During the last few decades, research in microbiology, biochemistry, and related fields has provided an incredible amount of new insight into the function of the cell. Scientists engaged in intelligent design (ID) studies have demonstrated that this new data is powerful evidence for creation by design—and largely inexplicable in a materialistic evolutionary model.  In this and the next two blog articles, I’ll summarize the three ID evidences that I believe are the most significant: (1) the inability random mutations to fuel naturalistic evolution, (2) the “irreducible complexity” of a cell, and (3) information science—the inability of material properties to create information.

The total absence of concrete evidence demonstrating how a single-celled organism could have emerged from non-living matter, that is, chemicalevolution (assumption three), is only part of the problem facing the evolutionary model of origins. In order to launch biological evolution, these tiny life forms would then have to evolve into increasingly complex, multi-celled organisms, eventually resulting in all the multiple millions of plants and animals that inhabit the earth.

For the sake of argument, let’s assume that by some extraordinary means a single-celled organism did accidentally self-assembled and emerged from non-living chemicals and was able to replicate itself. The question is would naturalistic evolution, via natural selection, seamlessly follow? Could mindless, accidental, random process ultimately account for all subsequent life on earth? Can evolution demonstrate scientifically that this occurred—or is it yet another philosophical statement about evolution? There are several scientific reasons why this scenario would have been impossible.

The second flaw in the mutation theory is that the time needed for a primitive animal to evolve into a higher animal through random mutational changes doesn’t exist. Before big bang cosmology demonstrated that the universe is finite, evolutionists could argue that an infinite universe provided all the time needed for random process to produce new kinds of animals from ancestral species. This argument is no longer tenable. Modern “super computers” have been able to simulate the trial-and-error process of natural selection through random processes. The outcome showed that the probability of evolution by chance is essentially zero—regardless of the time scale.  Astrophysicist Hugh Ross provides the necessary figures to illustrate this:

Dan Story

*   This and the other blog articles in this series are copyrighted material and may not be reproduced electronically or in print. But feel free to link this blog to your own website, blog, or Facebook. I have also developed these arguments more fully in my book The Christian Combat Manual  (AMG Publishers), and my sources are documented there.

Evolution’s third foundational assumption is the conjecture that the origin and subsequent evolution of all life on earth began with chemicalevolution. Here’s how it supposedly played out. Somehow, around 3 ½ billion years ago—at least once and by pure chance—inorganic (non-living) chemicals in some kind of alleged “prebiotic soup” reacted with sunlight, or some other energy source, in such a way that a living, self-replicating, single-celled organism emerge (called abiogenesis). This inexplicable event initiated biological evolution, and from that point on the random, accidental, trial-and error process of natural selection created all the rest of the earth’s incredibly complex and diverse plant and animal life.

Is there demonstrable scientific evidence to support this naturalistic assumption? No there isn’t. It has never been observed in nature, done in a laboratory, and there is no known evolutionary pathway by which it could be accomplished. So, once again, we can conclude that this evolutionary assumption is not a scientific fact but a philosophical statement about science.  On the other hand, there are scientific evidences that disprove it.

First, there is no known mechanism by which living organisms could have mysteriously emerged from some kind of primordial, non-living chemical soup. As said, it has never been observed in nature and—despite numerous attempts—produced in a laboratory. In fact according to biochemist Fazale Rana (and other researchers) there is no evidence that any kind of prebiotic soup ever existed; geological evidence is completely lacking. “Origin-of-life researchers,” explains Rana, “have failed to recover any geochemical remnants of prebiotic molecules—organic molecules produced by nonbiological processes.” Most origin-of-life researchers further agree that the presence of oxygen and other chemicals in the earth’s early atmosphere would have destroyed organic molecules before they could ever have evolved into living organism.

The lack of evidence for a prebiotic soup is not the most serious issue confronting the evolutionary model of the origins. Chemical “evolution” couldn’t have happened anyway. Why? Because evolution requires random mutations in DNA, and there would be no DNA to mutate in an inorganic (non-living) chemical soup!  Natural selection cannot operate unless there already exists living, self-replicating organisms. In other words, to use the term “evolution,” as in “chemical evolution,” is an oxymoron. Non-living chemicals, according to the principles of evolution, can’t evolve!  I like the way former Baylor University professor Walter Bradley put it: ”Until molecules are formed and arranged in a cell-like structure, there is no reproduction on which natural selection might work. . . .Claims by atheistic scientist that evolution/natural selection is ‘blind and undirected with no purpose’ are nothing more than philosophy masquerading as scientific fact.”

