 2007 by David A. Prentice HOW DO YOU K NOW WHAT YOU K NOW? Or at least what you think you know? HOW DO YOU K NOW WHAT YOU K NOW? Or at least what you think you know? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 

 2007 by David A. Prentice Short Review n Questions n The 6 days of creation are really 6,000 years, right? n Did God use evolution to create anything? n Is Evolution science or religion? n Answers n WRONG! They are just Normal Days!!! n NO!!! n Religion

 2007 by David A. Prentice Smile! There are Only 2 Slides of Review Questions !!!

 2007 by David A. Prentice Last Questions n Which two are Non-Repeatable: Science History Belief n Which two must have Eye Witnesses Science History Belief Science History Belief n Which is history and which is only belief? Evolution Creation = History!!!= Only Belief!!!

 2007 by David A. Prentice IS IT LOGICAL TO BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION? IF man evolved from apes, Your brain evolved from an ape brain. IF your brain evolved from an ape brain, Your logic evolved from ape logic. Your logic evolved from ape logic. How do you know it evolved right? Maybe you’re not even asking the right questions! How do you know it evolved right? Maybe you’re not even asking the right questions! Evolution is logical ONLY if you are a modified ape.  Page 9

 2007 by David A. Prentice How do they know that? n When n When we hear the Discovery Channel say a new missing link that proves evolution has been discovered! –We –We ask: How do they know that? n When n When we read in our science books, “this animal has been evolving for millions of years to fine tune its ability to survive” –We –We ask: How do they know that?

 2007 by David A. Prentice What do we ask? n When we hear Elmo say, “Elmo is glad dinosaurs haven’t been around for millions of years!” –We ask:... n When we hear Pastor or Mrs. Kim say, “the earth is less than 4,000 years old" –We ask:...

 2007 by David A. Prentice HOW DO PEOPLE “KNOW” ANYTHING? PAGE 10

 2007 by David A. Prentice People “know” through personal experience n This method relies on the five senses –I “know” touching a stove burns me because I touched one once and it burned me n However, the five senses can mislead –I saw the ghost of my dead grandmother last night with my own two eyes!

 2007 by David A. Prentice People “know” what leading authorities tell them n This method usually relies on humans –I “know” poinsettias are poisonous because a nurse told me so n However, authorities can mislead –The leading authorities of his day told Columbus that he would sail over the edge of the world if he went too far

 2007 by David A. Prentice People “know” through logic n This method relies on the human brain –I know, “what goes up must come down” – the law of gravity always wins! n However, logic can mislead –When one goes outside of our atmosphere, nothing ever has to come down n Everyone dies, so I’ll die someday –Not if Christ comes back first

 2007 by David A. Prentice People “know” through feeling or intuition n This method relies on emotions –I just “know” this is the job God wants for me! n Emotions can mislead –What if it takes you away from spending time with God in His Word and prayer?

 2007 by David A. Prentice People say they “know” when they are really just wishing nTnTnTnThis method relies on nothing –I–I–I–I just “know” that cute boy was looking at me in third period nWnWnWnWishful thinking obviously misleads –Y–Y–Y–You were probably blocking his view of the mirror

 2007 by David A. Prentice People say they “know” when they are simply lying n This method relies on our ignorance –Like the boy I worked with, “I KNOW evolution is true because I believe in SCIENCE!” n Lies can be hard to see through when they sound true –He finally admitted, “I believe in evolution because I don’t want to believe in a God I have to answer to.”

