By Reeves

charlesDBefore we get into the core of this, rather long essay, let me first start to introduce you briefly about what evolution really means and what it teaches. Then we will examine its tenets whether or not evolution is a fact or just a man-made defiance against God. It is said that, “It is always wise to get to know your enemy” as the saying goes. Without knowing or having any knowledge about your opponent can be very deceiving and even lethal. 

Evolutionist atheists pride themselves to be the champion of reason. They tell Christians to abandon their faith and should start using their brains.

Well, I agree though I would say that I will never abandon my faith in Christ because it is the power unto salvation (Rom. 1:16), yet I will use my brain with its rationality to discard evolution. I pray evolutionists will do just the same.

What Does Evolution Means?

Evolution covers three basic areas: the origin of the universe, the origin of first life, and the origin of life forms. These three are also commonly understood as cosmic evolution, chemical evolution, and biological evolution.

Since, the theory of evolution is broad, my aim in this study is confined only in the life sciences– that is biological evolution. Though the term evolution can mean a lot of things (for example, micro evolution vs macro evolution can be very misleading, but I’ll explain this terms later on), let is not be side tracked to the common understanding of evolutionists in which they propagate.

Biological evolution is the description of naturalistic process that is assumed to have turned molecules into man over billions of years.

Douglas J. Futuyma an evolutionist defined biological evolution as follows:

“In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution … is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual.”

Theory of evolution is the dominating, and currently popular (in our public schools, universities, and even in the media,) concept of how life reached its current state.

Most (not all) scientists embrace this hypothesis and phenomena driven by natural selection, so much so that it is generally assumed as factual in most studies.

What Does Evolution Theory Teaches?

Evolutionists believes and teaches that life itself originated from a single-cell in a pond a billions of years ago. The majority of evolutionists denies the existence of God, humans, animals, and plants are nothing but an accidental by product of biological mutations.

I will limit myself to introduce the evolution theory as is commonly understood today in our public schools and universities, in three factors:

1. Spontaneous generation

Also called abiogenesis (bio means life, genesis means beginning or origin). What the term implies is that life arose from dead material, in a pond or other moist environment, commonly known as pre-biotic soup.

This is the idea that non-living matter can give rise to living organism. Classical notions of abiogenesis, now more precisely known as spontaneous generation, held that complex, living organisms are generated by decaying organic substances, e.g. that mice spontaneously appear in stored grain or maggots spontaneously appear in meat.

The Encyclopedia Britannica explains:

Whether the earth cooled from a molten mass or condensed out of cold dust, life could not have existed when the earth was formed some 5,000,000,000 years ago; it must have originated since. As both processes (automatic synthesis and ultra violet light energy) are the characteristic of life, it is not unreasonable to suppose that life originated in a watery “soup” of pre biological organic compounds and that living organisms arose later by surrounding quantities of these compounds by membranes

that made them into “cells.” This is usually considered the starting point of organic evolution.

This theory is supposedly have been “proven.”

2. Natural Selection

It teaches that, Natural selection is the process by which species adapt to their environment. Natural selection leads to evolutionary change when individuals with certain characteristics have a greater survival or reproductive rate than other individuals in a population and pass on these inheritable genetic characteristics to their offspring.

3. Homology

Perhaps one of the stronger arguments for evolution that humans have originated from one species is the analogy of homology.

Homology is a specific explanation of similarity of form seen in the biological world. Similarities can often be explained by common descent; features are considered homologous if they are shown to be inherited from a common ancestor.

Macro- and Micro Evolution

What about “macro”- and “micro evolution?” The word macro- and micro evolution was used in the late 1930s, by evolutionary biologist Theodosius Dobzhansky devised the Modern evolutionary synthesis.

Macro evolution teaches that, in evolutionary theory entails common ancestry, descent with modification, speciation.

This means in a simple language, one organism transform into a new but different organism, i.e. worms turns crocs. The micro evolution on the other hand teaches that, as one evolutionists explains,

Micro evolution is defined as the change of allele frequencies (that is, genetic variation due to processes such as selection, mutation, genetic drift, or even migration) within a population.

In simple term micro evolution tells us that, for instance a dog only produces a different but the same subspecies dog.

As a students of biology one must not confuse between the two. Micro- and macro evolutionary has its different significance. The evolution theory is very much accepted in general because of its none God inference.

Most scientists argues that because of the theory of evolution from cosmology (Big Bang) to life (biology) it is now quite alright to be a confirmed atheist. Because science, so they say, has disproven the God-myth and the Bible.

