1|Page

Applied Apologetics

I. The Ignorance Of Atheism

A. The Ignorance Of Atheism’s Arguments Regarding The Bible
B. The Ignorance Of Atheism’s Arguments Regarding God
C. The Ignorance Of Atheism’s Arguments Regarding Christian Religion
D. The Ignorance Of Atheism’s Arguments Regarding Evil

II. Atheism’s Dangerous Belief-Evolution

A. The Definition Of Evolution And Natural Selection
B. The Problem With Evolution-It Lacks Scientific Evidence
C. The Atheist’s Major Problem−He Does Not Know His Origin
D. The Conflicts Of Worldviews Against Christianity
1. Christianity vs. Naturalism
2. Finally, What Does Science Say?
3. The Christian Worldview Answers Our Questions
2|Page

The Ignorance Of Atheism

The Psalmist clearly stated in Ps. 14:1 & 53: 1 that, “The fool says in his heart, "There is no God," so
I base this section on this text. Since atheism clearly claims that "There is no God," it is clear that they
are ignorant. Someone said that, “Intelligence is admitting that you don’t know everything.” The first
step of ignorance is one to think that he/she knows everything (atheists think they know everything
since they deny the existence of God). And this is the problem of atheists. The atheists claim that there
is no God-God does not exist when they are not sure! Someone to think so means that he/she knows
everything. “Atheism claim that there is no God. They contend that there is no God in the world (as
pantheism holds) and that there is no God beyond the world (as deism claims). Furthermore, there is
no God who is actually both in the world and beyond the world as theism claims, nor is there any
panentheistic God who is related to the world the way a mind is to a body. There is no God of any
kind, anywhere.” 34 I call this ignorance because one cannot dare to argue against something he/she
does not know at all. To say there is no God it means that the one who make such an argument is the
“God himself.” And one to think likewise, it is ignorance of the highest order.
Therefore, what is atheism? “The word atheism comes from the negative a which means ‘no,’ and
theos which means ‘god.’ Hence, atheism in the most basic terms means ‘no god.’ Atheism is the
lack of belief in a god and/or the belief that there is no god. By contrast, theism is the belief that there
is a God and that he is knowable and that he is involved in the world. Most atheists do not consider
themselves anti-theists but merely non-theists. atheism denies God.

• "An atheist is someone who believes and/or knows there is no god."

• "An atheist lacks belief in a god."
• "An atheist exercises no faith in the concept of god at all."
• "An atheist is someone who is free from religious oppression and bigotry."
• "An atheist is someone who is a free-thinker--free from religion and its ideas.” 35

Furthermore, “There are two main categories of atheists: strong and weak with variations in between.
Strong atheists actively believe and state that no God exists. They expressly denounce the Christian
God along with any other god. Strong atheists are usually more aggressive in their conversations with
theists and try to shoot holes in theistic beliefs. They like to use logic and anti-biblical evidence to
denounce God's existence. They are active, often aggressive, and openly believe that there is no
God…. Weak atheists simply exercise no faith in God. The weak atheist might be better explained as
a person who lacks belief in God the way a person might lack belief that there is a green lizard in a
rocking chair on the moon; it isn't an issue. He doesn't believe it or not believe it… Finally, there is a
group of atheists that I call militant atheists. They are, fortunately, few in number. They are usually
highly insulting and profoundly terse in their comments to theists and particularly Christians.….and
they are vile, rude, and highly condescending. Their language is full of insults, profanity, and
blasphemies. Basically, no meaningful conversation can be held with them.”36
Eric Hyde's blog gives us 10 Most Common Atheist Arguments, and here they are: “1. There is no
evidence for God’s existence. 2. If God created the universe, who created God? 3. God is not all-
powerful if there is something He cannot do. God cannot lie, therefore God is not all-powerful. 4.
Believing in God is the same as believing in the Tooth Fairy, Santa Clause, and the Flying Spaghetti
Monster. 5. Christianity arose from an ancient and ignorant people who didn’t have science. 6.
Christian’s only believe in Christianity because they were born in a Christian culture. If they’d been
born in India they would have been Hindu instead. 7. The gospel doesn’t make sense: God was mad
3|Page

at mankind because of sin so he decided to torture and kill His own Son so that he could appease his
own pathological anger. God is the weirdo, not me. 8. History is full of mother-child messiah cults,
trinity godheads, and the like. Thus, the Christian story is a myth like the rest. 9. The God of the Bible
is evil. A God who allows so much suffering and death can be nothing but evil. 10. Evolution has
answered the question of where we came from. There is no need for ignorant ancient myths
anymore.”37

The Ignorance Of Atheism’s Arguments Regarding The Bible

This is why I want to begin to discuss this topic by exhibiting atheism’s ignorance of the Bible. When
talking about God, one needs to start with the Bible. It’s like a scientist, if he/she wants to know
something about science, he/she must look for science literature. A scientist to look for art literatures
for studying science is ignorance of the highest order. Therefore, someone to begin talking about God,
automatically needs to go to the Bible-without it, one cannot make any meaningful conclusions.
However, atheists’ ignorance does not allow them to go to the Bible yet, they make conclusions (which
they think are meaningful) about God without the Bible’s claims. The issue of God is a theological
issue, therefore, one cannot make a conclusion about it without the consultation of its text book-the
Bible. Atheism’s logic cannot make sense without the Bible’s arguments.
Talking about “The Relation of Scripture and Logic, “Geisler shows us that, “….since secular
philosophy had failed to solve its problems, the alternative hypothesis of revelation, verbal
communication, the Bible was proposed.” In this, we may anticipate the relation of logic to the
Scripture. “First of all, Scripture, the written words of the Bible, is the mind of God. What is said in
Scripture is God’s thought,” for “the Bible consists of thoughts, not paper; and the thoughts are the
thoughts of the omniscient, infallible God” and, “as might be expected, if God has spoken, He has
spoken logically. The Scripture therefore should and does exhibit logical organization….In short, the
Bible is God’s thoughts expressed verbally, and God thinks logically and consistently, for logic is a
characteristic of God’s thinking. Hence, the system that is ultimately consistent is ultimately true. But
since only an omniscient mind can know this system is ultimately consistent, finite minds must choose
the one that seems most coherent.” 38
Atheism does not need to make arguments which are based on its own beliefs (about God) but it
needs to go to the Bible which is the mind of God. It’s insult and ignorance for someone else to tell
other people that I don’t exist simply because he/she has never seen me. Or, it’s an insult and ignorance
also for me to tell other people that someone I don’t know does not exist simply because I have never
seen that person. This is the position of atheism. Atheism tells us that there is no God but without
believing what God Himself tells us from His Word.
What does the Bible say about God? Actually, in the Bible, it’s not the Bible (or the different
authors we find in the Bible) which says, but it’s God who says that He exists. The Bible is the Word
of God; therefore, God’s words are found in the Bible. If you want to know the words of a certain
person or leader, you only get his book(s). For example, in our country, if I want to know the mind of
our president and what he believes about leadership or governance, I just look for his famous book,
The Mastered Seed. In this book, he outlined his vision and beliefs about governance. Likewise, if one
wants to know something about God, or what He thinks of Himself and His creation, must look for
the Bible, not another human being, like himself. Let us look at what God talk about Himself-His
existence.
4|Page