 2007 by David A. Prentice 1. Personal Experience through the five senses. I know a bee sting hurts; I know how to ride a bike. 1. Personal Experience through the five senses. I know a bee sting hurts; I know how to ride a bike. 2. Reliance on Authority. I know the sun is 93 million miles away; Jesus loves me, this I know, for the Bible tells me so. 2. Reliance on Authority. I know the sun is 93 million miles away; Jesus loves me, this I know, for the Bible tells me so. 3. Logic. I know 2 million + 2 million = 4 million, even though I’ve never counted that high. I know I have a brain, even though I’ve never seen it. 3. Logic. I know 2 million + 2 million = 4 million, even though I’ve never counted that high. I know I have a brain, even though I’ve never seen it. 4. Feeling or Intuition. I know she’s the one for me; I know God has called me to the ministry. 4. Feeling or Intuition. I know she’s the one for me; I know God has called me to the ministry. 5. Wishful Thinking (you really want it to be true) I just know I’m going to win the lottery! 5. Wishful Thinking (you really want it to be true) I just know I’m going to win the lottery! 6. Bluffing (lying) - you try to persuade others for an ulterior motive. You should buy these tickets from me because I know this team is going to the Super Bowl this year; I know evolution is a fact! 6. Bluffing (lying) - you try to persuade others for an ulterior motive. You should buy these tickets from me because I know this team is going to the Super Bowl this year; I know evolution is a fact! WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO “KNOW” SOMETHING?  UNRELIABLE Except Bible UNRELIABLE

 2007 by David A. Prentice REASONS TO BELIEVE OTHERS WHO TRY TO PERSUADE US OF WHAT THEY “KNOW” REASONS TO BELIEVE OTHERS WHO TRY TO PERSUADE US OF WHAT THEY “KNOW” IS IT BECAUSE: (1) They claim to have personal experience, OR (2) They appeal to an authority we trust, OR (3) We have checked out their logic and found it trustworthy? (1) They claim to have personal experience, OR (2) They appeal to an authority we trust, OR (3) We have checked out their logic and found it trustworthy? OR are we willing to trust their (4) intuition, (5) wishful thinking, or (6) lying? OR are we willing to trust their (4) intuition, (5) wishful thinking, or (6) lying?  PAGE 11

 2007 by David A. Prentice THE PREHISTORIC PAST: 1. No living person has personal experience. 2. There are no eyewitness accounts except the Bible, which is unacceptable to skeptics. SO HOW DO WE “KNOW” ABOUT THE BEGINNING? Through LOGIC ONLY? SO HOW DO WE “KNOW” ABOUT THE BEGINNING? Through LOGIC ONLY? 

 2007 by David A. Prentice Converse in Logic n Take an “if, then” : –Original “ If I am listening to the pastor of West Side, then I am listening to Pastor David Pearson” n Reverse the positions of the two statements –Converse “ If I am listening to Pastor David Pearson, then I am listening to the pastor of West Side”

 2007 by David A. Prentice Must work in “if and only if” form backward and forward –If I am talking to the tallest man in the room, then I am talking to Uncle Henry n Does it fit the “if and only if” form? –I am talking to the tallest man in the room, if and only if I am talking to Uncle Henry –I am talking to Uncle Henry, if and only if I am talking to the tallest man in the room. TRUTH!!!

 2007 by David A. Prentice Converses are often false n If the statement and its converse cannot fit the “if and only if” form –“If I am talking to one of the shortest women in the room, then I am talking to Mama G” n Does it fit the “if and only if” form? –“I am talking to one of the shortest women in the room, if and only if, I am talking to Mama G” TRUTH? FALSE!!!

 2007 by David A. Prentice TALKING TO ONE SHORT WOMAN TO MRS. KIM TO MRS. CHRISTAL TO MAMA G TO MRS. BECKY TO MARCIA PROPER LOGIC FLOW PROPER LOGIC FLOW 1-21 PAGE 12

 2007 by David A. Prentice TALKING TO ONE SHORT WOMAN TO MAMA G IMPROPER LOGIC FLOW IMPROPER LOGIC FLOW 1-21 There are Other short women There are Other short women If you’re Talking to A short Woman You must be Talking To me! If you’re Talking to A short Woman You must be Talking To me!

 2007 by David A. Prentice Evolution rests on Logic n In school evolution is taught as truth –As the only truth possible n They started by saying: –Universe exists = evolution could be true n Now they say: –Evolution is true = the universe exists

 2007 by David A. Prentice Evolution rests on Logic n Evolution is true, if and only if the universe and life exist - True logic! n Universe doesn’t exist = evolution can’t be true n Universe exists = evolution could be true BUT...