A third crucial factor that would have prevented life from emerging from non-life is that the earth is not old enough for even the simplest organism to emerge out of some kind of alleged prebiotic soup—even if it did exist. Statistically, it’s impossible—even within conventional geological perimeters for the age of the earth. The late renowned British mathematician and astronomer, Sir Fred Hoyle, estimates the possibility of life emerging from non-life by random processes as 10^40,000. He provides an illustration to help make senses of such overwhelming odds. He likened it to the same possibility as a tornado “sweeping through a junkyard” and, when the debris settled, there sat an intact Boeing 747! Elsewhere he calculated the probability of life emerging from non-life by pure chance as equivalent 10⁵⁰  blind people all solving a Rubik’s Cube puzzle at the same time!

Dan Story

 *  This and the other blogs in this series are copyrighted material and may not be reproduced electronically or in print. But feel free to link this blog to your own website, blog, or Facebook. I have also developed these arguments more fully in my book The Christian Combat Manual  (AMG Publishers), and my sources are documented there.

The second of evolution’s five foundational assumptions is that the matter and energy exploding from the big bang self-organized—by pure chance—into a precisely structured yet incredibly complex universe, which eventually birthed the earth. But can the theory be demonstrated scientifically—or, like the first assumption (“something came from nothing”), is it a philosophical statement about science? If the latter is true, we have yet another reason to reject naturalistic evolution and to consider the only other alternative—creation by intelligence with purpose (design).

There are two obstacles to the evolutionary paradigm that the order and design observable in the universe evolved out of chaos and disorder in the aftermath of the big bang. First is the fact that there are no know laws of physics that explain how this could have happened, which is why many secular astrophysicists and cosmologists opt for the “multi-universe” theory. (We saw in the previous blog article that there is absolutely no scientific evidence to support this theory). The second problem is the inability of the evolutionary scenario to explain what is called the Anthropic Principle.  

The Anthropic Principle points out that the entire universe was “fine-tuned” from the very beginning of its existence to support live on earth.  Depending on the researcher, there are several dozen fundamental constants, precise physical parameters, in place throughout the universe that are essential not only for the universe to exist, but for life to exist on earth. In particular, if the physics of the universe differed even minutely, life on earth would be impossible.  A few examples include:

1.    If the structure of the atom differed in terms of ratio of the masses of protons to electrons, molecules could not form.

2.    If the force of gravity slowed the expansion of the universe even slightly (1 part in 10⁶⁰), it would have been impossible for galaxies and our solar system to have formed.

3.    If the speed of light were slightly faster or slower, other constants in the universe would be altered, making any kind of life impossible.

4.    If the centrifugal force of planets rotating around the sun did not balance exactly with gravitational forces, the planets would not remain in orbit.

5.    If the sun were much larger or closer, water would boil away and the earth would be too hot to support life. If the sun was farther away or much smaller, the earth would be a frozen wasteland.

6.    If the chemical composition of the earth’s atmosphere were different, the atmosphere would be poisonous to virtually all life forms.

7.    If the sea-to-land mass ratio, depth of the oceans, and the earth’s cloud cover were different, the earth’s ability to store and release heat would change dramatically.

These are only a few of the many necessary constants in place throughout the universe and here on earth. If any of these parameters were absent or altered even slightly, the universe as we know it would not exist—nor, of course, life on earth. How did all these fundamental constants come to be in such perfect equilibrium? Secular cosmologists argue that the order, structure, and apparent design in the universe and here on earth are merely a cosmic accident, a product of pure chance.  But what is the chance of that happening accidentally? Oxford physicist Roger Penrose calculated the odds against “all these constants having just the right values are one followed by trillions and trillions more zeros than there are elementary particles in the universe.” In other words, the chance of all these constants accidentally being in place is—impossible.

