My Thoughts on The Ken Ham versus Bill Nye Debate

I'm sure most of you probably heard about the debate between Answers in Genesis founder Ken Ham and Bill Nye, "The Science Guy", which took place on February 4th. A lot of you have probably even watched it online. If you haven’t (shame on you), you can do so Here - and I strongly recommend that you do. As in, go there right now and don't finish reading this post until you have.

Are we good? Good.

My work schedule prevented me watching the debate live, but I was able to see it the next day. Since then, quite a few people have asked me for my thoughts about it, so I decided I might as well write up a post on my opinions and put it up here. Enjoy! : )

In talking to people about the debate, one of the most common things I've heard is disappointment that Ken Ham wasn't bold enough or aggressive enough in his presentation. Honestly, I was floored the first time I heard this. Set aside the fact that, in general, accusing Ken Ham of not being bold is roughly equal to calling Ronald Reagan a liberal; looking specifically at the scenario of the debate, I saw no difference. Ken Ham was assertive in his presentation and gave no ground to Bill Nye's arguments, but he did so while remaining completely respectful and professional about it.
The trouble is, there is a very fine line between "Bold" and "In-your-face," and all too often people with good intentions and a lot of passion inadvertently cross that line, making themselves seem extremely obnoxious. When that happens, people stop listening. Proverbs 16 tells us that pleasant words are persuasive, and 1 Peter tells us to defend our faith with gentleness and respect. Ken Ham's presentation and conduct were pleasant, polite, gentle, respectful, and considerate... and I'm not the only one who thinks so. Even atheists who watched the debate have posted comments on Facebook and Twitter commending Mr. Ham for his professional and polite behavior.

I found this to be especially refreshing when put in contrast to Mr. Nye's attitude of mockery and condescension. I must admit that I was a bit bewildered by his multiple insinuations directed not just towards creationists specifically, but towards Kentuckians in general, telling them in one case that they should be very concerned that no university in their state offered such-and-such a degree. As if just having the Creation Museum and (in the near future) the Ark Encounter in their state has somehow already set them on a path of scientific decline. Mr. Nye is not the first to suggest that the mere presence of AiG's facilities on Kentucky soil is having detrimental effects on the state, and I am certain he will not be the last, but honestly it's a very shoddy argument--if it can even be considered an argument at all.

I was also very annoyed by Mr. Nye's incessant referrals to "Ken Ham's creation model," "Ken Ham's flood," etc, as if Mr. Ham is the first person in history to believe these things, or just makes them up while the rest of us fall blindly into line as his little cult followers. In the first place, Mr. Nye should review his history books: mankind believed in a divine creation first, long before anyone ever thought of evolution, and that belief has never disappeared despite any and all efforts to extinguish it. And while naturalist theories of origins are not as new as many people believe, they’re still the new kids on the block by comparison.

Furthermore, although Ken Ham has definitely become a figurehead of the creation science and apologetics movement, it’s not because it’s all his idea. With all due respect and admiration for Mr. Ham, I would believe in biblical creation with or without him. My belief is dependent on the word of God, not on anything Ken Ham or anyone else says or does. Yes, Ken Ham has been an immense encouragement to me in my beliefs and ministry; I have learned more from him about science, theology, witnessing, and apologetics than I can say, and I know many others can say the same thing. But Ken Ham is not the reason I believe in a literal six days, a roughly-6,000-year-old earth, or a global flood. I believe it because the God Who cannot lie said it, clearly and explicitly.

It was obvious from statements made throughout the debate that Mr. Nye enjoys thinking of himself as “a reasonable man” whose beliefs are based entirely on logic and facts rather than faith. This became very ironic when, in response to one of Mr. Nye’s repeated assertions that creationism is detrimental to scientific progress and discovery, Ken Ham pointed out various scientists responsible for wonderful inventions and discoveries—such as the MRI machine—who were also devout young-earth creationists. Now, a man who was truly reasonable would look at this evidence and rightly deduce that creationism doesn’t actually impede progress and discovery after all. But that was not Mr. Nye’s response. He completely ignored this devastating rebuttal of his assertion and kept right on repeating it, going so far as to say that if creationism is allowed to propagate, science in the United States will deteriorate to the point that we lose our position as a world power and a leader in technology.

