliefs, the “divinity” of Jesus Christ and all the miracles associated with him. Karl Marx said that religion is the “opium of the masses”, and more, “Man makes religion, religion does not make Man. Religion is… the self-consciousness and self-esteem of a man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. It is the fantastic realization of the Human Essence since the Human Essence has not acquired any true reality.” Basically, Man created God in the Image of Man, and not vice-versa, so “theology” and “philosophy” are both disconnected from the “real” or NATURAL world because they both originate in the abstract, in the mind of Man.
There never has been even ONE “experimental science” test that proves the very EXISTENCE of your God or the Biblical THEORY of Creation, or the stories of the Biblical history of the world… or the reality of the foundation of everything you stand on… and deny as the foundation of anything I say. In other words, everything you have [said] to me is a waste of Time because you live in a world created in your own mind, like a fish bowl, sealed, in the middle of a lake filled with fish swimming freely. You are in total denial of Reality, and nothing I or a thousand scientists with hundreds of years of collective education will ever convince you to BELIEVE in anything EXCEPT what you have created for yourself. This “conversation” is done. Quoth the Raven, “Nevermore”.
Well, let’s see, M., you have made some very interesting statements. Let’s start with two concerning what you consider scientific fact: 1) Whatever happens to DNA on the MICRO level causes changes on the MACRO level, and 2) “Natural Evolution” is exactly that same process, but on a global scale that began without Man’s influence, millions or billions of years before Man resulted from it.
I have asked you several times to share with me the actual demonstrable science behind this, yet all you do is to continue to assert is as a belief without any scientific proof. In other words, you claim it as science, yet assert it as a philosophical notion. Interesting since you claim philosophy is useless.
Next, let’s go to a few other of your statements. 1) Philosophy” is the “art” of thinking about thinking while doing nothing. It is not related to “science” in anyway whatsoever. 2) Scientists who have studied anthropology and archaeology for several centuries started their work without “presuppositions.” 3) Your FEAR that scientists will someday prove that all of the great, fancy, mythological stories in the Bible will be false. 4) Basically, Man created God in the Image of Man, and not vice-versa, so “theology” and “philosophy” are both disconnected from the “real” or NATURAL world because they both originate in the abstract, in the mind of Man.
First, all four of these assertions are factually false. But beyond that, in spite of the fact that you have stated that, “Philosophy” is the “art” of thinking about thinking while doing nothing …,” every one of the four are statements of philosophy. There is no science behind them whatsoever that would allow you to know they are true based on any empirical measure. They are expressions of your beliefs (faith/religion).
I also find it interesting that you have put in a requirement that I prove the Bible and my biblical faith using empirical science, yet you give yourself a pass on this requirement when your worldview beliefs actually require it. Your atheistic belief assumes (has as its presupposition) that the natural universe originated based on a completely natural process, yet you can point to NO actual science to back it up. Yours is a purely philosophical position. It is amazing to me that you don’t see the contradictions in your own arguments.
If anyone is in denial of reality, it is you. I know where my faith comes from, yet you deny that you even have faith – even though every argument you have made is based on it. As I said before, you can deny the reality of God all you want, but it does not change the reality. God does exist, he loves you, and would still accept you if you turned to him.
Lastly, you really ought to do a little work on understanding worldview concepts so you will at least know what you are talking about when you provoke conversations like this.
Freddy Davis What part of “This conversation is done” did you fail to comprehend? A WISE OLD OWL A wise old owl lived in an oak; The more he saw the less he spoke; The less he spoke the more he heard: Why can’t we all be like that bird? Edward Hersey Richards Ta an comhra a dheanamh.
I’m not the one who said I was quitting the conversation. I have been surprised twice now that you have continued to reply after saying you were done. Obviously, the “Wise old owl” saying doesn’t apply to you, only to those you want to shut up. If you want to continue this, keep on replying. I will not simply sit here while you continue spouting falsehoods and insults.
