stonegatestandard.com

Not long ago, (7/10/07) I was privileged to attend a very interesting debate near Los Angeles, California, at Biola University before over 5,000 people. Dr. Michael Ruse, an atheist and professor of Philosophy at Florida State University, is recognized as perhaps the leading philosopher of science in the United States. He debated Dr. Paul Nelson, a creationist with the Discovery Institute who received his Doctorate in Philosophy from the University of Chicago.

As is typically the case with such discussions (contrary to agreements and/or propositions) this evolutionist was unwilling to discuss the relative merits of creation and evolution based on the scientific evidence. The creationist, Dr. Nelson laid out a logically compelling scientific case for intelligent design. Dr. Ruse would love to have been able to respond with scientific answers, but he did not. Instead, he actually acknowledged that scientific answers to these arguments were not known! …Not yet. He was certain that answers would be found in the future. This atheist is a man of great faith.

Dr. Ruse did respond…with theological, philosophical arguments.

He effectively attacked the inconsistency of “old age” creationists. He charged that they do not really believe what the Bible says about creation. He correctly represented some who claim that an all-powerful God used evolution to create and continues to create by means of evolution. But, this God who is continuing to create, is too busy to fix genetic mistakes like cystic fibrosis or progeria. He can create today, but He can’t fix.

Furthermore, he charged that “old agers” are saddled with the position that death existed before the fall…millions of years of it. They have great difficulty with the charge that nature is truly “red in tooth and claw.” Since degeneration, suffering and death have reigned from their beginning, it had to result from God’s plan. Couldn’t an all wise, all powerful God do better? Their position requires an unimaginable amount of suffering and death, millions of years before Adam and Eve and therefore was not a consequence of sin.

Dr. Ruse also opposed the “young age” creationists, charging that they turn off their minds and believe in spite of the evidence. Facts don’t matter. He said their faith is intellectual dishonesty. He made this charge, in spite of the fact that he had just acknowledged the same practice, himself (No answers now, but faith in the future).

Unfortunately, his charge of ignoring evidence is an accurate description of many creationists who are simply prejudiced toward belief in God but cannot give logical answers, a defense of their faith, as Peter commands (“always be ready to give a defense,” I Peter 3:15).

Michael Ruse made effective use of both of these errors to further his atheistic cause. I saw these errors effectively motivating an atheist to maintain his position, in spite of the acknowledged fact that he was embarrassed by the scientific evidence.

The propaganda that creation science is inferior to evolution science was exposed as a lie. Unfortunately, some believers were also exposed as a major hindrance to the truth.