eternityA simple reflection tells us that something must be eternal.  After all, if you start with nothing, you’ll always end up with nothing.  But we ended up with something, which means we must have started with something.  Put another way, since something exists now something must have always existed.  There could never be a time when absolutely nothing existed.  Something must be eternal, but what is that something?

There are good scientific and philosophical reasons to conclude that physical reality has not always existed, so physical reality can’t be the eternal something.  Since things which begin to exist must be caused to exist by something else, physical reality had to be caused by something else, and perhaps the cause of the physical world is the eternal something we are looking for.  How would we know?


Could the human population have originated from two people? Many say science has proven this to be impossible and are reinterpreting the Biblical narrative to fit the current scientific thinking.  In this article, Fuz Rana evaluates the science behind the claims regarding original human population sizes. He notes that it is based on mathematical modeling rather than empirical data, and those mathematical models have failed verification in each case we have been able to test them.  At the very least this ought to give Christians pause before reinterpreting the Bible to fit the latest scientific thinking.  It would be foolish to abandon the historicity of a primordial pair of humans based on scientific reasoning that has inaccurately “predicted” the original population sizes of animals for which we know the original populations.  If the mathematics are too idealized for real-life biology, then Christians should not feel the pressure to “revise” our theology.

Michael Licona’s magnum opus on the resurrection, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach, is a must read for those who are interested in the historical evidence for the resurrection.  It has some overlap with other great works on the resurrection such as N. T. Wright’s The Resurrection of the Son of Godbut it is distinct in that it begins with an examination of history and method (philosophy of history) before examining the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus and drawing any conclusions.  Licona explores the nature of historical knowledge (what can be known) and historical methodology.  He even assesses the source material (canonical as well as non-canonical material) to determine each source’s value for the investigation.  Finally, he gets to the heart of the matter by determining the historical facts, and then assessing competing hypotheses to determine the best explanation.  All 600+ pages are worth your attention!

I recently finished reading Greg Koukl’s new book, The Story of Reality.  In fact, I read it twice – and I rarely read a book more than once.  Koukl contends that while most Christians know most of the bits and pieces of the Christian worldview, few know how to put those pieces together in a coherent fashion to form a truly Christian worldview.  They may have a lot of knowledge about the Bible’s contents (micro-level understanding), but few understand the overarching Biblical storyline (macro-level understanding).  The Story of Reality sets out to tell that story, breaking it up into five major areas: God, man, Jesus, cross, and final resurrection.


darwinWhen it comes to neo-Darwinian evolution, the question isn’t whether Darwin’s proposed mechanism of biological change is true – we know it is because we observe it in nature.  The question is whether it can explain what Darwin thought it explained: the diversity of life.

While the process of natural selection working on random mutations (NS+RM) is too slow to observe in mammals, we can observe the equivalent of millions of years of mammalian evolution in mere decades using microbial life and viruses.  Experimental data over the last ~20 years has shown that while natural selection working on random mutations does produce change and variation within microbial species, it does not create new species.[1]


Atheists claim that nature is all that exists. If nature made us, then what made nature?  After all, the scientific evidence tells us physical reality had a beginning.  Things which begin to exist need a cause, so nature needs a cause.  That cause must be supernatural (beyond nature) by definition.  God is what made nature.

But if God made nature, what made God?  Nothing.  Unlike nature, God is eternal.  Things that are eternal never begin to exist, so they do not need a cause.  How do we know God is eternal?  Time is a feature of the physical world, so it began to exist when nature began to exist.  That which brings time into existence cannot itself be temporal, but must be eternal.  God is eternal.  Nature is not.  That’s why nature needs a cause but God does not.

biology-denierLiberals love to label those who have ethical objections to cloning, doubts about man-made global warming, and the like as “science deniers” and “climate change deniers.”  Matt Walsh suggests that we start calling those who deny that one’s biological sex determines their actual gender as “biology deniers.”  And in this case, the term is an accurate description rather than a derogatory, non-descriptive insult.  Those who want to normalize transgender thoughts are truly denying biology.  They affirm that someone who is biologically male is actually female.

Transgender advocates aren’t the only biology deniers.  So are abortion advocates.  They deny the biological fact that the unborn are human beings from the moment of conception.

So the next time you meet someone who is arguing for abortion or transgenderism, ask they why they are a biology denier.

Next Page »