The only other explanation for the existence of a universe perfectly fine-tuned for life on earth is an intelligent, intentional designer—creation. It appears infinitely more probably that the universe was designed from the beginning to sustain life—in particular, life on earth. It is irrational and statistically outrageous to assume that all of the fine-tuned factors that fashioned and maintains an orderly universe, and resulted in life on earth, just accidentally fell into place. If the cosmos were designed, there must be a Designer—God. This is exactly what the Bible reveals. Proverbs 3:19-20 and 8:22-30 clearly testify that the beauty and order of the earth was the product of intentional design by God’s eternal wisdom.  Moreover, Scripture further testifies that this Designer has reveal Himself through creation (Rom. 1:20). Thus, the Anthropic Principle has become one of the most compelling arguments for the existence of a personal creator God.

Dan Story

www.danstory.net

*  This and the other blogs in this series are copyrighted material and cannot be reproduced electronically or in print. But feel free to link this blog to your own website, blog, or Facebook. I have also developed these arguments more fully in my book The Christian Combat Manual (AMG Publishers), and my sources are documented there.

My argument is this. There are five foundational assumptions of naturalistic evolution, and the entire fabric of the theory (which evolutionists tout as fact) depends on their veracity. In this study, I’m not concerned about theological issues or the age of the earth. Rather, I’m looking at the issue strictly from a scientific viewpoint. These five evolutionary assumptions are: (1) something (i.e. the universe) came from nothing, (2) order evolved from disorder, (3) life emerged from non-life, (4) complex life evolved from an ancestral single-celled organism, and (5) transitional fossils demonstrate the “fact” of evolution. If any one of these five assumption is fallacious, evolution as a valid scientific paradigm crumbles. This blog will explore the first assumption.

Until Big Bang Cosmology became the prevailing view for the origin of the universe within the scientific community, evolutionists assumed that the universe was eternal. This view made a complete about face several decades ago when the so-called big bang confirmed that the universe had a “beginning.” Scientists now believe the universe is finite, and that prior to the big band there was no space, time, matter, or energy. Nothing existed.

Although this view is not far from a creation model of origins, advocates for creation by design believe that something did exist prior to the big bang—God. So the issue is not so much whetherthe big bang occurred—but how it occurred.  (And for some creationists, when it occurred.) In other words, “who lit the fuse?” Where did the matter, energy, and laws of physics originate that initiated the big bang? The fact is there are no known laws of physics that explain how matter or energy could have arisen spontaneously out of nothing. Physics has only proven that out of nothing comes nothing. This is in perfect agreement with the biblical model of origins. The Bible reveals that God spoke the cosmos into existence out of nothing(See Ps. 33:6; Heb.11:3).

As to be expected, naturalistic evolutionists have suggested several possible explanations for how something can come from nothing. Many contend that some unknown law of physics could explain how something can come from nothing (an obvious argument from silence). Others claim that quantum physics allow for uncaused events to occur at a subatomic level; matter could suddenly materializing spontaneously out of vacuum fluctuations. The problem here, as philosopher William Lane Crag  explained (who has written and debated extensively on cosmological issues), is that a quantum vacuum is not a total vacuum, as most people imagine it. Rather “it’s a sea of fluctuating energy, an arena of violent activity that has a rich physical structure and can be described by physical laws.”

And then there is the imaginary, metaphysical speculations of secular astrophysicists and cosmologists, which move the debate far beyond known laws of physics. The “multiple-universe” (or “multiverse”) theory, for example, imagines an unending series of universes being generated by an unending number of big bangs. The idea is that sooner or later a universe would have popped into existence by mere chance that was “finely tuned for life.”  Our universe just happens to be it! Of course this is merely wild-eyed speculation. There is not a shred of scientific evidence to suggest the existence of other universes. It is unobservable and unprovable—more science fiction than science. Furthermore, the multiple-universe scenario only pushes the problem back a notch. Who made the laws of physics, matter, and energy that allowed the universe-generating machine to come into existence in the first place?