His patriotism is commendable, but once again, he needs to check his history books. America rose from being a collection of half-starved colonies to being a major world power long before the ideas of evolution were generally accepted. Granted, not all of those who helped found and build this country were creationists or even Christians, but those people were the minority. The United States was founded on Christian principles by a majority of people who believed the Bible to be the inerrant word of God. So how is it that those same beliefs are, according to Mr. Nye, going to be America’s downfall? It would seem he is not quite as reasonable as he likes to believe.

When you watch the debate, make sure you stick around for the Q&A at the end. In my opinion, it does more to reveal the true nature of the overall creation/evolution debate than any other part of the production. I won’t discuss the whole thing here—this post is way too long already—but I will point out a couple of things that really jumped out at me.

1.  Throughout the debate, but particularly towards the end, Mr. Nye begged Ken Ham for examples of the creation model of origins accurately predicting a scientific discovery. Besides ignoring the order and function in the world that could not exist were nature all that exists, Mr. Nye is exposing an enormous blind spot in his ideas. He can’t see the forest for the trees, as it were. The fact that we can predict anything, the fact that we can know anything, the fact that laws of nature and logic and physics exist, can only be explained if the Bible is, in fact, true! If nature were all there was, there would be no laws of logic. If the laws of nature were the only force governing the matter in the universe, that matter could never have randomly arranged itself via chaotic processes into orderly, functional forms. The only reason science is possible is because there is an order, a design, and unchanging laws of nature and logic, set into place by an orderly, creative, unchanging and logical Creator.

2.  In response to the question “What would make you change your mind?” Mr. Nye stated the following: “We would need one piece of evidence. We would need the fossil that swam from one layer [of sedimentary rock] to the next. We would need evidence that the universe is not expanding. We would need evidence that the stars appear to be far away but they’re not. We would need evidence that rock layers can form in 4,000 years instead of an extraordinary amount... Bring on any of those things and you would change me immediately.”

That sounds great on the surface—Mr. Nye, that “reasonable man” he loves to call himself, is just following the evidence where it leads him, open to the possibility of being wrong—but if you take his statement apart and look closely it’s a different story.

“We would need the fossil that swam from one layer to the next.” This deserves a discussion unto itself, one we don’t have time for here. For now, suffice it to say that there are fish fossilized across multiple layers of sediment, not to mention polystrate trees that, while they aren’t living creatures that would try to swim out of the layers burying them, certainly won’t last for thousands or millions of years to be fossilized gradually.

“We would need evidence that the universe is not expanding. We would need evidence that the stars appear to be far away but they’re not.” These are both very telling statements. Both the universe’s expansion and the distances of the stars are well-established, so by implying that one cannot believe in both these and in creationism, Mr. Nye is bringing back the age-old accusation, “Creationists deny the facts of science!” The truth is just the opposite. There is no reason whatsoever that a young-earth (biblical) creationist cannot believe that the universe is expanding or that the stars are very far away. The Bible itself alludes to the universe’s expansion when it describes God “stretching out the heavens” and there are solid scientific answers to the question of how starlight reaches the earth within a 6,000 year timeframe, even from such great distances.

“We would need evidence that rock layers can form in 4,000 years instead of an extraordinary amount.” The Mt. Saint Helens eruption of 1980 provided all the evidence any “reasonable man” should need to believe that. Rock layers were formed over periods of hours, days, and weeks that, according to evolutionary timescales, should have taken thousands of years or more to appear—irrefutable proof that, given the right catastrophic conditions, it only takes a little while.

So why, then, has Mr. Nye not “changed immediately” as he said he would if given this evidence? The answer is simple: his problem with creationism is not an intellectual problem, or an ignorance problem. It is a heart problem. The truth of creation necessarily means the existence of a Creator. The existence of a Creator equals moral accountability for the creation, and that is something that few people are willing to accept. Evolution is not the problem, it is a symptom, and a shelter that lost souls can run to for assurance of safety without having to acknowledge the lordship of Christ.

I would encourage all of you to pray earnestly for Mr. Nye, that his heart would be softened and that he would be willing to swallow his pride and acknowledge the Creator and Savior Who loves him very much.

*

So what? What did this debate (which has been referred to as everything from “The Debate of the Century” to “Scopes 2”) really accomplish?