 2007 by David A. Prentice Is Logic Ever Misleading? –Converse: If the universe exists, then evolution must be true n The universe exists = evolution is true

 2007 by David A. Prentice If and only if Test n “If and only if” test –Evolution could be true, if and only if the universe and life exist. –Universe exists = evolution could be true –The universe and life could exist, if and only if evolution is true. –Evolution is true = the universe exists TRUTH? FALSE!!!

 2007 by David A. Prentice UNIVERSE EXISTS ATHEISTIC EVOLUTION CORRECT THEISTIC EVOLUTION CORRECT YOUNG-EARTH CREATION CORRECT SOMETHING ELSE CORRECT SOMETHING ELSE CORRECT “POSSIBLE” EXPLANATIONS FOR THE UNIVERSE OLD-EARTH CREATION CORRECT 1-23

 2007 by David A. Prentice UNIVERSE EXISTS TO MAMA G IMPROPER LOGIC FLOW IMPROPER LOGIC FLOW 1-21 There are Other possibilities There are Other possibilities If you exist, I must be true If you exist, I must be true

 2007 by David A. Prentice EVEN IF SOMETHING SOUNDS TRUE!!! IT COULD BE FALSE!!!

 2007 by David A. Prentice EVEN WITH CORRECT LOGIC, FALSE PREMISES CAN LEAD TO FALSE CONCLUSIONS. All dogs bark. (Or, “If an animal is a dog, then it barks.”) Fido is a dog. Therefore, Fido barks. Not if Fido is a Basenji! Not if Fido is a Basenji! Basenjis do not bark. If any one of our premises is wrong, then our conclusion is unreliable. 1-24

 2007 by David A. Prentice WHO? W H O ? WHAT? W H A T ? WHAT NOT? W H A T N O T ? HOW? H O W ? GOD? G O D ? HOW TO TELL SCIENCE FROM STORYTELLING HOW TO TELL SCIENCE FROM STORYTELLING 1. WHO said they saw it? Can I trust them? 1. WHO said they saw it? Can I trust them? 2. WHAT did they actually see? 2. WHAT did they actually see? 3. WHAT are they NOT telling me? 3. WHAT are they NOT telling me? 4. HOW could I test this to see if it’s true? 4. HOW could I test this to see if it’s true? 5. What does GOD have to say about it? 5. What does GOD have to say about it? HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT? 1-25 PAGE 13

 2007 by David A. Prentice MATERIALISM: NO GOD ALLOWED! MATERIALISM: NO GOD ALLOWED! "We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of the failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, "We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of the failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." Richard Lewontin, The New York Review, Jan Richard Lewontin, The New York Review, Jan materialism WE BELIEVE IN NATURAL PROCESSES BECAUSE WE DO NOT WANT A GOD!!! PAGE 14

 2007 by David A. Prentice GOD MUST BE 1. Only seen by what He does - 1. Only seen by what He does - 2. Established natural laws, so is not subject to those laws - 2. Established natural laws, so is not subject to those laws - 3. Preceded the universe - 3. Preceded the universe - 4. Influence extends throughout the universe - 4. Influence extends throughout the universe - 5. Directly or indirectly responsi- ble for everything that has ever happened - 5. Directly or indirectly responsi- ble for everything that has ever happened - 6. Nobody made Him INVISIBLESUPERNATURALETERNALOMNIPRESENTOMNIPOTENTSELF-EXISTENT

 2007 by David A. Prentice What if there is no God? Then the universe would have to be the result of a series of forces, processes, and events operating with no particular purpose for billions of years. IF THERE IS NO GOD, THEN WHAT? What characteristics would Random Chance have to have? What characteristics would Random Chance have to have? 1-28 We could call the whole series “evolution,” “quantum fluctuation,” or “accident.” Let’s use the term “Random Chance,” with the under- standing that it represents the whole multibillion year series of forces, processes, and events.