The Ignorance Of Atheism’s Arguments Regarding God

Atheism tells us that, “There is no evidence for God’s existence, but without sending us to the Bible.
Of course, if you don’t know someone or something, you cannot even think of that thing or person.
The fact that atheists think or talk about God, is enough evidence that the problem is not God’s
nonexistence, but their ignorance of His existence. Philosophically, we cannot talk about something if
that thing does not exist. Something that does not exist is not even known, so we cannot talk about it
because we don’t know it. But if the atheists can talk about God, is enough to for us to know their
problem is just ignorance of our God-the God of the Bible. They only don’t know Him but their
ignorance of Him does not stop Him from existing.
Geisler, talking about “Rational Proof for God’s Existence,” says that, “Having laid the ground for
theism in his rational realism, Hackett turns his attention to proving the existence of God. It is
impossible to deny the existence of everything, because the one making the denial at least exists to
effect the denial, which is therefore self-contradictory.” Now what exists is either an effect or not. If
not, then we have already arrived at an absolutely necessary Being.” 39
Furthermore, “What does one mean by ‘existence?’ If one means, ‘that which has come into
existence,’ then surely God does not exist because God never came into existence. He always was; He
is eternal.” 40
Thus, “To say "I believe there is no God" is a conscious choice. Then, on what do you base your
choice: evidence, logic, faith, or a combination of the three? If evidence, then what positive evidence
is there that disproves God's existence? There can be no such evidence since evidence is physical in
nature (evidence is an effect and/or result of something in reality). How could evidence disprove the
existence of God who is, by definition, the creator of reality and separate from it? Testimony is
admissible in court as evidence, but no one can rightly testify that God does not exist. If logic, then
what logical proof do you have that negates God's existence? At best, logic can only disprove theistic
proofs. Disproving theistic proofs does not mean there is no God. It only means that the proofs
presented thus far are insufficient. Logic can be used to disprove theistic evidences that are presented.
Negating such proofs is not a refutation of all possible proofs since no one can know or present all
possible proofs of God's existence. Therefore, negation of proofs does not disprove God's
existence.”41
Atheists have another argument which is “If God created the universe, who created God? You see,
whatever has come into existence was caused to come into existence by something else. The universe
came into existence. What brought God into existence?” 42
Nevertheless, the answer for this question is simple. “Nothing brought him into existence. He
has always existed. He is the uncaused cause. Think about it. You cannot have an infinite regression
of causes. It’s like having an infinite line of dominos falling one after another. If you go back infinitely
in time to try to find the first domino that started it all, you’d never find it because you’d have to cross
an infinite amount of time to get to it which is impossible to do. This would also mean that there you
can’t have an infinite regression of causes. Furthermore, this would mean there would never be a first
cause. If there is no first cause, then there can’t be a second, or a third, and so on; and you wouldn’t
have any of them falling at all. But since they are falling, there had to be a first cause--that itself was
uncaused that started the whole thing moving at a specific time in the past. So, too, with the universe.
It was caused to exist at a specific point in time. The uncaused cause is God, who decided to create
the universe and who, as the Bible says in Psalm 90:2, “is from everlasting to everlasting.” 43
Regarding the atheism’s ignorance of God, atheism argues that “God is not all-powerful if there is
something He cannot do. God cannot lie; therefore, God is not all-powerful.” This is amazing. “This
5|Page

argument would be fantastic—devastating maybe—if God was more of the ancient Greek god
persuasion, where the gods themselves were subject to fate and limited to their specific roles in the
cosmos. The Orthodox doctrine of God is much different. Christians (at least Orthodox Christians)
view God’s ontology as subject to His perfect free-will. Why is He good? Because He wills to be
good. Why does He not lie? Because He wills to be honest. Why does God exist as Trinity? Because
He wills it. He could just as easily will to not exist. And yes, He could just as easily will to lie. The
fact that He doesn’t is no commentary on whether He could.” 44
Atheists continue to argue by saying that, “Believing in God is the same as believing in the Tooth
Fairy, Santa Clause, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster.” The one making this argument doesn’t know
at all the effect of believing in God. I am sure he is not well informed of the history of believers and
the effect of their faith in God. “When one honestly assesses the Judeo-Christian doctrine of God he
will find multiple thousands of years of human testimony and religious development; he will find
martyrs enduring the most horrific trauma in defence of the faith; he will find accounts in religious
texts with historical and geographical corroboration; etc. (these facts are of course not ‘proofs,’ but
rather ‘evidences’ that elicit strong consideration). Pit this against tales of the Tooth Fairy, Santa, and
Spaghetti Monsters and one finds the exact opposite: no testimony or religious refinement, no martyrs,
no historical and geographical corroboration, etc. Instead, one finds myths created intentionally for
children, for point making, or for whatever. It’s strawman argumentation at its worst.” 45

The Ignorance Of Atheism’s Arguments Regarding Christian Religion

Here I want talk about atheism’s ignorance of our religion or faith. When you observe their arguments,
as we have seen above, their arguments are so inconsistent. They contradict themselves and exhibit
serious deluded arguments. Here is another deluded argument regarding Christianity. Atheism says
that, “Christianity arose from an ancient and ignorant people who didn’t have science.” Now, I don’t
know what atheism mean by “ignorant people who didn’t have science.” The word science is simply
connected with knowledge, understanding, skill, discipline, art, and learning. I don’t know how they
define the word science, but according to its definition, every generation−in the past−had its own
science. I think it is illogical for us to think that our science is the best−even theirs was the best in their
own time. People of every generation were skilled in different disciplines of life−and their skills were
the best for them.
For example, when we look back right from the time of the Old Testament, we find out that people
were knowledgeable according to their time and days. During Moses’ time (even before) Egypt was
civilized. The biggest library in the world was in Egypt and all those books were used for education.
One of the reasons why God allowed Joseph and Moses to grow in Egypt (my opinion), is because He
wanted them to be equipped with Egyptian’s knowledge (Acts 7:22). There were many wise and
intelligent men in Egypt. By this time, Egypt was the centre of science or knowledge−and their
leadership required skill and knowledge. For instance, years back before Moses, Egypt had the science
of embalming corpses, according to Genesis 50:2 & 50:26. The body of Joseph was embalmed and it
lasted for four hundred and thirty years (Exodus 13:19). And in his own days, Moses shows us that
there were men skilled in the project of building the tabernacle (Exod. 31:1-7).
Moreover, in the days of King Uzziah, according to 2 Chronicles 26:14-15, King Uzziah made
engines, which were invented by his skilful men, to be on the towers and the corners, to shoot arrows
and great stones. This was their technology for wars. These weapons could shoot huge stones and
could destroy great cities. Actually, the Bible says, because of this technology, Uzziah’ fame spread
6|Page