Freddy Davis This is ABSOLUTELY the last thing I will say to you… that what you perceive as “insults” are merely little barbs to test how sensitive your “thin skin” is, and they have apparently struck through the weakest part of your “intellectual armor”. You have not shown ME any “empirical evidence” of the factual existence of your God, and you never will. That statement is not a “presupposition” ; it is a prognostication. Until you read “African Genesis” from cover to cover, including the racist “disclaimer” that the publisher was forced to print in the front of the book… you are NOT QUALIFIED to discuss any part of it with me, any more than I would be to discuss ASTROPHYSICS with Neil de Grasse Tyson. Unlike you, I know my limits, and do not have the hubris to argue beyond them. you have NO IDEA of what I believe or deny, in philosophy or religion, so your assumption of “atheism” is an arrogant expression of your own “self-righteousness”… for which Jesus Christ had a few words to say in LUKE 18:9-14
Nice try, M.. Your attempt to say your insults are not insults is cute, but not believable. As you continue to repeat the same false narrative, I really wonder if you have even read half of what I have written. I have carefully explained in different ways, and using various examples, the problems with your argumentation. You seemingly continue to lack the ability to distinguish between facts and beliefs.
I also continue to be amazed that you are looking for me to prove empirically that God exists. Of course that cannot be done. If God does exist, which I believe he does, he exists outside of the natural universe and is not bound by the natural laws he created. However, if your belief is true, then, based on what you have said you believe, you should be able to empirically prove your naturalistic presuppositions – that the natural universe is all that exists. Not only have you not demonstrated that to be true, but have not even given a hint as to how it is even possible for it to be true. Every argument you have made has been based purely on your faith in the idea that it is true. You have only given religions arguments. Indeed, as I have previously pointed out, this is somewhat hypocritical as you seem to have exempted yourself from having to empirically prove your beliefs while insisting that I do so with mine.
I do not have to read any particular book to understand the beliefs that inform its conclusions. I have probably read more on that topic than you will read in your entire lifetime. That is why I am able to discuss the topic. Calling me not qualified when you don’t even know me is merely another insult – and an uninformed one, at that. I will say this, though, if you are limiting your knowledge of the subject to only one book, you are rather limited.
If you really knew your limits, you would not have had the hubris to argue beyond them as you have been doing from the beginning.
As far are me knowing what you believe, perhaps I do not. But I do know the specific arguments you have been making and that is what I have responded to. Whether you actually claim to be Atheist or not, all of your arguments have been based on atheistic presuppositions. If you do not claim to be an Atheist, fine, but based on everything you have said, you are a practical Atheist.
As for your last “barb,” you have no idea concerning my attitude. Just because I have not let you get away with untruths does not mean that I am self-righteous. In fact, I actually care about your eternal destiny and hope that as you ponder what we have discussed, you will at some point recognize that God does exist, he loves you, and that you can know him.
Freddy Davis *******DELETE********
At this point, I went back to the conversation to respond and found that he had, indeed, completely deleted all of his part of the conversation. Very sad, but I can’t say it was surprising. Fortunately I copied the dialog as we went along so I have the ability to share it here.
It is sad but true that there are an increasing number of people like M.N. who truly think they understand what they are talking about regarding this topic, but do not. They were taught in school “as if” naturalistic philosophy is true, but have not been taught how to distinguish between philosophy and science. They are taught that their naturalistic philosophy is based on actual science when it is not. Thus, it is not surprising that they make these kinds of arguments. However, their contentions are simply not true. There is no empirical science in existence which proves naturalistic evolution to be true.
Interacting with people like this sometimes requires that you meet them head on. This does not mean we must be ugly to them. In fact, we should interact with great compassion. But we also can’t be wimpy. It is okay to stand up for the truth.
In the process, it is important to remember that “winning the argument” is not the point. That is only a byproduct of the process because we have the truth on our side. We must keep in mind that people who hold these kinds of beliefs are believers in a different religion. Argumentation like this should be a witness, not a contest. In a case like M.N., the witness is quite non-traditional because of his belligerence. With a person like this, a direct confrontation may be needed to force them to think beyond their own worldview beliefs. At the same time, our attitude when doing it must always be that of a loving heart.
The way a strong anti-Christian belligerent person is going to come to Christ is the same way anyone else will – to have a change of heart. As we think of our witness, we need to realize that the means of sharing will be very individual. But regardless of the particular situation, we should always be ready to give a witness that our faith in Jesus Christ is the truth.
© 2016 Freddy Davis