Other reason why the theory of evolution is popular because it teaches that morality is subjective, since God an absolute standard of right and wrong does not exists. Or cannot possibly exist in a non-purpose mindless universe.

As a back drop, evolutionism is mainly atheistic and naturalist theory. I don’t understand why Christians should compromise in their synthesising between creationism and evolutionism as if both were compatible.

As George Gaylord Simpson an evolutionist said,

Man is the result of a purposeless and natural process that did not have in mind. He was not planned. He is a state of matter, a form of life, a sort of animal, and a species of the Order Primates, akin nearly or remotely to all of life and indeed to all that is material.

Now that we have properly (even though briefly) conduct our review namely what evolution means and what it teaches, it is I guess safe to conclude that Evolution theory hinges (though not entirely exclusively) and rely upon three things:

1. Spontaneous generation

2. Natural selection, and

3. Homology

I have also written and describe pronto the difference between macro-and microevolution as a part of this study.

Why? Because this subject can be very confusing. If we as Christians cannot and or fail to differentiate between the two can be very devastating in our dialogs with the evolutionists.

Darwin’s theory of evolution has mostly been the benefactor of the moral decline mostly in the western world. It has given the people excuse to simply live as they wished. Darwinism leads to what people call themselves as secular (anti-God) humanists.

But is darwinian theory of evolution a proven matter of fact? Many scientists believes this theory to be true so is it then an established fact? Lets see if we can answer this question.

Is Darwinian Evolution Theory Scientific or A Hoax?

First off, neither creationists – and evolutionists scientists were there to witness the universe first hand to occur. All we have at this present stage are artifacts and data of what we can examine from this present of the past.

Both theory can only examine what we can get and observed right now, whether it be fossilized bones, carbon dating and so on and so fort.

Second, the evidence or data we discover does not automatically become obvious for scientists as a fact since, evidence does not speak for themselves but is interpreted by our own interpretations whether we be evolutionists or creationists.

To state that, “the data of fossil records points more on the evolutionary theory” is biased if not dogmatic.

Just because the majority of evolutionists are anti-God does not follow that their interpretation of the evidence of origin automatically infers naturalism. To discredit creationist scientists because they happen to be Christians is prejudiced

The Law Of Abiogenesis

With this in mind, creationists and evolutionists undoubtedly agrees that life is complex. Yet darwinists maintains that life was generated from non-living material in a primordial soap.

The transition from non-life to life, however, has never been observed. Despite of what the evolutionists tells us about spontaneous generation, there is simply no evidence to support this theory much less to have occurred.

One must also remember that spontaneous generation is not widely accepted as a settled, fact theory among biochemists and other scientists. On the contrary, this theory has been under criticism more and more thanks to the development of highly advanced technology.

Scientist Michael Denton (not a creationist) said concerning this topic,

“Considering the way the pre-biotic soup is referred to in so many discussions of the origin of life as an already established reality, it comes as a shock to realize that there is absolutely no positive evidence for its existence.” [1]

Other scientists such as Sir Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe concluded,

“The likelihood of the spontaneous formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 noughts after it…It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution. There was not primeval soup, neither on this planet nor any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random, they must have been the product of purposeful intelligence.” [2]

More and more scientists arrives there conclusions that life cannot simply come from non-life. Luis Pasteur a Christian and scientist proved experimentally over 120 years ago that dead objects cannot produce living ones.

In his studies, Pasteur comes into conclusion that life always arises from life of the same kind. This is recognized as the law of abiogenesis (studies of the origin of life).

Carl Sagan an atheist estimated the probability for non-life to rise life, thus,

“The mathematical probability of the simplest form of life emerging from non-living matter has the unbelievable odds of one chance in ten to the two billionth power (1 in 10 with two billion zero after it) – even less probability than predicted by Sir Hoyle or Dr. Morowitz. The enormity of this figure is revealed by the fact that it would take 6,000 books of 300 pages each just to write the number!” [3]

Wayne Jackson in his book The Evolution Revolution wrote,

“The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of the unabridged dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop.”

As scientist George Javor added,

“Abiogenesis, both spontaneous and directed, is merely a concept. It has not been observed or demonstrated in the laboratory. Moreover, no one has come up with a convincing scenario of how it could happen, even on paper.” [5]

Indeed, spontaneous generation is just a concept and a hypothesis. It is, as stated earlier, neither demonstrable or observable. Life must only come from life.

But how many of us realize the fact that life is too complex for it to just emerge from non-living material. The DNA for instance. Those who have been studying the complexity and mechanism of the DNA cannot just ignore its vast information.