far…. So, our developed technologized weapons find their origin in his science. I don’t think that
such men were ignorant.
Furthermore, when we come to the New Testament, there were also men who were knowledgeable.
When Jesus was born, some of the people who sought Him, were the wise men or the Magi. These
wise men were astrologers or astronomers who knew to interpret astronomical phenomena as heralding
the birth of kings. “….the Magi among the Persians were their philosophers and their priests.” 46
In fact, most of the wise men, did also not believe the message of the gospel because it contradicted
with their wisdom. These ones were special because for them, the gift of faith led them to seek the
Messiah. During Paul’s days, such philosophers did not believe his message because it sharply
contradicted with knowledge, and therefore, they rejected Christ. However, some of them, like the
Magi, believed, but others did not-it is same even today. There are numerous scientists who are
Christians. Actually, every faithful scientist, will end up believing the message of the Gospel because
every good science will lead the scientist to God, because God is the origin of science.
Discussing this same argument, “Christianity arose from an ancient and ignorant people who didn’t
have science,” Eric Hyde on his blog says that, “Indeed ancient people did not have the Hubble
telescope, but they were able to see the night sky in full array, something almost no modern person
can claim (thanks to modern lighting which distorts our ability to see the full night sky). On average,
ancient people lived much closer to nature and to the realities of life and death than many of us
moderners….In terms of a living relationship with these things the ancients were far more advanced
than we are today, and this relationship is essentially the nature of religious inquiry. If people lack
religious speculation today, maybe it is because they spend more time with their iPhones and Macs
then with nature. Maybe….But the claim that Christianity was viable in the ancient world because it
was endorsed by wide spread ignorance is a profoundly ignorant idea. Christianity arose in one of the
most highly advanced civilizations in human history. The Roman Empire was not known for its
stupidity. It was the epicenter of innovation and philosophical giants. I would wager that if a common
person of today found himself in a philosophical debate with a common person of first century
Alexandria, the moderner would be utterly humiliated in the exchange.” 47
Additionally, let us look at another atheism’s arguments against Christianity. They say that,
“Christian’s only believe in Christianity because they were born in a Christian culture. If they’d been
born in India they would have been Hindu instead.”
This argument is like a story I heard some time back. Two men were returning from India to US.
One was a sportsman and the other was a missionary. “I’ve been in India for twenty-five years, and I
never saw one of the natives converted as you Christians claim, said the sportsman. “That’s odd”, said
the missionary. “Did you ever see a tiger?” Sure, hundreds of them,” was the reply. And I have shot
dozens of them.” “Well, I’ve been in India for many years, but I’ve never seen a tiger. But as I have
preached the gospel of Christ, I have seen literary hundreds of natives turn to Christ and live new lives.
All of life is like that; you are pretty much going to find what you are looking for. The one man went
looking for tigers he found them and the other man went looking for souls and he found them.
This is the same with atheists, they think that Christians are only found in countries where
Christianity is the main religion. But that is not true. Christianity only originated in Israel−even in
Israel it was aggressively resisted−but just spread in other parts and countries of the world. This means
that Christianity just invaded paganism which cherished (still cherished even after Christianity) in
those countries. The same way Christianity is trying to penetrate those countries which forbid
Christianity, is the same Christianity struggled to penetrate those countries where Christianity is
thought to be the main religion.
7|Page

Actually, in the biblical sense, there is no Christian country. Every country (even those that are
thought to be Christian countries) still cherish paganism. The so called Christian countries are even
worse than the countries that banned Christianity. Here I will use the example of my country, Uganda
(our motto says, “For God And My Country”) and America (their motto says, “In God We Trust”).
It’s said that 85% of Ugandans are Christians, but when you look around to find the effect of the
Christian religion, you are automatically disappointed. First of all, paganism is so much cherished and
practiced by the majority of Ugandans−including Christian leaders. Many of those who are named
Christians, their religion is just on their lips but their hearts are still in love with their pagan religions.
Every form of evil such as prostitution, corruption, drunkenness, witchcraft, human sacrifice, murder,
theft etc. is still on a high rate in our country. And the people who practice those forms of evil have
Christian names!
All these things show that the Christians who are in those countries (countries that are thought to
be Christians) are in the same dangers (spiritually) like those living in countries that forbid
Christianity. The only difference that is there, are the methods used to carry out their paganism actions
in those countries. In fact, in countries where Christianity is forbidden, there are many faith and true
Christians than in those countries where Christianity is allowed. In the seventies, when president Idi
Amin was persecuting the church, all the Christians who were in Uganda were true Christians. But
when our current president (who is thought to be a “Christian”) brought freedom of worship, most of
those who are thought to be Christians are just Christians by name, but they have no true relationship
with Christ. I believe that underground churches are stronger than free churches.
Discussing this argument (Christian’s only believe in Christianity because they were born in a
Christian culture. If they’d been born in India they would have been Hindu instead), Eric Hyde says
that, “This argument is appealing because it pretends to wholly dismiss people’s reasoning capabilities
based on their environmental influences in childhood. The idea is that people in general are so
intellectually near-sighted that they can’t see past their own upbringing, which, it would follow, would
be an equally condemning commentary on atheism. But, this is a spurious claim….Take the history of
the Jewish people for example. Let us say that to ‘be’ Jewish, in the religious sense, is much more than
a matter of cultural adherence. To be a Jewish believer is to have Judaism permeate one’s thinking
and believing and interaction with the world. But is this the state of affairs with the majority of the
Jewish people, whether in America, Europe, Israel, or wherever? One would have to be seriously out
of touch to believe so. The same phenomenon is found within so-called Christian communities. Indeed,
being born in a Jewish or Christian centric home today is more often a precursor that the child will
grow up to abandon the faith of his or her family.” 48
Therefore, Christians don’t believe in Christianity because they were born in Christian cultures,
but they do so because Christ, the founder of Christianity has power to invade the hearts of people
regardless of where they are. There are many Christians in countries where Christianity is a taboo. For
example, there are many Christians in countries like China, Laos (in Laos Population is 6.4 million,
and 200,000 are Christians; the country’ main religion is Buddhism). In Uzbekistan, the population is
27.5 million, and 208,600 are Christians the country’s main religion is Islam. In Iraq, the population
is 30.7 million, and 334,000 are Christians, the country’s main religion is Islam. In Saudi Arabia, the
population is 25.7 million, and 565,400 are Christians; the country’s main religion is Islam. in Iran,
the population is 74.2 million; and 450,000 are Christians the country’s main religion is Islam. And in
North Korea, the population is 20 million; and 400,000 are Christians, the country’s main religion is
Atheism.” 49
If the atheism’s argument was true and based on true knowledge, we would not find such big
numbers of Christians in those countries. But since Christianity cannot be choked or hindered (in fact,
8|Page