Quite a lot, my friends, quite a lot. Of course there is the tremendous outreach value it has had and is still having. In addition to the 900 who actually attended the event live, millions have watched online and on the new DVD. Major news channels broadcasted coverage and excerpts of the debate. One way or another, untold millions have seen and heard a skillful presentation of the evidence for creation and of the gospel, the reason creation matters at all.

Additionally, a topic that has been challenging to get discussed in public forums has suddenly hit the mainstream and gone completely viral. The debate was the number one trending topic on Facebook and Twitter for several hours before and after it took place. Countless blogs and other social media pages have hosted discussions and subsequent debates. Personally, I have had total strangers hear me mention the debate and want to talk to me about it. This is a current event, a hot topic that people are interested in and want to talk about. Don’t let that go to waste! Christians, an incredible opening has been created for us. Watch the debate, then go out and start talking. Don’t waste this awesome opportunity.


Questions, thoughts, comments? I'd love to hear your take on the debate and get some discussion going. (hint-hint)

Proclaiming the Original "New Feminism"

Mainstream Western culture has been spewing its feminist mantra of gender equality, abortion on demand, cessation of discrimination, and women's liberation from degrading practices such as marriage, motherhood, etc., for generations now. To anyone who's been observing the cultural trends - couples having children only to turn them over to be raised by daycare workers and schoolteachers, rampant teen and/or out-of-wedlock pregnancies, annual abortion rates sustained in the thousands, and the overwhelming pressure on girls to find fulfillment not in being wives and mothers but in being career women - it would appear that the FemiNazi movement (to borrow the words of Rush Limbaugh) has established a pretty solid foothold.
Lately, though, I've been seeing signs that maybe feminism's foothold isn't quite as solid as the feminists have hoped, that maybe their runaway campaign is losing some of its steam. It's got me hopeful that maybe we're not quite finished and down for the count yet. Maybe we still have the juice for another upswing in the cycle.
What's the giveaway?
It's called "New Feminism". Here's a very basic rundown of the idea:
Many professing feminists are beginning to discover that they actually gain a greater sense of emotional, spiritual, and physical fulfillment from being homemakers and even stay-at-home moms than they do from being professional, career women. Some are putting forward the idea that the physical differences between men and women are connected to a difference in the roles in society and family life that they are each best suited to fill.
Wikipedia's article on New Feminism has this to say:

In order for men and women to be truly free, New Feminists assert that they must act in accordance with the way they are psychologically and emotionally structured to be as sexed human persons. Philosophy and Religion, then, are essential components in the search for how men and women should and ought to act for "a higher truth or good", not just how they want or can act. New Feminists assert that people must remember God and purpose to recognize that life, in some way, is a gift and not a mere thing which a person can claim as his or her exclusive property.

And...

New Feminists claim that other feminisms are preoccupied with "power", domination and positions of visible "authority" and claim that those are as masculine and faulty. Dismayed by what they see as the bitterness, hatred, or retribution of many feminists against men or other women for current or past injustices, they argue that men and women should cooperate with one another in interpersonal communion. This means giving of themselves in mutual service and love.