The answer could only be a creating agent that exists apart from, transcends, the universe. Only a self-existing intelligent Designer, one with will and intent (thus a personal Being), could account for a universe that came into existence out of nothing. A creation model of origins is consistent with the known laws of physics, in particular the First and Second Laws of thermodynamics, as well as big bang cosmology. Together, they confirm that the universe had a beginning and, since no effect can be greater than its cause, what caused the universe to be is transcendent, eternal, personal, and vastly more powerful than the universe itself.  This describes the theistic God of Scripture. ©

I hope you found this blog article helpful, and I always enjoy comments. My next blog will explain why evolution’s second fundamental assumption—“order evolved from disorder”—is likewise a philosophical statement aboutscience, not a scientific statement of fact.

 Dan Story

www.danstory.net

*  This and the other blog articles in this series are copyrighted material and cannot be reproduced electronically or in print. However, please feel free to link these blog articles to your own website, blog, or Facebook. If you would like to explore these issues further, see my book The Christian Combat Manual(AMG Publishers).

This blog concludes my series on the “Ten Commandments of Apologetics,” adapted from my book, Engaging the Closed Minded. The last commandment, number ten, may well be the most important one of all. In my next blog, we’ll look at “evolution’s five fundamental assumptions—are they scientific or philosophical?”

Most non-Christians have little knowledge of the Bible, and few have read even a portion of it. They seldom ask difficult questions or need in-depth answers. In fact it’s best to keep our responses as simple and specific as possible.

In many cases, unbelievers are so ignorant of Christianity that they have a hard time even articulating their arguments—let alone offer any evidence for their beliefs. For example, when non-Christians claim the Bible is “full of contradictions” or “The Bible is unreliable because it’s been recopied so many times during the centuries,” they are seldom able—when asked—to point to one such alleged contradiction or to explain why the Bible is unreliable despite its history of transmission. (Apologists know it’s actually just the opposite. With thousands of ancient manuscripts to compare, scholars can pinpoint accurately what the original Bible documents said!)

This is not to say there are no astute non-Christians with sophisticated arguments. But most of the people Christians encounter are friends, relatives, co-workers, fellow students, and neighbors. Their criticisms are usually the product of anti-Christian sentiments that they absorb from the print media, TV and movies, secular colleges and high schools, and so on. More often than not, critics are merely parroting what they hear in popular culture. Seldom are their criticisms well-thought-out arguments.

If you do encounter questions you can’t answer, or arguments you can’t refute, admit it. Our responses to all challenges must be honest. Not having a response at the moment, however, is not the same as saying there is no response. Point this out. Assure the unbeliever that there is an answer to his challenge and that you will find it. This provides an opportunity to meet another time.

If you won’t be seeing that person again, research the answer anyway. Next time you’ll have a response, if the issue arises.

Shortly after I began my apologetic ministry in the mid-eighties, two Mormon missionaries knocked on my door, and I invited them in. The discussion did not go well for them, and they asked if they could return with their “superior.” I agreed, and the four of us met about a week later. As the three were leaving the second time, one of them turned to me and said, “You know, you’re the nicest person we’ve ever talked to!”

People who know me well chuckle when they hear this story because I have a reputation for being rather blunt and outspoken. In other words, their flattering comment does not accurately reflect my normal behavior when engaged in, say, a lively discussion (as  C. S. Lewis put it) on “a tough bit of theology.”  In other words, I was being polite and respectful as any Christian should be when sharing with unbelievers. That’s how we’re supposed to behave.

But their comment brings to mind how rude and self-righteous Christians can be. One can only imagine how many stories cult evangelists can tell about unfriendly, belligerent Christians. Part of the reason for this, as I believe the late Dr. Walter Martin aptly put it, is because the average Christian can be tied up like a pretzel in about five minutes by the average cultist. When that happens, it’s not surprising that Christians become frustrated, angry, and vent with hostility. This is why all Christians should be trained in practical apologetics.

The lesson here is that being discourteous or rude does not create an environment that encourages the work of the Holy Spirit. I could have gotten frustrated, then angry, then argumentative, but that would only reinforce their conviction that Christianity is in error. When unbelievers get rude and defensive with us, don’t we assume it’s because they know they’re wrong and can’t admit it?

The primary apologetic text in the Bible is 1 Peter 3:15: “Sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense [Greek:  apologia] to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you , . . . ” Unfortunately, this is as far as some Christian apologists go. They leave out the equally important last part of the verse—and the one that creates an atmosphere where unbelievers willingly give us a fair hearing:  “yet with gentleness and reverence (emphasis mine).