For those who have not the time to look more closely the DNA functions: DNA is the genetic material that carries all the instructions for the function of the cell. [6]

DNA determines also what structures a cell will build, what chemicals or hormones it will produce. This means that DNA decides what eye color an individual will have or what the color of his or her hair or still what skin complexion a person may have are also determined by it. But what is the odds for the DNA forming by chance in an organic-soup?

In their Book Darwin’s Demise Drs. White, and Comninellis argued against the notion of DNA arising from just happenstance,

“DNA – containing the code for this first living cell – is very complex and does not naturally occur. As a matter of fact the chance of you being able to jump high enough to reach the moon is greater than the chance that DNA would form by chance. Its existence can only reasonably explained by some external, organizing force.” [7]

Information scientists, Werner Gitt, expounds the information storage in DNA or deoxyribonucleic acid:

Not only is the amount of the information in cellular DNA staggering, it’s also incredibly compact. We marvel at computer storage disks with ever capacity. Yet the quantity of information that could be stored in a pinhead’s volume of DNA is equivalent to the content of a pile of paperback books spanning the distance from earth to the moon 500 times – each book being unique from others! [8]

A chemist and former evolutionist, Dr. Wilder-Smith, says,

It is emphatically the case that life could not arise spontaneously in a primeval soup of any kind…Furthermore, no geological evidence indicates an organic soup ever existed on this planet. We may therefore with fairness call this scenario “the myth of the pre-biotic soup.” [9]

In closing with our discussion of spontaneous generation, let us quote Edward P. Tryon, Professor of Physics at City University of New York,

The novelty of a scientific theory of creation ex nihilo(creation from nothing) is readily apparent, for science has long taught us that one cannot make something from nothing. [10]

We should teach our children, peers, and love ones that the simple aphorism, ”something cannot come from nothing” is a fact! This is pure and simple and should have been well established in the scientific community long time ago.

We should also remember the truth that non-living material cannot produce living things. To believe it is not scientific or intelligent. Life comes only from life.

Does The Natural Selection Support Evolution?

As you have noticed we have examined the probability for life arising from non-life without any guidance from intelligence is impossible just as scientists (quoted above) studied the spontaneous generation.

Does natural selection support the theory of evolution? This is our second examination whether or not evolution is true.

Let us turn to what is commonly known in our biological textbooks: natural selection. According to humanist evolution adherents, natural selection is the primary mechanism that drives evolution.

Natural selection as darwinist defines is,

“The process by which genetic traits are passed on to each successive generation. Over time, natural selection helps species become better adopted to their environment. Also known as “survival of the fittest,” natural selection is the driving force behind the process of evolution.” [11]

Is this true then? Biblical creationism explains on the other hand that, the mechanism and process of natural selection does not point to molecules-to-man. Creationism maintains that, organism do change but only within its species i.e. from wolf to coyote.

Creationist never denies this kind of change, what is in dispute is the type of change such as fish-to-philosopher as the theory of evolution originally proposed. Creationist Nicholas Comninellis says,

“It is understandable that the fastest, most agile, and strongest creatures will survive longer than the sick, the weakened, and crippled. But while natural selection may explain the survival of the fittest within a particular group of plants or animals, it does not explain transformation from one species into another. Actually, nature selection is conservative, not creative.” [12]

Christian and scientist Henry M. Morris also explains that natural selection only operates within the particular type of organism,

“Modern molecular biology, with its penetrating insight into the remarkable genetic code implanted in the DNA system, has further confirmed that normal variation operate only within the range specified by the DNA for particular type of organism.” [13]

Creationists always believed that there are variations within species, yet this variations do not cross into something entirely new organism.

Natural selection “transform” what is already in the gene pool. Plant physiologist, David Catchpoole added,

…natural selection is not evolution since by itself it cannot make new organism. Natural selection can only eliminate weaker organisms (and thereby their genes) from the population. A group of creatures might become better adopted to a colder environment, for example by natural selection weeding out those which don’t carry the genetic information to make thick fur, but that doesn’t explain the origin of the information to produce thick fur.” [14]

The evolution model of natural selection is corrupt and in explainable. The creationist model predicts and ‘fits’ will in the creationist theory. Jonathan Sarfati a physical chemist explains this very well,

“In contrast, creationists, starting from the Bible, believe that God created different kinds of organisms which reproduced “after their kinds” (Gen. 1:11-12,21,24-25). Each of these kinds was created with a vast amount of information. There was enough variety in the information in the original creatures so their descendants could adopt to a wide variety of environments.” [15]

Scientists especially those of the creation movements proposed what natural selection can, and cannot. Please consider the chart below.