Now, there are some flaws in this secular interpretation of the ideology, naturally. But at its core, its structure is remarkably similar to the way the Bible outlines the separate and distinct roles of men and women.
Initially upon hearing things like the above article, I am sorely tempted to gasp and exclaim, wide-eyed, something dripping with snark and sarcasm such as "What?! No, it can't be! Who would ever have thought this?! Well, I mean, who other than the untold thousands of stay-at-home wives and moms out there who've been saying it for years, right? Other than those kooky fringe people, who would have thought it?"
Sarcasm aside, though, I think there's a different approach that Christians need to be taking to this.
In this particular case, there's really no getting around the "told-you-so" factor, whether we're being sarcastic about it or not. If we're going to engage people in conversation about this at all, we're going to have to, at the very least, acknowledge the fact that conservative Christians have been telling people to live this way all along.
But, rather than be snarky about it, I propose we use it to present and uphold the validity of scripture and God's outline for living. Because the fact is, the Bible has been saying this from the very beginning. It presents a blueprint for meaningful, cooperative, peaceful, and selfless living that sounds remarkably like this seemingly "new" discovery of a more fulfilling way of life.
Let me ask a question: How many of us have heard the argument that "the Bible may have been relevant for a certain time period, or a particular culture, but its ideas don't work in a modern society or with our culture"? Sadly, even many Christians have discounted parts of scripture because they don't believe that those parts are still "relevant".
But, to quote pastor and writer Scott Brown, "God's ways are trans-cultural. They transcend culture." What these "New Feminists" are actually discovering, whether they realize it or not, is that God's ways still work. They're still relevant, even today, even in modern "post-Christian" culture.
This is an incredible opportunity for Christians to present the gospel to people who may have been completely closed off to it before. If the Bible is right about the best way to find fulfillment and contentment in your life, even millenia after being written, might it not be worth listening to in other areas of life as well? Might we not consider giving it a bit more credence, rather than simply writing it off as outdated mythology?
If we can engage people in conversation about this topic, we will have an opportunity to open the scriptures to them, counting on God's promise that His word will not return void. As the culture shifts and we are able to once again discuss an idea like that of women staying at home without automatically being written off as fringe lunatics, those of us who are keeping head up and eyes open will, I believe, find abundant opportunities to give account of the hope that is in us.
Yes, it can be terribly infuriating, like a cliche scenario out of a sitcom - one character offers an idea to the other, who mocks it and declares that it will never work, but a moment later comes back and presents Character 1's idea as his own. Traditional Feminism couldn't offer what women were truly searching for, so when women found their desires answered somewhere else, Feminism had to sweep in and take the credit for it by changing their tune and touting it as a "new discovery". It's far easier than taking their medicine and admitting that they were wrong.
The secular world is still going to have the instinctive desire to reject God's word, because they are lost. The notion of their "new discovery" being borrowed from the Bible is going to be very offensive to them. That's just the way the cookie crumbles.
But that doesn't change the truth of it, or change what we have to do as Christians. We must take advantage of this opportunity to help people understand that every real truth comes from God. The Bible has the answers - and it's had them for a lot longer than the feminist movement has been around. What is considered a "revolutionary idea" in secular culture is old news to those who believe the Bible.
So, should you happen to come upon a discussion on the topic of New Feminism, I hope you'll graciously weigh in with a bit of Biblical truth on what is, essentially, the same subject... the only difference being that ours is the original version. ; )

Race isn't an issue - so stop making it one!

After all we've been through here in the United States, you'd think we could safely consider ourselves past the issue of 'race'. Unfortunately for all involved, however, it seems we just can't manage to let go.
A few weeks ago I saw part of a televised interview featuring a lovely young actress who, though I personally haven't seen any of her performances to know, has apparently met with a good bit of success in Hollywood. The woman hosting the interview asked this young lady to share with the audience what it was like having achieved this kind of success in spite of the challenges presented by her being "black and a woman". The actress responded with a long discourse on other women who have overcome these or similar obstacles before her, and how much their courage inspired her.
I was floored.
Don't get me wrong: I am painfully aware that there are still people who maintain strong racial hostilities. They are out there, and I'm not under any delusions about that. But honestly, can't we admit that an interview question like that is severely outdated? It isn't as if this young lady is the first female to really become successful in the movie industry, and it isn't as if she's the first dark-skinned person to become successful in the movie industry either. I'm not trying to downplay her success, but if pop culture is really so concerned with eliminating the 'race issue', then why in the world don't they let it go?