the more you try to supress Christianity, the more it attracts people), it penetrates even the impenetrable
countries and kingdoms. A certain site, showed on the internet this report “200,000 Buddhists Just
Turned From False Gods To Jesus Christ.” Here is the story, “Something wonderful in the Christian
sense is happening in Tibet, a region in China considered as the highest in the world and the home of
Mount Everest, earth’s highest mountain rising more than 29,009 feet above sea level…Tibetans are
mostly Buddhist, but there are also some Muslims and Christians, according to sources….Last year,
one Tibetan Buddhist priest embraced Jesus Christ and became a Christian pastor after seeing the love
of Christ shown by a group of Christian workers who helped out and provided relief goods to the
people of the region when a major earthquake struck the area. According to Joe Handley, president of
Asian Access, a Christian organisation seeking to spread God’s Word in South Asia….Now, the seed
of Christian love has grown. In an update, Handley reports that 62 other Buddhist monks have decided
to follow the footsteps of the former Buddhist lama and are now following Christ as well.”50
Regarding atheism’s ignorance of the Christian religion, their other argument says that, “The gospel
doesn’t make sense: God was mad at mankind because of sin so He decided to torture and kill His
Own Son so that He could appease His own pathological anger. God is the weirdo, not me.” The
problem with is, they totally fail to know who they are−sinners. Therefore, the gospel seems to make
no sense to them. But that does not mean that, the problem is with the gospel or Christianity. And
because of their problem−which is sin−nobody can make them understand their own dilemma.
Because of sin, they remain blind to the gospel.
Ravi Zacharias, in one of his apologetic presentations entitled, “Satan’s Temptations of Christ,”
shares a story of a certain man who woke up one morning and started telling his wife that, “he thought
he was dead.” He told her, “Honey, I think I am dead.” She tried to tell him that dead people don’t talk
but he was talking, he refused to believe her. She consulted many psychiatrists to help him but in vain.
She took him to the medical workers and they tried to convince him that only living people bleed but
dead people don’t. Thus, one doctor pricked him on the hand and he bled; but after seeing his own
blood coming out, he said, I guess that even dead people can bleed too!” This is the same issue with
atheism, they choose to disbelieve what is clear and true. What is their problem? Sin. It has made them
blind, ignorant, and rebellious. And because of this, they rebel against the truth even when it’s set
before them plainly.
The following story will illustrate this for us. One time Ravi Zacharias was making a forum at
Princeton University, and some so called heavy weight philosophers and thinkers were prepared to
ask him some questions after his presentation. When he was done with his presentation, he offered the
audience time to ask him questions but none of the people from the audience took the opportunity.
The following evening, he was going to do the same thing. When he was coming to the forum, one
guy approached him and told him, “Yesterday I brought heavy weight philosophers and thinkers to
ask you questions but none of them did so. When I asked them why they didn’t, they told me that, “the
arguments were so powerfully overstated, and they had no questions for you.” However, they said
(heavy weight philosophers) that their minds were not changed.” Regarding this story, Ravi concluded
that the problem of atheism is not intellectualism but moralism. This is true. Atheists mentally believe
in God, but morally choose to disobey Him.
“Morality exists. Whether we are considering a stone-age Amazonian cannibal or an intellectual
savant at a prestigious Ivy League school, every human being has some sense of morality. Everyone
has some level of mental obligation to do good and avoid evil. Why else do we have laws, government,
military, prisons, and self-improvement books? The atheistic view is incompatible with real moral
obligation. Therefore, the theistic view, which is compatible with real moral obligation, must be
9|Page

correct. Moral obligation cannot originate in the mind of man, and therefore must originate in the mind
of a greater being, which is God.” 51
Furthermore, let us look at another argument, and here it is: “History is full of mother-child
messiah cults, trinity godheads, and the like. Thus, the Christian story is a myth like the rest.” This is
unbelievable! “This argument seems insurmountable on the surface, but is really a slow-pitch across
the plate (if you don’t mind a baseball analogy). There is no arguing the fact that history is full of
similar stories found in the Bible, and I won’t take the time to recount them here. But this fact should
not be surprising in the least, indeed if history had no similar stories it would be reason for concern.
Anything beautiful always has replicas. A counterfeit coin does not prove the non-existence of the
authentic coin, it proves the exact opposite. A thousand U2 cover bands is not evidence that U2 is a
myth.” 52
Eric Hyde goes on to tell us that, “….but that doesn’t address the fact that some of these stories
were told before the Biblical accounts. True. But imagine if the only story of a messianic virgin birth,
death, and resurrection were contained in the New Testament. That, to me, would be odd. It would be
odd because if all people everywhere had God as their Creator, yet the central event of human
history—the game changing event of all the ages—the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Christ
had never occurred to them, in at least some hazy form, they would have been completely cut off from
the prime mysteries of human existence. It seems only natural that if the advent of Christ was real it
would permeate through the consciousness of mankind on some level regardless of their place in
history. One should expect to find mankind replicating these stories, found in their own visions and
dreams, again and again throughout history. And indeed, that is what we find.” 53