 Natural Selection Can Natural Selection Cannot 
 Decrease genetic information  Increase provide new genetic information
 Allow organismto survive in a given environment  Allow organisms to evolve from molecules to man
 Act as a selector  Act as “originator”
 Support creation’s “orchard”  Support evolutionary “tree of life”

Again, creationists does not deny change or transformation for organisms to adopt its environment. But this change only occur within species i.e. bear kinds and have limitation and does not create new life form (for example, polar bear to gorillas). 

    Evolutionists on the other hand argues that mechanism of organisms adopting its environment will eventually (given enough time) transform into something new creature (for example, crocs to a chimp). How can this be since evolution requires changes that increase genetic information? This is not science.  

    Macro evolution (particles-to-man) has never been scientifically observed. All they can tell you is that the reason why we cannot observed ‘evolution’ before our eyes is because it is very slow and takes millions of years of process.

    Micro evolution (wolves to coyotes) though decreasing its genetic information can be observed and predicted.

Homology Doesn’t Say Common Ancestor

What about the argument from homology, does this support the Darwinian theory of evolution? Homology or common structure between animals is being promoted as an irrefutable evidence for evolutionists theory.

The argument for evolution assumes the common physical features, such as five fingers on apes and human, which supposedly points to a common ancestor in the distant past.

Is this true? Let us now continue with our study whether the Darwinian theory is scientific or just a religion disguised as science,

Scientifical creationists critique this argument from homology as evidence for common ancestor, but rather say that common structure were due to common Creator than common descent.

Creationists proponents argues that a common Designer explanation makes much more sense. Jonathan Sarfati Ph.D. wrote concerning this;

DNA comparisons are just a subset of the homology argument, which makes just as much sense in a biblical framework. A common Designer is another interpretation that makes sense of the same data. An architect commonly uses the same building material for different buildings, and a car maker commonly uses the same parts in different cars. [Jonathan Sarfati, Refuting Evolution, Master Books, p.112]

In his book, Evolution: Fact, Fraud, or Faith?, Don Boys wrote,

Similarity does not equal relationship. Evolutionists often use similarity between animals and man to “prove” Darwinism. They point to the legs, neck, ears, etc., of apes and remind us how similar they are to those of men. Creationists likewise use similarities to support creation…So God used His blueprint for many of His creatures. Similarities don’t mean common ancestry but a common Architect!

Textbooks in biology defines homology as similarity due to common ancestry, then claim that it is evidence for common ancestry — a circular argument (logical fallacy)masquerading as scientific evidence? Yet common ancestry is being teached in our public schools as a fact.

We can infer that the similarity indicates common Designer not “common ancestor.” In addition, common descent as an argument for Darwinism is not a direct find to support their theory, but an interpretation-an interpretation made from an evolutionary framework.

From a biblical framework of thinking, creationists would say that the similarity (among birds for instance) reflect their having been created by a single Designer with a common basic plan.

But, what about the oft-mooted idea that humans and chimps have 96-98 percent DNA similarity? Does’ntthis countan evidence that human evolve fro apes? To be honest, evolutionary argument from a common ancestor to explain likeness is probably the most appealing hypothesis. However, this hypothesis falls far short as a confirmation for common descent.

Concerning the likeness between man and a chimp and therefore common ancestor is misleading to say the least. Again, similarities between humans and apes are often over-dramatized if not overrated.

For example, it was inferred from a fairly crude technique called DNA hybridization where small parts of human DNA are split into single strands and allowed to re-form double strands (duplex) with chimp DNA . However, there are various reasons why DNA does or does not hybridize, only one of which is degree of similarity (homology). Consequently, this somewhat arbitrary figure is not used by those working in molecular homology (other parameters, derived from the shape of the ‘melting’ curve, are used). Why has the 97% figure been popularised then? One can only guess that it served the purpose of evolutionary indoctrination of the scientifically illiterate.

Let say, for the sake of argument, similarity due to common ancestry, then, the analogy between ape and man breaks down because humans are more closely related to chicken and crocodiles.