 2007 by David A. Prentice NECESSARY CHARACTERISTICS 1. Only seen by what He does - INVISIBLE. 1. Only seen by what He does - INVISIBLE. 2. Established natural laws, so is not subject to those laws - SUPERNATURAL. 2. Established natural laws, so is not subject to those laws - SUPERNATURAL. 3. Preceded the universe - ETERNAL. 3. Preceded the universe - ETERNAL. 4. Influence extends throughout the universe - OMNIPRESENT. 4. Influence extends throughout the universe - OMNIPRESENT. 5. Directly or indirectly responsi- ble for everything that has ever happened - OMNIPOTENT. 5. Directly or indirectly responsi- ble for everything that has ever happened - OMNIPOTENT. 6. Nobody made Him - SELF- EXISTENT. 6. Nobody made Him - SELF- EXISTENT. RANDOM CHANCE 1. Only seen by what it does - INVISIBLE. RANDOM CHANCE 1. Only seen by what it does - INVISIBLE. 2. Established natural laws, so is not subject to those laws - SUPERNATURAL. 2. Established natural laws, so is not subject to those laws - SUPERNATURAL. 3. Preceded the universe - ETERNAL. 3. Preceded the universe - ETERNAL. 4. Influence extends throughout the universe - OMNIPRESENT. 4. Influence extends throughout the universe - OMNIPRESENT. 5. Directly or indirectly responsi- ble for everything that has ever happened - OMNIPOTENT. 5. Directly or indirectly responsi- ble for everything that has ever happened - OMNIPOTENT. 6. Nobody made it - SELF- EXISTENT. 6. Nobody made it - SELF- EXISTENT GOD There is no possibility that God does NOT exist. PAGE 15

 2007 by David A. Prentice 3. If you believe in Random Chance and you are right, nothing matters anyway. 3. If you believe in Random Chance and you are right, nothing matters anyway. 2. If you believe in the God of the Bible and you are wrong, you’ll never know -- so it doesn’t matter. 2. If you believe in the God of the Bible and you are wrong, you’ll never know -- so it doesn’t matter. 1. If you believe in the God of the Bible and you are right, you at least have the potential to spend eternity in heaven with Him. GOD OR RANDOM CHANCE? The Bible says that God loves you so much that He gave His only son to die for your sins. 1. If you believe in the God of the Bible and you are right, you at least have the potential to spend eternity in heaven with Him. 2. If you believe in the God of the Bible and you are wrong, you’ll never know -- so it doesn’t matter. 2. If you believe in the God of the Bible and you are wrong, you’ll never know -- so it doesn’t matter. 3. If you believe in Random Chance and you are right, nothing matters anyway. 3. If you believe in Random Chance and you are right, nothing matters anyway. 4. If you believe in Random Chance and you are wrong, you are headed for an eternal hell. 4. If you believe in Random Chance and you are wrong, you are headed for an eternal hell. Which step of faith makes more sense? Which step of faith makes more sense? 1-30 PAGE 16

 2007 by David A. Prentice USEFUL IDEAS WITH STRANGE ORIGINS The Sewing Machine - DREAM Structure of Benzene – DREAM Fiber Optics – OCEAN INSPIRATION Self-Starting Electric Motor – SUNSET INSPIRATION Breakthroughs in Astronomy - ACCIDENTS etc. The Sewing Machine - DREAM Structure of Benzene – DREAM Fiber Optics – OCEAN INSPIRATION Self-Starting Electric Motor – SUNSET INSPIRATION Breakthroughs in Astronomy - ACCIDENTS etc. 1-31

 2007 by David A. Prentice WHERE DID SCIENCE COME FROM? WHERE DID SCIENCE COME FROM? Eastern Religions Eastern Religions 1. The physical universe is a deception. 1. The physical universe is a deception. RESULT: There is no point in studying nature. RESULT: There is no point in studying nature. Western Religions Western Religions RESULT: The Scientific Method. RESULT: The Scientific Method. Science owes its very existence to Western religious belief. Science owes its very existence to Western religious belief. 2. There is no such thing as objective reality. 2. There is no such thing as objective reality. 3. Because of this, it is not possible to accu- rately measure the uni- verse or know things about it with certainty. 3. Because of this, it is not possible to accu- rately measure the uni- verse or know things about it with certainty. 1. The physical universe is real. 1. The physical universe is real. 2. There is such a thing as objective reality. 2. There is such a thing as objective reality. 3. It is possible to accu- rately measure the uni- verse and know things about it with varying degrees of certainty. 3. It is possible to accu- rately measure the uni- verse and know things about it with varying degrees of certainty. 1-32