The Ignorance Of Atheism’s Arguments Regarding Evil

I want to end this topic of atheism by discussing the atheist’s ignorance of evil. Based on their
ignorance of evil, atheism accuses God of evil. They say, “The God of the Bible is evil,” and they base
this on suffering. Here is what they say, “A God who allows so much suffering and death can be
nothing but evil.” And here is one of their famous argument uttered by Epicurus one of the many great
ancient Greek philosophers, “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then He is not omnipotent.
Is He able, but not willing? Then He is malevolent. Is He both able and willing? Then whence cometh
evil? Is He neither able nor willing? Then why call Him God?...why should we humans, "fallen in
nature" as Christians call us, experience God's wrath when He is incapable of using His power to stop
the "Evil" that comes. There are two possibilities 1) God is not as powerful as thought or is powerless,
2) There is no God…If there is a God, where does evil come about? Is God incapable of removing our
innate sinful nature? Or is God a lover of evil and killing so that He is able to express His power with
the will to kill…” 54
This reminds me a video that was sent to me by a friend on WhatsApp. In this video, a certain
pastor went to a certain barber shop. While the barber was cutting his hair, he asked him the following
question, “You Christians say that there is a God somewhere, but why is there so much suffering in
the world? Why is there all these wars, hunger, deaths, accidents, poverty, child abuse, rape, natural
disasters, etc.? The pastor did not have a suitable answer for him, he chose to keep quiet. But while
was back home, he met a certain shabby gentleman on the street, and his hair were not cut. The pastor
got the answer for the barber. He took the shabby man to the barber and told him, “Sir, I think there
are no barbers in the world.” The barber was startled and replied him, “But I am a barber.” The pastors
said, “If there were barbers in the world, there wouldn’t be people like this gentleman.” The barber
replied, “No sir, there are barbers in the world but people like this gentleman, don’t come to us.” Here
10 | P a g e

you are, replied the pastor, “Sure, there is a God, but people like you don’t want to go to Him for
help.”
Furthermore, “What is tricky for the atheist in these sorts of debates is to steer clear of words
loaded with religious overtones. It’s weird for someone who does not believe in ultimate good and
evil to condemn God as evil because He did not achieve their personal vision of good. So, the initial
criticism is sound, but it is subversive to the atheist’s staging ground. If one is going to accept good
and evil as realities, he is not in a position to fully reject God. Instead, he is more in a position to
wrestle with the idea that God is good. This struggle is applauded in the Orthodox Church. After all,
the very word God used for His people in the Old Testament—“Israel”—means to struggle with
God.”55
However, think about what C.S. Lewis said on a similar matter: “There is no sense in talking of
‘becoming better’ if better means simply ‘what we are becoming’—it is like congratulating yourself
on reaching your destination and defining destination as ‘the place you have reached.” 56
Eric Hyde, in his article “God and Tragedy,” (God is all-powerful but does not care about human
suffering. Or, God cares about human suffering but He is not all-powerful),” says that, “…I do not
believe there is an answer that will satisfy all people everywhere who ask the question, “Where is God
when tragedy strikes?” What is important, I think, is that when the smoke clears one is at least in
possession of the actual claims of Christianity—the religion that specifically claims to believe in a
good and all-powerful God. Natural calamity is not the result of God’s will (at least not in every
circumstance; the argument can be made from scripture that God does indeed use calamity in some
circumstances as judgment on sin in the here and now), often it is the natural concomitant of a creation
which has lost its priestly mediator. That concomitant has everything to do with man’s willingness to
be nature’s “Consumer” rather than nature’s “Priest.” 57
Therefore, atheism’s argument regarding good and evil also lacks true knowledge. It’s based on
insubordinate ignorance. This calls atheism to come to agreement with the Bible’s message regarding
good and evil. They must believe what it says instead making notions that have no basis. Since the
fall, man is inseparable from suffering, and suffering is part of his life here on earth.
So, atheists cannot tell us that God is not there when God Himself tells us that He is there. In the
Bible, God has numerous names, but one of His common name is Jehovah/Yahweh Shammah which
means the “Lord Is There.” This is found in Ezek. 48:35. In Genesis 3, He revealed Himself to Moses
in the burning bush, and introduced Himself to him as the I AM. This means that God is not only there
somewhere but He is. He is always close to His creation. For atheists to say that He is not there does
not stop Him to exist. He is always God whether we believe His existence or not. The creature’s
believing or denial of God’s existence does not affect God but the creature.
But the atheist has no choice, he mentally believes in the existence of God but just choose to
supress it. If you have ever had arguments with atheists, you must have found this out. One time
Richard Dawkins, one of the famous atheists, was with the vicar of Saint Paul, England; and they were
on BBC radio live. Of course, as an atheist, he was so hostile against the vicar, making atheism’s usual
claims. And in the middle of the argument, Richard Dawkins told the moderator, “Basically, Christians
are very unintelligent people, if you are to ask an average Christian about the gospels, they cannot
even name them.” Then the vicar asked Richard, “You are a very erudite scientist; he said yes. Then
the vicar told him, your favourite book is the “The Origin Of Species,” right? by Darwin, right?” he
said yeah. And the vicar asked Richard, “Can you name the full title of the book?” Richard said, “Yeah,
yeah, I know the title of the book, it is a much longer title.” The vicar said, “Go ahead and name the
title of the book for me.” Richard started fidgeting by saying, “The title of the book is….the title of
the book is, “Oh my God!” He could not name the title of his favourite book. The following morning’s
11 | P a g e

newspaper, said, “It’s been a bad week for atheists.” This is exactly why C.S. Lewis said, “Arguing
against God is arguing against the very power that makes you able to argue at all.” 58

Atheism’s Dangerous Belief-Evolution

This is how man evolved according to evolution theory. This photo also shows how other creatures evolved from

their particular species into other species. “The last

shore- dwelling ancestor of modern whales was Sinonyx, top left, a hyena-like animal. Over 60 million years, several
transitional forms evolved: from top to bottom, Indohyus, Ambulocetus, Rodhocetus, Basilosaurus, Dorudon, and
finally, the modern humpback whale.” 59

Introduction: The Definition Of Evolution And Natural Selection

In this last part of this paper, I want to discuss atheism’s arguments regarding evolution. Many atheists
try to find comfort in the myth of evolution. Here is what atheism says about evolution: “Evolution
has answered the question of where we came from. There is no need for ignorant ancient myths
anymore.” No! This is not true. Evolution has not answered the question of where we came from.
Instead of answering that question, it has just created more confusion in the minds of those who try to
study evolution. What is evolution? “In biology, evolution is the change in the characteristics of a
species over several generations and relies on the process of natural selection. The theory of evolution
is based on the idea that all species are related and gradually change over time. Evolution relies on
there being genetic variation in a population which affects the physical characteristics (phenotype) of
an organism. Some of these characteristics may give the individual an advantage over other individuals
which they can then pass on to their offspring.” 60
Then, what is natural selection? “Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution states that evolution
happens by natural selection. Individuals in a species show variation in physical characteristics. This
variation is because of differences in their genes. Individuals with characteristics best suited to their
environment are more likely to survive, finding food, avoiding predators and resisting disease. These
individuals are more likely to reproduce and pass their genes on to their children. Individuals that are
poorly adapted to their environment are less likely to survive and reproduce. Therefore, their genes
are less likely to be passed on to the next generation. As a consequence, those individuals most suited
to their environment survive and, given enough time, the species will gradually evolve.” 61