“Hemoglobin, the molecule that carries oxygen in the blood, is found in all vertebrates, including humans. But hemoglobin also exists in earthworms, crustaceans, starfish, and end in some microorganisms. Crocodiles hemoglobin is more similar to chicken hemoglobin than it is to the hemoglobin of snakes, and other reptiles. Human lysozyme, an enzyme for digesting foods, is more similar to chicken lysozyme than to the lysozyme of apes and other primates. [16]

Farther more, in his new book , Darwinism and Intelligent Design, Jonathan Wells wrote,

“But if similarities are the primary evidence for common ancestry, how can we know when they are not due to common ancestry?” and “Similarities in fossils originally suggests that hippos are evolutionary sisters of pigs and camels but far removed from whales. Similarities in molecules now suggests that hippos are evolutionary sisters from whales but far removed from pigs and camels- and that the fossil similarities on which Darwinists originally relied were never evidence for common ancestry at all.” [17]

Humans are very different from yeast but have some bio-chemistry in common, so we should expect human and yeast DNA to be only slightly similar. Thus, the general pattern of common structures need not be explained by common-ancestry evolution.

Closing Statement

The question, “Is Darwinian Evolution True?” has been, in my opinion, answered and critiqued thoroughly by handful other scientists and in this essay that it cannot be possibly true. The evidence against the theory of evolution is being challenge not only by creationists who are scientists but by secular scientists too. They found this theory seriously flawed.

We can safely conclude in what we have researched that Darwinism is not a scientifical fact but a hoax! The only viable and satisfying explanation in the origin of man is God. An all-powerful, all-knowing God created the universe including you and me as we read in the Scripture. The theory of Evolution is not needed because it as a hypothesis cannot provide factually and reliable answer to our questions.

Notes and resources_____________________

[1] Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Adler & Adler; 3Rev Ed edition

[2] Sir Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space, Simon and Schuster, p. 148

[3] John Billingham and Rudolf Pe, editors, Communications With Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence, Pergamon press

[4] Wayne Jackson, The Evolution Revolution, Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press, Inc

[5] John Ashton and Michael Westacott, The Big Argument: Does God Exist? Master Books

[6] Drs. Joe White, Nicholas Comninellis, Darwin’s Demise, Master Books

[7] Drs. Joe White, Nicholas Comninellis, Darwin’s Demise (p. 31) Master Books

[8] Werner Gitt, Dazzling Design in Miniature, Publish in Creation Ex Nihilo

[9] Taylor, Origins Answer Book.

[10] Edward P. Tyron, New Scientist (March 8, 1984), p.14

[11] Qouted from the book, The New Answer Book, General editor Ken Ham, Master Books, p.272

[12] Nicholas Comninellis, Creative Defense, Master Book, p.82

[13] Henry M. Morris, Scientific Creationism, Master Book, p.51

[14] John Ashton and Michael Westacott, The Big Argument: Does God Exist? Master Book p.117

[15] Jonathan Sarfati Ph.D., Refuting Evolution, Master Book,p.32

[16] Drs. Henry Mooris and Gary Parker, What Is Creation Science? Master Books, p.52-61

[17] Jonathan Wells Ph. D, The Politically Incorrect Guide To Darwinism and Intelligent Design, Regnery Publishing, p. 41


“I am the way, and the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the father, but by me” – Jesus

By Reeves

religion symbolsIntroduction

I wrote this essay for almost two years ago for my Swedish essay assignment, and I did get a good grade for this essay. This essay was originally written in Swedish.

I attempted to rewrite this in English version ( I have modified and added some arguments) hoping to have the same effective, but readable argument. Though I prayerfully hope that whoever read this in English will give the ready a clarity of my arguments for Christian exclusivism[1]. No I’m not a scholar nor a teacher. I’m just a student and still learning under the infinte knowledge and grace of my God, Lord Jesus Christ.

I wrote this particular essay as a reaction against the arguments for Religion Pluralism. Religion Pluralism (RP from now) teaches us that whatever religion one my adopt or adhere to, whether it be Hinduism or Islam, no one can hereby claim that an individual belief is more true than any competing beliefs because, “all religion are basically the same.” More over, RP if we understand them correctly also teaches that whether it be Judaism or Buddhism actually believes in the same God. All religious belief according to RP will eventually end up to one common God. But this is utterly nonsense and false as I will counter argue against this false idea later.

Though I do not have the aptitude to demolish altogether the RP objection against the objective, Christian exclusivistic argument for the Orthodox Christian faith, this does not however disqualify me to write any objections against RP. A person does not need to go through academic training in order to refutethe false and fallacious arguments mounted against Christian exclusivism or objectivism. Let us now continue with our study.

The Apparent Contradictions

To believe in something is not wrong just as long your belief is in accord with reality or which that corresponds to reality. Ludwig Feuerbach (1808-72)2 believed that religion is essential, and which I really agree. But, do we ever question our belief system? Whether you are an atheist, agnostic or theists we cannot and should not neglect to ask whether our current beliefs have any significant in our lives.

