Conversational Apologetics Pointed Questions – Part 1

Conversational Apologetics Open Questions  To understand and know them Pointed Questions  To remove the “roof” of their irrational assumptions Explain the Gospel  Only when asked Nurture The Relationship  Help unbelievers grow towards Christ  Help believers to grow IN Christ

The Transition How do we go from Open Questions to Pointed Questions?  Make sure we understand the other person’s point If we don’t, ask more Open Questions  Listen to their answers Do they make sense? Are they attacking a point or a person? Are they making fair comparisons?  Know that if they are not Christians, they are either: Not living in the real world, or Not living consistently with their non-Christian worldview

How Would You Respond? I'd like to nominate Irving Kristol, the neoconservative former editor of The Public Interest, as the father of "intelligent design." No, he didn't play any role in developing the doctrine. But he is the father of the political strategy that lies behind the intelligent design movement - a strategy that has been used with great success by the economic right and has now been adopted by the religious right.

Pointed Questions Logical Fallacy: Ad Hominem  How does the involvement of Kristol invalidate Intelligent Design?  You admit he had nothing to do with Intelligent Design, so why are you bringing him up?

How Would You Respond? Back in 1978 Mr. Kristol urged corporations to make "philanthropic contributions to scholars and institutions who are likely to advocate preservation of a strong private sector." That was delicately worded, but the clear implication was that corporations that didn't like the results of academic research, however valid, should support people willing to say something more to their liking.

Pointed Questions Logical Fallacy: Bald Assertion  What is your source of information? Logical Fallacy: Ad Hoc Conclusion  On what basis do you draw this ‘clear’ implication

How Would You Respond? The most spectacular example is the campaign to discredit research on global warming. Despite an overwhelming scientific consensus, many people have the impression that the issue is still unresolved. This impression reflects the assiduous work of conservative think tanks, which produce and promote skeptical reports that look like peer-reviewed research, but aren't. And behind it all lies lavish financing from the energy industry, especially ExxonMobil.

Pointed Questions Logical Fallacy: Ad Hominem  On what basis do you conclude that the science funded by Exxon is inaccurate? Logical Fallacy: False Analogy  How is any of this relevant to the merits of Intelligent Design?

How Would You Respond? Finally, the self-policing nature of science - scientific truth is determined by peer review, not public opinion - can be exploited by skilled purveyors of cultural resentment. Do virtually all biologists agree that Darwin was right? Well, that just shows that they're elitists who think they're smarter than the rest of us.

Pointed Questions Logical Fallacy: Bald Assertion  Do ‘virtually’ all biologists agree because of the ‘self-policing nature of science?’  Can you provide evidence that evolution has been subjected to this ‘self-policing’ process?

How Would You Respond? Which brings us, finally, to intelligent design. Some of America's most powerful politicians have a deep hatred for Darwinism. Tom DeLay, the House majority leader, blamed the theory of evolution for the Columbine school shootings. But sheer political power hasn't been enough to get creationism into the school curriculum. The theory of evolution has overwhelming scientific support, and the country isn't ready - yet - to teach religious doctrine in public schools.

Pointed Questions Logical Fallacy: Ad Hominem  What does Tom DeLay have to do with the objective merits of evolution vs intelligent design?

How Would You Respond? The important thing to remember is that like supply-side economics or global-warming skepticism, intelligent design doesn't have to attract significant support from actual researchers to be effective. All it has to do is create confusion, to make it seem as if there really is a controversy about the validity of evolutionary theory. That, together with the political muscle of the religious right, may be enough to start a process that ends with banishing Darwin from the classroom.

Pointed Questions Logical Fallacy: False Analogy  Even if everything you say about global warming research is true, how does this prove Intelligent Design to be wrong? Logical Fallacy: Slippery Slope  What proponent of Intelligent Design has said anything about not teaching Darwin in school?