The Problem With Evolution-It Lacks Enough Scientific Evidence

I once heard a story of a bright student in a primary school who challenged his teacher who was
teaching them evolution. The teacher was teaching them how man evolved from animals such as apes
and gorillas. Then, this bright student posed a simple, but very significant question to the teacher. He
told the teacher that since science goes with facts, “Teacher, before we think about animals turning
into humans, “Have those scientists tried to evolve, let’s say, a cat into a leopard, or a leopard into a
lion, or a lion into a jaguar, using their laboratories?” I think, the student continued, “it is easier to
evolve a certain type of animal (especially those of the same family) into another animal than evolving
12 | P a g e

an animal into a human being.” After this question, the teacher had to stop the class for a while. This
is the problem with evolution or Darwinism, there are no practical scientific evidences or facts of what
they teach, but everything is theory−yet science deals with facts. “The Darwinism seems to overlook
the obvious fact the dogs are all still dogs, the horses still horses, the roses still roses. None of the
changes has created a novel kind organism. Dogs breeding has given rise to varieties of ranging from
the lumbering Great Dane to the tiny Chihuahua, but no variety shows any tendency to leave the canine
family.” 62
Let us look at some scientific discoveries of human genes and animal genes. Can animal genes or
blood be connected with human genes or blood in any way? “Why are scientists certain that human
evolution happened?” Regarding these questions, evolutionists say that, “For a number of reasons. We
share nearly 99 percent of our genetic sequence with chimpanzees and bonobos, which strongly
suggests we share a common ancestor. And there are thousands of fossils documenting progressively
more human-like species in the evolution of our lineage after it split from the other great apes and later
from chimps and bonobos.” 63
In their famous book, The Updated & Expanded Answers Book, Ken Ham, Jonathan Safarti, and
Carl Wieland, tell us that, “The idea that human beings and chimps have close to 100% similarities in
their DNA is often claimed to prove that human evolved from apes. The figure quoted vary:97%, 98%,
or even 99% similarity, depending on who is telling the story…What of the figure 97% similarity
claimed between humans and chimps? The figure quoted do not mean quite what is claimed in the
popular publication (and even some science journals). DNA contains its information in the sequence
of four chemical compounds known as nucleotides, abbreviated C,G,A,T. Complex translation
machinery in the cell “reads” and translates these into the sequence of the 20 different amino acids in
proteins (a typical protein has hundreds of amino acids). The human DNA has over 3 billion
nucleotides. Neither the human nor the chimp DNA has been anywhere near fully sequenced to allow
a proper comparison. It may be a while before such a comparison can be made because it may be 2005
before we have the full sequence of human DNA, and chimp DNA sequencing has a much lower
priority…Where then did the ‘97% similarity’ come from? 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 chip DNA. However, there are various reasons why
DNA does or does not hybridize, only one of which is degree of similarity. Consequently, those
working in the field of molecular homology do not use this somewhat arbitrary figure; other figure
derived from the shape of the ‘melting curve’ are used instead. Why has the 97% figure been
popularized then? Perhaps it served the purpose of indoctrinating the scientifically illiterate with
evolution−like the imaginative ‘ape-men’ reconstruction in may museums.” 64
All this shows us that evolution’s idea of mutation is a myth because it does not explain how it
happened (it’s still a myth and theory), nor why mutations ceased when man came into being. Why
aren’t human life forms continuing to evolve and turn into something else? Though evolution claims
to be “….one of the best substantiated theories in the history of science, supported by evidence from
a wide variety of scientific disciplines, including palaeontology, geology, genetics and developmental
biology,” 65 it is practically a theory without true proof of its assumptions.
Let us conclude the issue of DNA. “What if human and chimp DNA were even 96% similar?
What would that mean? Would it mean that human could have ‘evolved’ from a common ancestor
with chimps? Not at all! The amount of information in the 3 billion base pairs in the DNA in every
human cell has been estimated to be equivalent to that in 1,000 books of 500 pages each. If humans
were ‘only 4% different this still amounts to 120 million base pairs, equivalent to about 12 million
words, or 40 large books of information. This is an impossible barrier for mutation (random changes)
13 | P a g e

to cross….Does a high degree of similarity mean that two DNA sequences have the same meaning or
function? No, not necessary. Compare the following sentences:
There are many scientists today who question the evolutionary paradigm and its atheistic
philosophical implications.
There are not many scientists today who question the evolutionary paradigm and its atheistic
philosophical implications. These sentences have 97% homology and yet have opposite meanings!
There is a strong analogy here to the way in which large DNA sequences can be turned on or off by
the small control sequences….the methods used to generate the figures so often quoted (and
misquoted!) are very clumsy. They do not legitimize the claim that people and chimps are related in
an evolutionary sense. The more we learn of the complexities of the biochemical systems in our cells,
the more marvellous they become. Furthermore, even if we accept the data as legitimate, there is no
way that mutation could bridge the gap between chimps and humans. Chimps are just animals. We are
made in the image of God (no chimps will be reading this).” 66

The Atheist’s Major Problem−He Does Not Know His Origin

According to evolution’s theory, man came by chance. Since the big bang was not planned but came
as natural chances, so man came by chance. He is an example of evolutionism’ theory regarding man,
it was quote by George Gaylord Simpson: “Man is the result of a purposeless and materialistic process
that did not have him 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.” 67
This is a big problem when approaching the issue of God and religion. In order for someone to
understand the topic of God and religion, one must first of all understand who he/she is−God’s
creation. One must be able to answer these questions clearly: Where did man come from? What is the
purpose of man here on earth? How did man learn to reason and create ways that make him unique
from animals? When and how does man learn to live in communities and grow his own foods? Why
and how does man have the capacity to worship God? Why does man have capacity to choose to right
and wrong? Why is man able rule animals instead of animals ruling man? Surely, evolution does not
have any answer to these questions.
Unfortunately, “Even many Christians who uncritically accept evolution as “God’s way of
creating” try to somehow elevate the origin of man, or at least his soul, above that of the beasts.
Evolutionists attempt to soften the blow by assuring us that man didn’t exactly evolve from apes
(tailless monkeys) but rather from apelike creatures. This is mere semantics, however, as many of the
presumed apelike ancestors of man are apes and have scientific names, which include the word
pithecus (derived from the Greek meaning “ape”). The much-touted “human ancestor” commonly
known as “Lucy,” for example, has the scientific name Australopithecus afarensis (meaning “southern
ape from the Afar triangle of Ethiopia”). But what does the Bible say about the origin of man, and
what exactly is the scientific evidence that evolutionists claim for our ape ancestry?”68
However, for the Christian, “God tells us that in the same week He made all animals that walk on
the earth, (on the sixth day), He created man separately in His Own Image with the intent that man
would have dominion over every other living thing on earth (Genesis 1:26–28). From this it is clear
that there is no animal that is man’s equal, and certainly none his ancestor….Thus, when God paraded
the animals by Adam for him to name, He observed that “for Adam there was not found an help meet
for him” (Genesis 2:20). Jesus confirmed this uniqueness of men and women when He declared that
marriage is to be between a man and a woman because “from the beginning of the creation God made
14 | P a g e