“Does it really matter what we believe just as long we believe in something?” “The meaning and reality of faith probably does not matter just as long we are faithful or sincere to whatever it is we happens to believe.” Or “Is there any truth in my current belief?” These questions must we ask if we really want to know if there is any truth in our faith.

Elementary Logic

I think the idea behind the statement, “That there really ain’t such thing as absolute truth,” is common philosophy in our media, newspapers, music, peers, and even in our own family dining room. Yet, the same people who argues for “no absolute truth” (relativists) argues in the same time in the same breath “for absolute truth!”

The statement that “Religion is relative,” is a statement about religion, so the statement is also relative that “religion is relative” and should be rejected as false. This is because the given statement is contradictory.

I did not mean to give you headache. No contradictory statements are true. For instance, Fredrik Reinfeld won the 2006 election, Fredrik Reinfeld did not won the 2006 election both are an statement but both cannot be correct in the same time in the same respect one of this statement is simply mistaken.

Before we continue let me first give you a brief introductory to the three law of though. First the Law of Non contradiction (namely, a cannot be non a at the same time in the same sense). No Hindus are Christians.

No H is C,

because C is non H

Therefore H is no C

LikewiseNo Christians are Muslims because Muslims are not Christian, therefore Muslims are not Christians.

No C are M,

because M are not C

therefore C are not M

This is simple logic in which I hope everybody understands. Let us continue with our logical studies. The second law of though is the Law of Excluded Middle-the either or argument. For example, either Jesus was the Christ or he wasn’t. There are no in-between. Either he is the Anointed one or Not the Anointed one.

Either Ann Sofi won the Chess Championship or she did not won the Chess Championship. To push this further, either God exist (Judaism, Christianity), or He does not exist (Atheism, Buddhism), there are no in-between explanation. Jesus as a master logician shows as the Law of Excluded Middle, “He that is not with me is against me;” (Matthew 12:30).

Now to our third law of though which is The Law of Identity. This law simply states that if a statement is true then it is true. Let me provide you with an example. God is God without the Law of Identity God would also be the Devil. These are the basic principles of logic. The RP breaks all these basic principles of logic. Let me yet give you one last example. The RP as I have explained above assumes that all religion (x) are the same (y), therefore all religion is one (z).

All x is y

therefore x and y is z

Taken RP’s conclusion Buddhism is the same as Islam therefore Islam is Buddhism! This is absurd. These above examples are what pluralists postulates. The same people who pride themselves as more logical turns out to be more illogical! The statement “It really doesn’t matter what you believe in just as long as you are sincere,” is ludicrous and horrible.

If this statement is followed by its conclusion then a sincere Nazi or Satanist is praiseworthy! An idea taken from our religious pluralist friend in which God’s applause (by one’s sincerity) of a child molester doesn’t really fit the idea of what we happen to know what’s good, and what’s evil.

This is meant to say that a theist have a belief system value such as the atheist, or a neo-Nazi in his idealism for white supremacy has the same values and equality to a Buddhist. In short all belief system are nothing but subjective thinking or idea according to a religious relativists.

But this is not the case, that all religion in its creeds, rituals, doctrines, and practice in which totally contradicts from each other are nonetheless true, and identical sounds insane, violates against human reasoning! Let me explain why this is irrational and absurd.

Truth per se is not dependent in our belief. Whatever constitutes our belief (believing in Santa Clause, unicorns etc..,) does not entail its truthfulness. For example, whether we believe that the mathematical equation 20+20= 40 or not remains true, but believing in unicorns is not.

I may sincerely believe with all my heart and mind that the weather in Stockholm will be warm through out winter, but, my sincerity of believing this does not validates reality. Again, I may believe with all my heart and mind that I bought a 56′ Chevy, and is parked in the garage does not guarantee that this is really the case. Because in reality tells me that I cannot afford such a classic car.

Inspiration maybe felt deep inside in our inner most being, but this inspiration should not be used as a “compass” to our path for religious objectivity. I maybe deep religious and sincere, but this still does not say anything about the truthfulness of my faith.

What I’m trying to say here that whatever faith there is it must correspond to what reality is. Does your faith corresponds to reality? I guess everybody or most of us have seen Michael J Fox’s Back to The Future series. I have seen all of them and I enjoyed and laughed to it.

gathering the best philosopher such us Aristotle, Newton, Einstein, Plato and a Buddhist thinker, hoping to compose a symposium on physics and astronomy.