Of course, as annoying as instances like I just described are, I suppose it can be expected from the secular world. When your cushy western lifestyle takes care of all your needs and wants for you, I guess you have to find something you can still fret about.
What is completely inexcusable, though, is the racial segregation still taking place within Christianity. I'm not talking about the "Whites on one side, blacks on the other!" kind of segregation. I'm talking about Christians behaving as if so-called "white" and "black" are any different at all, period.
As many of you know, I am signed up with several different Christian publishing houses as an Advance Reader. They send me new releases, I read them, and then review them online. Recently I was scanning the Available Books list of a large and well-known Christian publishing house when I came across a book geared towards single mothers, offering advice on how to raise "a successful black man".
And last week, I was in a Christian book store and saw another title offering financial advice "for the African-American family".
The question I just have to ask is this: if we don't want race to be an issue, why are we still treating people of different colors as if they're different in any other way? Why should your skin color have any affect on the way you raise your children or manage your finances any more than your hair color does? God's laws, principles, and instructions are absolute, all-inclusive, and, last I checked, don't come with skin color-specific caveats.
Now, I don't want to be one of those platitudinous people who assume expressions reminiscent of Renaissance martyrs and proclaim that "I don't see color when I look at people!". When I look at you I do see the color of your skin, just like I see the color of your hair and your eyes, whether you're male or female, whether you're tall or short, etc. Your skin color is part of what makes you a unique individual. I just don't happen to believe that it's what makes you like or unlike me, because as a Christian I know that we're all of one race and one blood.
Acts 17:26 says "From one man He (God) created all the nations throughout the whole earth..."
Every human alive on the planet is descended from Adam and Eve - all of the DNA code for every genetic trait there is was present in their bodies when they were created. Jesus Christ didn't have to die on the cross as a black person and then again as a white person and then yet again as an Asian person, He died as a human, and that covered everybody!
The secular culture tries to put everybody in a box of one kind or another, and their packaging system defies the imagination with its boxes-within-boxes and boxes-linked-to-other-boxes. I get so tired of surveys, job applications, and other official forms demanding that I assign myself to one of their many "race" boxes. When "Other" is given as an option, I check it and write in "Human". When that isn't an option, I'm rather stuck. According to their perspective, I'm a mix of two different 'races', but I'm not going to denounce one whole side of my family just to fit into one of their pre-made boxes, so what exactly do they expect me to do? And if they're the ones making such a noise over how much race doesn't matter, why are they so insistent to know what my "race" is, anyway? It's a system that just doesn't work except to keep non-issues alive and festering needlessly.
We as Christians should be leading the fight to make race truly a non-issue. And I don't mean getting all warm-and-fuzzified over someone who 'overcomes' their race to be a success. I mean really, truly, believing and showing others that there is only one physical race. The only race-like distinction that the Bible makes is between the two spiritual races of Believers and Unbelievers - no division according to skin color.
This isn't an issue that Christians talk about very much, at least not in a Biblical context. I've talked to Christians who have never stopped and taken the time to think about what the Bible actually says on the topic. Tragically, I've talked to professing Christians who harbor strong racial prejudices. Both situations sadden me greatly. Living in a culture that's constantly spewing humanist blather on the subject, it can be difficult to step back, take a breath, and prayerfully seek out God's answers. Believe me, I know. I struggle with it too. But we have got to find our feet, step up, and take a stand on this. The Bible offers the only solid answer to the question of why racism is wrong in the first place. All anyone else can come up with is a lot of warm-fuzzy jargon that doesn't even make sense within the context of humanist ideology.
We have the answer to the race question. Let's not waste it.

Please, Don't Insult My Intelligence

This afternoon I was looking through this month's issue of National Geographic Magazine and came across this:

The computer makes it hard to see, but just to the left of center in the photo is a little circle outlined with a dotted white line. That portion has been enlarged in the circle you see just right of center. According to the caption, that dark-colored smudge in the enlarged circle is a remnant of "feathers up to eight inches long". At top right you'll see an artist's concept of a tyrannosaur-like dinosaur covered in furry, fluffy feathers.
Now, first of all, while I am not a paleontologist and don't claim to have any kind of expertise in this field, I think I'm smart enough to recognize a fossilized feather when I see one.
This is a fossilized feather:

This is a fossilized feather:

Sorry, but I don't see any feathers in that NatGeo photo. Those smudges are far more likely to be collagen fibers, created during the decay process of the fossilized animal's body.

The brief writeup on the photo states that the feathers were "soft down (that) may have kept the animal toasty during a Cretaceous cold spell", not rigid feathers meant for flight. It describes the dinosaur as "a supersize chick".
I'm a little confused about the idea of "soft down" eight inches long, though. The closest thing I can think of to that is an ostrich's soft body feathers, which do get that long but would, one would think, show up in a fossil as more than a smudgy spot or two, and well enough to be defined under a term a bit more precise than "filaments" (the NatGeo writeup's word of choice).