them male and female” (Mark 10:6). This leaves no room for prehumans or for billions of years of
cosmic evolution prior to man’s appearance on the earth. Adam chose the very name “Eve” for his
wife because he recognized that she would be “the mother of all living” (Genesis 3:20). The apostle
Paul stated clearly that man is not an animal: “All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of
flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds” (1 Corinthians 15:39).”69

The Conflicts Of Worldviews Against Christianity

Atheism is one of the many world views that try to compete with Christianity. And here I want to look
at some of them and to discuss what Christianity says regarding each view. When discussing the
culture war in their book How Now Shall We Live?, Charles Colson and Nancy Pearcey, said that,
“The culture war is not just about abortion, homosexuality rights, or the decline of public education.
These are only the skirmishes. The real war is a cosmic struggle between worldviews−between the
Christian worldview and the various secular and spiritual worldviews arrayed against it. This is what
we must understand if we are going to be effective both in evangelizing our world today and in
transforming it to reflect the wisdom of the Creator.” 70

Christianity vs. Naturalism

Therefore, what and how can Christians respond against naturalism’s claims or teachings? Are we
well prepared to take the challenge? “Theism the belief that there is a transcendent God who created
the universe; naturalism is the belief that natural causes alone are sufficient to explain everything that
exist. The most fundamental questions reflect these categories: Is ultimate reality God or the cosmos?
Is there a supernatural realm, or is nature all exists? Has God spoken and revealed His truth to us, or
is truth something we have to find, even invent, for ourselves? Is there a purpose to our lives, or are
we cosmic accidents emerging from the slime?” 71
Furthermore, “These two major systems are utterly opposed, and if we going to defend the truth
effectively, we must grasp their full implications. Naturalism is the idea that nature is all exists, that
life arose from a chance collision of atoms, evolving eventually into human life as we know it today.
In this broadest sense, naturalism can even include certain forms of religion−those in which the
spiritual is conceived as completely inherent within nature, such as neo-pagan and New Age religions.
By contrast, Christianity teaches that there is a transcendent God who existent before the world existed
and who is the ultimate origin of everything else. The universe is dependent at every moment on His
providential government and care.” 72
In addition, how does naturalism respond or treat life? Does naturalism believe in moral absolute
truth? Let us look at some of its responses regarding this matter. And its first response is called moral
relativism. “In morality, naturalism results in relativism. If nature is all there is, then there is no
transcendent source of moral truth, and we are left to construct morality on our own. Every principle
is reduced to a personal preference. By contrast, the Christian believes in a God who has spoken, who
has revealed an absolute and unchanging standard of right and wrong, based ultimately on His Own
Character.” 73
Moreover, naturalism believes in what is called, multiculturalism. “As a sequence of relativism,
the naturalist treats all cultures as morally equivalent, each merely reflecting its own history and
experience. Contemporary trends like postmodernism and multiculturalism are rooted firmly in
naturalism, for if the there is no transcendent source of truth or morality, then we find our identity only
our race, gender, or ethnic group. But Christians can never equate truth with the limited perspective
15 | P a g e

of any group. Truth is God’s perspective, as revealed in Scripture. Hence, while we appreciate the
cultural diversity, we insist on the propriety of judging particular culture practices as morally right or
wrong.” 74
Likewise, naturalists believe in pragmatism. “Since naturalists deny any transcendent moral
standards, they tend to take a pragmatic approach to life. Pragmatism says: Whatever works best is
right. Actions and policies are judged on utilitarian (useful or practical) grounds alone. By contrast,
the Christian is an idealist, judging actions not by what works but by what ought to be, based on
objective standards.” 75
Equally important, “Naturalists generally embrace the Enlightenment notion that human nature is
essentially good, which leads to utopianism. Utopianism says: If only we create the right social and
economic structures, we can usher in an age of harmony and prosperity. But Christians can never give
their allegiance to utopian projects. We know that sin is real, that it has deeply twisted human nature,
and that none of our efforts can create heaven on earth. Heaven is an eschatological hope that will be
fulfilled only by divine intervention at the end of human history. In the meantime, the human
propensity to evil and disorder must be hemmed in by law and tradition.” 76
Lastly, “Naturalists consider only what happens in this world, this age, this life−This world
perspective. But Christians see things from an eternal perspective. Everything we do now has eternal
significance, because one day there will be a judgement, and the it will become evident that our choice
in this life have consequences that last into eternity.” 77

Finally, What Does Science Say?

As I said before, every good and faithful scientist, after observing creation with great care, concludes
by referring us to God as the Supreme Designer of creation. The hand of God is undeniably
everywhere. The hand of God is found in every discipline of science be it, mathematics, biology,
chemistry, physics, geology, or astronomer. As the Psalmist declared in Ps. 19:1-4, that, “The heavens
declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork. Day to day pours out speech,
and night to night reveals knowledge. There is no speech, nor are there words, whose voice is not
heard. Their measuring line goes out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world….,
God is both loudly and silently speaking to all human beings, including scientists. The voice of God
has been loudly or silently heard by the scientist but supressed. Those who are good and faithful
scientists have publicly declared God’s sovereignty over creation.
Surely, “After maintaining for centuries that the physical universe is eternal and therefore needs no
creator, science today has uncovered dramatic new evidence that the universe did have an ultimate
origin, that it begun at a finite time in the past−just as the Bible teaches….British physicist Paul Davies,
though not a professing Christian, says the big bang is “the one place in the universe where there is
room, even for the most hard-nosed materialist, to admit God…The facts clearly indicates that the
universe is not eternal, and it cannot originate itself. The implication is that the universe began at a
definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy. Science has begun to sound eerily like Genesis,
“And God said, Let there be light’” (1:3)….Not only are scientist acknowledging an ultimate
beginning, but they are also recognizing that the physical structure of the universe gives striking
evidence of purpose and design. They have proposed what is known as the anthropic principle, which
states that the physical structure of the universe is exactly what it must be in order to support life.” 79
16 | P a g e