If RP is true, an apparent nonsense would eventually be the ending of this symposium–even if these great thinkers will not individually agree with each other no one would be accounted for the mistake! Believing that earth is spherical and that the sun is the center of our solar system the opposite if this is also true according a a RP mind.

Objectivistsdoes not arrive to this conclusion. The nature of the universe is what it is no matter what we believe about it. Belief and sincerity does not entail to what is true and what is real. Rather, all faith must be under the bar of what is real and must correspondingly correspond to reality.

Apparent Differences I

In Accordance with the RP an atheist who flatly denies the existence of God or gods compare to a theist who believes that a just, holy, and merciful God exist, both of them are not different. God (according to RP) exists and not exists in the same time in the same sense! One can be very skeptic by this kind of reasoning.

Let us now face the multi million dollar question. “Are all religion one?” is this really true, that in the core of its religiosity will eventually end up to the same God? My answer of course will be, not in a million chance! My reason for this is that all religion contradicts with each other plain and simple. No contradictory statements or beliefs can be simultaneously be true at the same time in the same sense remember?

A question comes to mind “Is there any truth in other religion?” of course there is, we cannot ignore these truth in other religion after all all truth is God truth.

But just because other religion contains truth one cannot hereby generalize that they are all compatible, and this goes against our rational common sense. Hinduism is pantheist 3while on other hand Buddhism denies any existence of God or gods. As mentioned earlier, God exists for Christians while there has never been any God or gods in Atheism. The Bible teaches that Jesus is God’s incarnate Son while Islam flatly denies this fact.

Jesus who is Yahweh in the Scripture is nothing but a mere prophet in the Qu’ran. Is monotheistic4 belief the same as the polytheistic (1 apple equals 100 apples)? Can God exist and not exist in the same time in the same breath? Is Yes to be understood as no? Is there such a thing as square-circle? More of this later on.

The Argument From Religious Feelings

What about the statement, “I believe Hinduism is true because I feel this deep inside me” Or My beliefs are true because my feelings tells me so.” What have we learned about our feelings? We have learned from the dawn of history of man that feelings are unreliable. Feelings always change from time to time while truth does not (2+2=4, earth rotates around the sun, murdering infants is morally evil).

Besides, feelings cannot be objective. For instance, how many skyscraper and gigantic buildings all over the world that has been built based on feelings? None! How many professors are they who corrected their students exams, essays based on feelings? I hope none! Individualism is rampant among post-modernistic minds. One individualistic philosophy is “Whatever you feel it is true” (go for what you feel!).

But individualism has its maladies. What about marriage? Do we divorce our spouse just because we cannot “feel” any longer? Are we not to feed the poor because we doesn’t feel like it?

Are we to sanction law based on what we each feels? What if we based our moral norms to mere feelings (and which obviously shifts over time) are we then going to call good (helping, giving, honesty, protect human rights) today but evil tomorrow? Who’s feelings are we to base our moral norms to judge what is wrong and what is evil?

Someone will say that “rational people decides what’s good and what’s evil.” But, rationality is not feelings. Worse yet, whoever decides what is good or evil is subject to change since feelings is not constant, as the dictum goes “feelings comes and they goes.” Emotive moralists are standing on the shaky ground here. There must be law and moral norms that transcend our mere futile feelings.

And this moral law giver must be absolute and objective that prescribes universal law and morality. An objective moral giver is the only explanation as to why we know what is good and vice versa. Emotivists cannot discern why is is evil to murder or rape, he/she may “feels” that rape and murder is evil, but feelings of “knowing” is altogether different from why murder/rape is wrong.

I may have deep feelings that goddess Aphrodites only loves me, and watches over me while asleep. The fact is that Aphrodites does not exist no matter how I may feel about here. Likewise we may feel that Darwinism is true and is “scientifically proven” by feelings does not make this theory true.

Because evolutionism as a matter of fact is a hoax. Evolutionism is nothing but religion and an ancient philosophy (Anaximander 610-546 B. C.) 5Despite of what darwinists tells you about evolution, it is never been proven (macro evolution 6 ) nor it is observable.

Though the theory of morality belongs to ethics what I’m trying to say here that since there are problem in morality ascribing to mere feelings how can it there be no problem in religion since most of it happens to be mere emotional rather than objectives?

A religious pluralist cannot maintain to propagate that religions in general are the same and equally true because as i have written earlier, that since these religions contradicts with each other, they cannot all be equally true. Again, while these religion contains truth is not tantamount to their equality.

Apparent Differences II

Further, to say that they are the same is to one way or the other disrespect and undermine these Religion. The conservative Christian believes, that there is only one God, who is supreme and sovereign.