I also have to wonder how this fits together with the new theory that dinosaurs' own methane emissions (i.e. burps and gas) caused global warming. (No, I'm not kidding. That is an actual theory, and you can even read about it in the LA Times here.) If dinosaurs went extinct during the global warming they caused between 161 and 145 million years ago, how did they have the time or foresight to evolve feathers for the Cretaceous cold spell 125 million years ago? And if they were adaptable enough to evolve feathers in time to keep from freezing to death, how did they manage to go extinct in the first place?
All that aside, the most glaring problem with the downy insulation theory is the fact that dinosaurs are reptiles and therefore, we can reasonably assume, cold blooded. If their bodies are not generating their own heat, a layer of insulation is totally pointless. If anything, it's going to have the opposite effect: keeping out the warmth that needs to be coming into the animal's body from outside.
Secondly, down only works as insulation if there is a course outer layer over it. Back to my ostrich illustration, you'll notice that an ostrich's feathers are all very soft and down-like. But the ostrich lives in the desert. The feathers help it keep cool, not warm. Even a goose-down sleeping bag is covered with an outer layer to hold the warmth in. Those of you who have raised chickens know that baby chicks (covered only with soft down) are extremely susceptible to even slightly cool temperatures, because they have no outer layer of feathers to hold in the warmth. Where is T-rex's outer layer? Shouldn't that be showing up in the fossil too?

I could go on. The entire writeup (less than half a page long) is so full of items and points I could challenge, but I'll stop here. I'm sure you all get the idea, though I would encourage every one of you to look up the article at your local library or online and see it for yourselves.
I would also encourage you to learn more about these so-called feathered dinosaurs scientists have found and touted as powerful evidence confirming evolution. Answers in Genesis has a fabulous article on the very dinosaur pictured above, explaining details about it with tremendous depth and clarity. Click Here to read AiG's article. Learn the truth about these controversial fossils, so that you can always be ready to give an answer for your faith when people question you or make false statements like this.
And lastly, don't be afraid to stand up and speak out about things like this. The propagation of evolution is dependent on intelligent people keeping their mouths shut and not asking too many tough and embarrassing questions because they don't want to challenge an 'expert' opinion. You may not be an 'expert', but the people who are learned from other experts, who learned from other experts, who learned from looking at fossils and making up theories. You're an intelligent human being who can see a fossil just as well as they can. Don't let them insult your intelligence by making you feel ignorant, and don't be afraid to respectfully challenge their expertise.

Don't be afraid to call a feather a feather, if indeed it is a feather. But don't be afraid to say it isn't a feather, if it isn't.

Here in the Power of Christ, I Stand.

This afternoon I was reading an article by Ken Ham, president of Answers in Genesis. He was speaking about the horrible trend that has swept the church and caused many professing Christians to compromise their beliefs and allow evolutionary ideas into their worldviews. Many of these people have done so because they are insecure in their faith in the authority of God's Word. They haven't been shown the evidence that supports the Genesis account of creation exactly as it is written. Somehow, they have come to believe that scientific 'evidence' outweighs the authority of Scripture, and a tragic number of Christians have stopped speaking with authority because of this. It has become very easy for the atheists and evolutionists - who are speaking authoritatively, whether they are justified in doing so or not - to drown them out.
This is an issue that is continually on my heart, so imagine how encouraging and refreshing it was when I read the following in Ken Ham's article:

"In Mark 1:22 we read that many people were astonished with Christ's teaching, for He spoke as one having authority. Today, we can speak with this same authority, because we have the Word of God! Jesus Christ, the Creator and the Word, has given us the Bible, and He told us how He created all things."

I can't tell you how refreshing it is to read that.
Don't let them intimidate you into compromising on your beliefs, my friends. If you find an evolutionist's arguments or 'evidence' intimidating or jarring to your beliefs, don't just sit there and let it gradually erode your faith away. Make war against these lies and the Liar they came from!
Do an in-depth study of the Genesis creation account - I'm talking with a concordance and everything. Look up key words and learn exactly what they mean in the original language.
Find good books, articles, documentaries, and lectures on apologetics and go through them carefully. Answers in Genesis is a great place to start. The Institute for Creation Research is another fabulous resource. Master Books has a library's worth of resources available. (And of course, I'd be more than happy to recommend some of my favorite resources with anyone who asked. ; )
Talk to your parents, a pastor, or a friend who has not allowed themselves to compromise on their faith in light of scientific 'evidence' that supports evolution. Tell them what you're going through (don't be afraid to be honest and tell them you're confused and struggling). Ask questions. Ask them to help you study the topic that is bothering you and learn the truth about it. Ask them to pray for you. Email me and ask me to pray for you - that's what Christian brothers and sisters are for.
Above all, pray for yourself and ask God to help you learn to stand on the authority of His Word. God doesn't lie, friends. He can't lie. It's completely contrary to His nature, and He wouldn't be God if it wasn't.
Even Christian creationists don't have all the answers, and many things are still mysteries to us. But we still have the words of a God who doesn't lie, and He has told us what we need to know to stand on those words.
Like the song says:

"Til He returns or calls me home, here in the Power of Christ I'll stand."

Stand strong, my friends.

The Resurrection and the Wardrobe - "There are only 3 possibilities."

"Logic!" said the Professor half to himself. "Why don't they teach logic at these schools? There are only three possibilities. Either your sister is telling lies, or she is mad, or she is telling the truth. You know she doesn't tell lies and it is obvious that she is not mad. For the moment then and until any further evidence turns up, we must assume that she is telling the truth."

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

Over the last couple of weeks my Sunday School teacher, Dave, has been talking about apologetics; specifically, evidence for the resurrection. This week's discussion focused on the five hundred+ people who saw Jesus following His resurrection, before His ascension.
Skeptics are willing to concede the fact that the disciples and others did have some kind of experience with someone they believed to be Jesus, after He had been killed. However, they don't consider the accounts to be accurate.
Dave pointed out that there are only three possibilities concerning the encounters people claimed to have had with Jesus after His death:

1. Everyone who claimed to have seen Jesus was lying.

2. Everyone who believed they had seen Jesus was either hallucinating or dreaming.

3. The people who said they had seen Jesus were telling the truth.

The notion that these people were all lying makes no sense. Look at the political scandals and cover-ups throughout history. There is always a leak somewhere. Humans are simply not good at keeping secrets under any circumstances - let alone when they're being hunted and tortured and killed as the early Christians were. If the encounters with Jesus were lies, someone would have spilled the beans.

The idea that all 500 people were hallucinating or dreaming also makes no sense. One night, a few years ago, my dad and I both dreamed that our great-aunt had passed away. It was kind of spooky, both of us dreaming the same thing on the same night. But, even though the basic dream was the same, the details were all different. And it was only two of us, not five hundred. No way are five hundred people all going to have the exact same dream or hallucination where all the details agree.

So logically, Dave concluded, we have to assume that the early Christians were telling the truth.

Hmm... I thought. I've heard that somewhere before!
While it's a well-known fact that C.S. Lewis was a theologian and apologist in addition to being a writer, we don't always notice how one bleeds into another. The Professor's conclusion that Lucy is telling the truth about finding a magical country inside a wardrobe is an essential part of the story, forcing Peter and Susan to consider for the first time the possibility of something they regarded as incredible. But it's also an example of great apologetics, a lesson to be learned.
Peter and Susan still weren't convinced by the irrefutable logic of the Professor's argument, and all the evidence and logic in the world isn't going to convince someone who isn't willing to accept the resurrection. That's the job of the Holy Spirit.
Aslan eventually convinced Peter and Susan by letting them through the wardrobe into Narnia. The Professor didn't have to convince them that it was real. He simply told them what he knew, and let Aslan do the rest. Our job isn't to convince an unbeliever, it's simply to tell them what we know and let the Holy Spirit show them the way through the wardrobe door, if they're willing to be shown.
For me, it's lessons like this - gems embedded so deeply into the story that they often go unnoticed - that set a truly great work of Christian fiction apart. For me, whose writing role model is C.S.Lewis, it's awesome to be able to see his beliefs and apologetics techniques at work even in his fiction, and it's my hope that my own writing will be influenced and sculpted by my faith in the way Lewis' was.
And the next time someone asks me how I know the resurrection really happened, I might just have to casually sit back and say "That is a point which certainly deserves considerations; very careful considerations..." (I wonder if I could pull it off without a British accent!)
Afterwards, I'll make myself a cup of tea and muse about "What do they teach them at these schools?"

What do you think sets a great work of fiction apart from the pack?
Do you have a writing role model?