Critical thinking, persuasive reasoning, and objective facts are the tools of the trade in apologetics. And for a trained apologist, it’s not difficult to thwart arguments raised by non-Christians—even sophisticated challenges. But this does not automatically result in a conversion. We may win the argument, but the unbeliever can still remain far from submitting his or her life to Christ.  Good apologetics is convincing without being aggressive or belligerent.

So, how do we defend our faith with “gentleness and reverence?” The Apostle Paul gives us the answer:

Be wise in the way you act toward outsides; make the most of every opportunity. Let you conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone (Col 4:5-6).

And the Lord’s servant must not quarrel; instead, he must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. Those who oppose him he must gently instruct, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to knowledge of the truth (2 Tim. 2:24-25).

By following this advice, Christian apologists will seem not only interested in sharing truth, but genuinely interested in the unbeliever as a person. Which we should be. (c)

Dan Story

www.danstory.net

The Lord has charged us with the responsibility to evangelize the lost (Acts 1:8) and to defend our faith (1 Pet. 3:15; Jude 3). In order to do this, however, we must be able to do three things:

This is defensive apologetics. It entails being prepared to answer the challenges and objections unbelievers raise with regard to Christianity, as a world and life view.

Whereas “defensive” apologetics is defending Christianity, “offensive” apologetics is challenging the unbelievers’ beliefs. This entails two steps. On the one hand, it is crucial that we know what an unbeliever believes. An analogy can be made with missions. Before a missionary goes into a foreign culture, he or she learns as much as they can about the culture: religious beliefs, the language, social customs, moral behaviors, religious and cultural taboos, and so on. Such insights help a missionary to discern the best way to initiate an evangelistic strategy.

In a similar fashion, Christian apologists must learn what unbelievers believe. This is especially necessary for apologists witnessing to non-Christian religions and Christian cults. The lesson here is to be prepared. Do your homework. Learn what you can about the religious and secular worldviews you are likely to encounter in the neighborhood, at work or school, and in social activities.

The second step is to apply an offensive apologetic tactic referred to as the “Socratic method.” It entails asking specific questions that puts the burden of proof on the unbelievers; challenges them to explain and justify their position on the issue at hand (e.g. “The Bible is unreliable because it’s been translated so many times over the centuries!” “Evolution is a fact of science!” “All religions are equal; they are just different paths to the same God!”). The idea is that once unbelievers conclude for themselves that their assumptions about Christianity (or perceptions about their own non-Christian worldview) cannot be substantiated, they will be more willing to seriously consider the Christian perspective. In a later blog, I will summarize how to employ the Socratic method—or you can read my book Engaging the Closed Minded,where I thoroughly describe this apologetic tactic. (c)

Dan Story

This means two things. First, as we saw in a previous blog, the ultimate goal of apologetics is evangelistic. The purpose is to bring a person as quickly and efficiently as possible to the point where her or she renounces their existing, non-Christian worldview and accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. In this sense, apologetics is “pre-evangelism.

Second, like all missionary work, apologetics involves seeking unbelievers on their own turf. In Romans 10:14-15 Paul writes:

How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in?  And how can they believe in one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? And how can they preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!”

And in verses 15:20-21 Paul adds:

It has always been my ambition to preach the gospel where Christ was not known, so that I would not be building on someone else’s foundation. Rather, as it is written: “Those who were not told about him will see, and those who have not heard will understand.”

Paul reminds us in these two passages that (1) unbelievers must hear and receive the Gospel before they can be saved, and (2) Christian evangelism (and apologetics as pre-evangelism) should seek new territory.

It’s up to Christians to bring unbelievers saving knowledge of Jesus Christ, wherever they are. Paul set the example. He sought Jews in the synagogues and Gentiles in the market place. He argued with the Greek philosophers before the Areopagus in pagan Athens (Acts 17). Indeed, Paul traveled much of the known world in his quest to share our Lord Jesus Christ.

In 1 Cor. 9:19-22, Paul provides guidelines on how an evangelist/ missionary/apologist interacts with unbelievers in order to get a fair hearing for the Gospel.

       Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. To the Jew I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself are not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law [Gentiles] I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some.