And while He is transcendent — above and beyond us, He is also immanent — right here among us at the same time. He created it all–the universe and the world in which we live from nothing (ex nihilo ).

The Bible says that we are created in God’s image; and when we die we will either go to be with Him of be separated from Him forever. In addition, the conservative Christian believes that those who rejected Christ as their Lord and Savior hell will be their ultimate destination.

Hindus on the other hand, do not believe in a personal, loving God, but Brahma, a formless, abstract, eternal being without attributes, who was the beginning of all there is. Hindus call sin “utter illusion” this is because they believe all material reality is illusory. They seek deliverance from samsara the endless cycle of death and rebirth, through union with Brahmah. Salvation in Hinduism is achieved by good works.

Buddhist, deny the existence of a personal God. They believe that the existence of God is irrelevant. This belief clearly contradicts the Christian God who is personal, omniscient, and omnipotent (Job 42:1-6; Psa.115; Matt. 19:26). Regarding sin, and salvation, Buddhists believe that sin is lust that arises in one’s life. Through self-effort and by summoning Bodhisattvas for help one will be eventually get rid of these lustful desires.

Christian on the contrary believe that sin is any though, deed or desire contrary to God’s will, and salvation comes only through faith in what Christ done for us (see Acts 4:12; Rom. 3:10,23; Eph. 2:8-10).

Let us now turn to what Muslims believe regarding Jesus, sin, and salvation. Muslims believe there is no God but Allah; Christians believe that God is revealed in the Bible as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, three persons who are co-eternal God (read Matt 3:13-17; 28:19;9 and Cor. 13:14)

Regarding Jesus Muslims believe that Jesus was only a mere prophet below Mohammedin subordination, who did not die for mankind sin. In contrast, Christians says that Christ is the Son incarnate of God, the sinless redeemer who died and rose again for sinful man (John 1:13,14; 1 Pet. 3:18).

Muslims teaches that Allah does not love those who do wrong, and each person must earn his or her salvation. Again, this teaching is contrary to the Scripture; Christians contend that a loving God sent His Son to die for our sins (cf. Rom. 5:8; 1 Col 15:3,4). Most if not all religions doesn’t agree, and in grave in opposite with each other for example;

Jewish, Christians and Muslims believe as written above different versions of God. Hindus and the New Age adherents believes that everything that exists are part of none personal entities.

Lots of Hindus believes that evil and suffering are nothing but illusions; Jewish, and Christians alike believes that evil and suffering is a fact as a heart attack.

Christians believe that salvation is by faith alone (sola fide), while other religions teaches (among these are Roman Catholics, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Mormonism) that salvation through good works. By the way, the definition of what “good” is what salvation means in these religions vary a lot.

If one studies God’s nature, man’s nature, sin, and salvation, heaven, and creation in contrasts with each systems, creeds, beliefs, and dogmas, one would indeed conclude that these faiths do differ, and is not the same as RP wants us to believe.

The statement that Jesus Christ is God’s incarnate (Judeo-Christian), and not God incarnate (Judeo, Islam) is a contradiction. Either Jesus was God’s incarnate or He is not. There are no middle ground here. Jewish, Muslims and Christians identifies Jesus of Nazareth differently, and they may all fail in their belief about Jesus, certainly all cannot be correct simultaneous.

As I have demonstrated, RP failed to explain as to why if they are identical then why do they contradict? Despite their grave differences the RP didn’t give any clear instruction as to why all these would eventually end in the same God.

From these we can now safely conclude that all religions cannot be equally valid in the same time in the same sense. Christians must remember that while we possess the truth we must respect others belief systems. Respect and tolerance does not of course entail accepting them as equally true, because only Jesus Christ Is the truth.

One of Jesus’ disciple Thomas asked, “Lord, we know not whither thou goest; and how can we know the way?” and Jesus answered, “I am the way, and the truth (Gr. alétheia), and the life: no man cometh unto the father, but by me” (John 14:6).

Notes and References—————————

1. Christians who believe that Christ is the only way.

2. An agnostic philosopher.

3. who believes that every thing is God/all is god.

4. who believes in only one God as oppose to polytheism.

5. a naturalist philosopher

6. from a fish evolves (given millions of years) to a philosopher

Religions, Cambridge Illustrated History

Norman Giesler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics; Baker Publisher

Peter Kreeft and Ronald K. Tacelli Handbook of Christian Apologetics; InterVarsity Press

Paul Copan, True For You But Not For Me; Baker Publisher

Fritz Ridenour, So What’s The Difference?; Regal Publisher