How To Respond To Anti-Science Accusations Against Christ

If you have not read Stories Versus Truth, you may want to read that before reading this. And don't forget where you are going. You get past the questions/attacks so you can proclaim the Gospel. It is the proclamation of the Gospel, not argumentation, that transforms minds. See Give Them the Gospel.

You are likely to hear this lie: "Churches come across as antagonistic to science." You are especially likely to hear this lie if you have children in the public schools or in a liberal "Christian" school.

Fabricated stories (evolutionism, old-Earthism, big-bangism, bibilcal-erroism, etc.) that are based on arbitrary assumptions (naturalism, materialism, uniformitarianism) and rationalizations are not science. Ask them if they have any observable proof of the fabricated stories (evolutionism, old-Earthism, big-bangism, bibilcal-erroism, etc.) that are based on arbitrary assumptions (naturalism, materialism, uniformitarianism) and rationalizations.

The simple way:

Every evidence that is used against God consists of made-up stories (lies), arbitrary assumptions (lies), or irrational statements (insanity). We have not followed cleverly designed made-up stories, arbitrary assumptions, or irrational statements. Rather, we follow the Living Christ, Who leads us and speaks the Utterances of absolute, genuine fullness of Life to us.

Whatever they come back with will consist of made-up stories (lies), arbitrary assumptions (lies), or irrational statements (insanity). This is true whether they say "Evolution is science," "There is no God," "God doesn't speak to you," "You are stupid," "You don't understand science," "I don't have enough evidence to believe," "There is no evidence for God," "The Bible has errors," or any other thing, so just say some variation of the following:

Thank you for providing an excellent example: Every evidence that is used against God consists of made-up stories (lies), arbitrary assumptions (lies), or irrational statements (insanity). We have not followed cleverly designed made-up stories, arbitrary assumptions, or irrational statements. Rather, we follow the Living Christ, Who leads us and speaks the Utterances of absolute, genuine fullness of Life to us. (example using this on an blog)

The more complex way:

Question it and then listen. Be gentle and give plenty of room to respond, but don't except nonsense as if it made sense. Don't embarrass the other person or get into an angry debate. They have probably been brainwashed and will be shocked that anyone would not just agree with them. They probably have never met an informed follower of Christ since many people who are following Christ don't even have enough compassion for their own children to learn about these things. The reason that you switch to neutral and into a listening mode is because the enemy of our souls has raised this attack to an emotional fever-pitch. A soft answer turns away wrath. If you have done your homework, then the truth will prevail. Keep in mind the real reason that you know that the person claiming, "Churches come across as antagonistic to science." is because they have been brainwashed and they want to fit in with the present evil ordered system. The system has been ordered by Satan and when they become a friend of this system they become an enemy of God, even if they wear the label, "Christian." Below are just a few examples of how the conversation may flow. Keep in mind that these are very compressed and leave out many of the things that you must do to maintain rapport with someone who is really emotional. Smile. Nod your head. Keep an open body language. Draw out each of these answers and listen with intent interest. When they can't answer, you can help them to keep from being embarrassed. Preface your questions with softening language. Instead of saying, "How are you defining the word, "science?" ask "I have heard people say this sort of thing before, and I always wonder how they are defining the word, "science." Could you help me understand? There are many ways to soften your questions and your statements. Rather than saying, "I disagree, and here is why..." ask a question in this way: "I understand what you are saying. Would you be willing to hear my reasoning for believing what the Bible says about this?" Read "How Do You Know that the Bible is Accurate?" Read "How Can We Know Anything?"

How are you defining the word "science?" (They probably won't even be able to answer this. You need to know the difference between operational science and forensic science and the strengths and weaknesses of each. From an exploration of this word, you can have a conversation that unveils that fact that the person making the claim that the church is anti-science or that churches come across as antagonistic to science is not a rational claim.)

Do you know the difference between operational science and forensic (historical) science?
How much do you know about how conclusions are drawn from scientifically controlled observations?
How do the observations confirm [insert the claim: evolution, an old earth, global warming, etc.]

Why are you more convinced that similarities between fossils of different kinds of animals point to evolution rather than pointing to a common designer and creator?
Why are there no transitional forms? **

Do you realize the claiming that they will eventually find transitional forms is an irrational form of argument known as an appeal to ignorance?

What scientific data have you personally seen that convinces you of [insert the claim: evolution, an old earth, global warming, etc.]
In order for evolution to take place, new innovative genetic information of the type needed for even the smallest advance in so-called molecules-to-man evolution would have to be added to the information already present in the cells.

Were you aware that after massive amounts of testing, no mechanism has ever been found that would possibly add new innovative genetic information of the type needed for even the smallest advance in so-called molecules-to-man evolution. Well-funded evolutionists have tried desperately and have come up with nothing. Nothing!
Were you aware that no observation has been made that shows that new innovative genetic information of the type needed for even the smallest advance in so-called molecules-to-man evolution is ever added?
Were you aware that The Second Law of Thermodynamics always has been shown to work to destroy information rather than add it?
Were you aware that no more complexity has ever been added to anything?
In the light of these facts, how would you consider that a theory that goes against all these facts of science is scientific?

We could go on with many questions that need to be asked, but it is more important that you study the information on this page: "How can we know anything about anything?" and then Read "How Do You Know that the Bible is Accurate?" Read "How Can We Know Anything?"
From here you can read the many pages here: *

The following diagram makes it plain that every instance of supposed increase of new innovative genetic information of the type needed for even the smallest advance in so-called molecules-to-man evolution that is used by Evolution's evangelists is an example of NO increase in new innovative genetic information of the type needed for even the smallest advance in so-called molecules-to-man evolution. Evolutionist's claims for adding information fall into three categories. These are the 3 Rs of Evolution: Rearrange information, Remove information, and Ruin information.

The 3 Rs of Evolution: Rearrange information, Remove information, and Ruin information.

Using an analogy of a train, Evolution hopes to go from Missouri in Central U.S. to California. However, the train is going the wrong direction toward New York, with each small change being the result of a loss of information or simply a rearrangement of what is already there. The evolution train’s a-comin’ The evolution train goes the wrong way on the map.

** "What makes the question complex is that in place of the countless thousands of transitional forms expected (as Darwin logically indicated should be found, and anticipated would be found in future), there exists at any point in time a handful of candidates, i.e. fossils put forward as transitional forms by evolutionary proponents. [Note: By 'transitional forms' is meant here fossils showing intermediate stages between major evolutionary transitions, i.e. from one kind of creature to a wholly different kind. For example, stages in the supposed transition of a walking reptile to a flying bird, nothing which creationists could regard as variation/speciation within a kind. Some evolutionists argue that we have countless thousands of transitional fossils, but they empty the term 'transitional fossil' of any content really meaningful for the creation-evolution debate. They define a fossil as 'transitional' in the same sense that a car is 'transitional' between a unicycle and a truck. That is not in view here.] Creationists by definition would argue that there are none, so to evolutionists this is seen as 'proof'. From a creation perspective, though, consider the following:" Go to https://creation.com/missing-links-parade for the rest of this article.

"When evolution is seen as a storytelling game rather than a serious attempt at scientific explanation, it suddenly makes sense."

Watch these videos:

The complexity of God’s Way understood in a single diagram

Obey your flesh and descend into darkness

How can we know anything about anything? That’s the real question

Watch these videos:

Other Pages in this section

Recently Viewed