The Christian Worldview Answers Our Questions

Therefore, this confirms that the Christian worldview answers all our questions. While all these other
views cannot answer adequately these questions, “Where did man come from? Why am I here? Where
am I going? Does life have any meaning and purpose? Christianity offers the viable, rationally
defensible answers to these questions. Only Christianity offers a way to understand both the physical
and the moral order. Only Christianity offers a comprehensive worldview that covers all areas of life
and thought, every aspect of creation. Only Christianity offers a way to live in line with the real
world….Only the Judeo-Christian view of life conforms to reality, to the nature and character of the
human condition as we actually experience it. Only the biblical view creates a sustainable and rational
and truly liberating basis for human life. This becomes abundantly clear when we examine Christianity
and naturalism from several perspectives: compatibility with scientific evidence, human dignity, the
ultimate meaning in life, our destiny, and service to others.”80
Accordingly, “Which worldview corresponds with the scientific evidence? Respect for human life
at all stages is supported by growing scientific data showing that even before birth, the fetus is fully
human….Medicine is performing diagnostic and therapeutic wonders on unborn babies, including
surgery. The growth of scientific knowledge, “is causing us to regard the unborn baby as real personal
long before birth,” says Mike Samuels in American Family Physician…In earlier writings, Fish had
dismissed arguments against abortion as based on “religious convictions” alone, while suggesting that
the case for abortion is based on “scientific facts.” George’s position (another scientist) held that, on
the contrary, the arguments against abortion are based on scientific data that a fetus is indeed human.”81
In addition, “Which worldview provides the strongest basis for human dignity? Did you know that
“Charles Darwin (d.1882) himself opposed smallpox vaccination and laws helping the poor, because
this opposed his “survival of the fittest” hypothesis? Hitler used Darwin’s thesis to eliminate the Jews
and other supposedly inferior races. Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, used Darwinism
to justify abortion and even infanticide of supposedly inferior ethnic groups like African-
Americans….” 82
On the contrary, Scripture tells us that, “God created man in His Own Image,…male and female
He created them” (Gen. 1:27)…The Christian worldview also tells us that humans have an eternal
destiny, which likewise bolsters human dignity. Throughout history, most cultures have had a low
view of the individual, subordinating the individual to the interest of the tribe or state. And if
Christianity were not true, this would be quite reasonable. “If individuals live only seventy years,”
said C.S. Lewis, “then a state, or a nation, or a civilization, which may last for a thousand years, is
more important than an individual. But if Christianity is true, then the individual is not only more
important but incomparably more important, for he is everlasting and the life of a state or civilization,
compared with his, is only a moment…And because we all stand on equal ground before God,
Christianity gives a sound basis for social and political equality. Each individual stands directly
accountable before the Creator, writes Abraham Kuyper, there are no intermediates, not spiritual
hierarchies between us and God…Consequently, the Christian worldview, “condemns not merely all
open slavery and systems of caste, but also all covert slavery of women and of the poor.” 83
Furthermore, “Which worldview gives a sense of meaning and purpose? One of the only arguments
often used for abortion is that children should not be brought into a world where they are destined to
suffer poverty or abuse. Likewise, a common argument for euthanasia is that the gravely ill have no
purpose for living. These views seem persuasive only because the purpose of life has been reduced to
something woefully shallow, a simplistic sense of happiness as emotional fulfilment, career success,
or wealth…However, pleasure, freedom, happiness, prosperity−none of these is ultimately fulfilling
17 | P a g e

because none can answer that ultimate question of purpose. What is the purpose of human life?
Knowing that we are fulfilling God’s purpose is the only thing that really gives rest to the restless
human heart.” 84
Similarly, “Which worldview provides a sense of assurance about our ultimate destiny? Every
view of human life is shaped by two great assumptions: our origin and our destiny−where we came
from and where we are going. The latter asks, Is this life all there is? Is death the end of all our deepest
aspirations and longings? The existentialists pointed out that there is nothing beyond the grave, then
death makes a mockery of everything we have lived for, death reduces human projects and dreams to
a temporary diversion, with no ultimate significance. But if our souls survive beyond the grave, as the
Bible teaches, then this life is invested with profound meaning. Everything we do here has a
significance for all eternity. The life of each person whether in the tomb or out, whether healthy or
infirm, takes on an enormous dignity…For the secularist, death is like stepping off a cliff into a black
abyss of nothingness. The Muslim faces a fearsome judgement, and for many Eastern religions, the
prospect is equally grim: After death, the law of karma decrees that people must pay the penalty for
what they done in this life, being reincarnated according to their past deeds. But for the Christian,
assured of eternity with the Lord, “To die is gain” (Phil. 2:21). 85
Finally, “Which view of life provides the most certain motive for service and care of others?
Scripture commands believers to love our neighbours as ourselves (Matt. 19:19), to care for widows
and orphans (James 1:27), to be a Good Samaritan (Like 10:30-37), to feed the hungry, clothe the
naked, visit the sick and imprisoned (Matt. 25:36). But where does this compassion, this compulsion
to care for others, come from? The answer is that if we know we are created by God, then we should
live is a state of continuous gratitude to God. Gratitude, said, G. K. Chesterton, is the mother of all
virtue. Gratitude for every breath we breathe, every moment we have to enjoy the wonders of His
creation and all that is ours−family, work, recreation. Gratitude that the Son of God took away our
sins and paid out debt on the cross. Compelled by this gratitude, we desire to love Him and live as He
commands. “This is love for God; to obey His commands” (1 John 5:3)86
However, “To be sure, well-meaning secularists can show compassion, give generously to charities,
and offer help to the downtrodden and needy. As creatures made in the image of God, all human beings
practice some of the virtues. But the critical question is, What motivates them? As sociobiologists
have so persuasively argued, if humans are a product of natural selection, then even the most caring
acts are performed, ultimately, because they advance our own genetics interests. Kindness is a
disguised form of selfishness. What this means is that even the most conscientious secularists have no
rational basis for being compassionate; they act on solely subjective motive−which could change at
any given moment…But when believers are selfish, they are acting contrary to their own belief. By
contrast, when secularists are compassionate, they are acting contrary to the internal logic of their own
worldview.” 87
Therefore, I can firmly conclude that, evolution−not even other worldviews−has not answered the
question of where we came from, we still need the Christian worldview to shape our views regarding
family, social and community. And for the atheist, you must remember that, “To deny God is to blind
ourselves to reality, and the inevitable consequence is that we will bump up against reality in painful
ways, just as blindfolded driver will crash into other drivers or run off the road.”88