In Acts 16:1-3 Paul puts this teaching into practice. In this instance Paul circumcised Timothy so that he would be accepted among the Jews—although Timothy was not obligated to be circumcised (also see Acts 21:17-26). Paul was willing to conform to Jewish ritual in order to witness to the Jews—as long as it didn’t compromise the Gospel or violate biblical principles.

Likewise, we too can be apologetic missionaries. Our neighborhoods, work places, and social clubs are fertile missionary fields. We can invite unbelievers to church, home Bible studies, and into our homes. Like Paul, we can leave our comfort zone and seek unbelievers in “new territory.” This may include door-to-door or street corner evangelism, college classrooms, New Age fairs, and “open forum” Bible studies designated specifically for unbelievers, such as used by Search Ministries.

Our goal in all cases is to present the Christian worldview by responding to misconceptions about Christianity, by answering tough questions, and by demonstrating the relevance of Christianity in a post-Christian world. As Francis Schaeffer said, “Apologetics should not be merely an academic subject, a new kind of scholasticism. It should be thought out and practiced in the rough and tumble of living contact with the present generation (The God Who Is There). In sum, apologetics, as a species of evangelism and missionary work, means that we seek opportunities to share the Gospel and to defend our faith, as Paul says, “In season and out of season” (2 Tim. 4:2).  (c)

Dan Story

(The full presentation of the Ten Commandments of Apologetics can be found in my book, Engaging the Closed Minded—Kregel Publications).

This blog focuses on the sixth “commandment” for doing good apologetics.

6.         Avoid Distractions:  Apologists encounter two varieties of distractions.

Lifestyle:  Unless the unbeliever makes it an issue, don’t get distracted by a person’s lifestyle. Apologetics deals with intellectual obstacles, not moral issues. That a man or woman are living together out of wedlock should not prevent us from sharing Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. Nor should we let it interfere with an apologetic discussion.

I was once discussing this particular point in a class when one of my students raised her hand and asked, “I have a relative who is a homosexual. Every time I witness to him, we eventually come to this issue, and I just can’t get beyond it. What do I do?”

My answer was to go around it. God will deal with moral issues once a person sees their need to become a Christian. It is the Holy Spirit who convicts people of sin (John 16:8). He will show unbelievers’ those areas in their lives that need to be changed—and then empower them to make the necessary changes—once He calls them into the family of Christ.

Sanctification is a process that begins after we’re saved—it’s not a requirement before we’re saved. A past life of sin is not an obstacle to faith, but our condemnation and threats of divine punishment can be. Jesus came to heal the “sick” (sinners) not the healthy (Mark 2:17). One would not need Christ if he or she weren’t a sinner.

Peripheral Issues:  The second distraction to avoid when engaging in apologetic discussions is peripheral issues—issues that are not apologetic in nature or do not further the cause of evangelism. Some unbelievers like to argue just for the sake of arguing and are unwilling to critically examine the decisive issues: Who is Jesus Christ? Is salvation only through Him? Is the Bible true? These people characteristically interrupt, change the subject, wander off on ridiculous rabbit trails, or ask a question but won’t let you answer it before they jump to another question.

A favorite tactic is to argue over some inane matter that has nothing to do with whether Christianity is true or not, such as the death penalty. Christians involved in cult evangelism frequently encounter this ploy. In order to avoid discussing relevant issues, many cultists prefer to argue over soul sleep, blood atonement, or some other irrelevant dogma.

How do we respond to these individuals? By controlling the conversation. Keep them on tract by constantly returning to the issue at hand. Try to move the conversation to “who is Jesus Christ.” Point out that you are willing to listen to them, but they in turn must give you the same respectful attention—or there is no use continuing the discussion. Insist they let you respond to one issue before they raise another one. If they try to dominant the conversation, point out that a conversation is two-sided or it’s a lecture. Again, control the conversation.

Next week we’ll see how to apply evangelistic and missionary techniques in apologetic encounters.  I develop all ten “commandments” more fully in my book, Engaging the Closed Minded. By the way, if you would like to receive automatic notices of blog postings, click on “subscribe” at the bottom of my blog page. I’ve been told that Foxfire works better than Google when using links. (c)

Dan Story

In my next blog, we’ll look at more of the Ten Commandments of Apologetics.

Dan Story