Critical Thinking Paper – Secularism
Toward the end of the Renaissance, the modern method of
empirical science began to develop. The key players were Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543), Johannes Kepler (1571-1630), and Galileo Galilei (1564-1642). Although it mayseem ironic now , each of these men believed in the Christian
God. They viewed science as studying the handiwork of analmighty Creator and discerning His natural laws. Galileoconsidered God to have written two “books”: the Bible andnature (Hummel, p. 106). Contrary to popular belief, the cause for the diversion between Christianity and science originated not with theChurch but with the university professors who were threat –
ened by Galileo’ s revolutionary ideas. These professors were
steeped in the Greek scientific method, which included observation to a small extent, but mostly explained the workings of nature through rational deduction from first principles, or assumptions, an entire view of the universe hadbeen built up. Consequently , the professors embraced such
misconceptions as the sun having no imperfections, the moonbeing a perfectly smooth sphere that shone with its own light,and the earth alone having a moon since the earth was at thecenter of the universe. Galileo’ s recently invented telescope
quickly demonstrated the incorrectness of such assumptions(Hummel, pp. 91-94). Not willing to be thwarted by Galileo, the professors decided to make the controversy religious rather than academic(Hummel, p. 92). They ar gued that the heliocentric (sun-cen –
tered) view contradicted scripture (e.g., Psalm 104:22 says,“The sun rises.” Therefore, the sun must revolve around sta –
tionary earth). In the face of what at that time appeared to bea genuine contradiction between scripture and the heliocen –
tric theory , the theologians of the Roman Catholic Church
had no choice but to condemn Galileo’ s views, because the
conflict had challenged the authority of the Church. As a result of that controversy , the schism between reason
and faith had begun. There were now two apparently irreconcilable sources of truth: the church and science.
A Religion Profile from International Students, Inc.
Secularism: An Overview
Number of Adherents
Demographer Davit Barrett estimates that there are 150 million atheists and 768 million nonreligious people in the world. Thecombined total comes to more than 918 million people (Barrett). Secularism Among the Nations
In more than 40 countries, atheists or nonreligious make upmore than 10 percent of the population (W orld Christian
Database). The following are just a few of those countries:Austrailia, Britain, Canada, China, Cuba, Czech Republic,France, Germany , Hungary, Italy, Japan, North Korea,
Mongolia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Russia, Sweden,Uruguay and V ietnam.
Defining the T erms
An “atheist” is one who says there is suf ficient evidence to
show that God does not exist. An “agnostic” is one who saysthere is insuf ficient evidence to know whether or not God
exists. The “functional atheist” is one who is apathetic concerning God’ s existence. For the purposes of this profile,
the term “secularist” will be used to indicate all three.
The Rise of Secularism
The Renaissance (Ca.
In the early 1400s, Gutenber g invented the printing press with
movable type. As a result, the writings of the past becamemuch more accessible to the public, and this increased accessibility sparked two responses. One was a greater awareness of and obedience to God’ s Word, which led to the
Reformation. The other was a pursuit of humanistic themes,which drew upon the writings of Greek and Roman thinkersand served as the foundation for the Renaissance. The word“renaissance” means “rebirth,” and that which was rebornwas man’ s sense of independence and individualism. In the way that philosopher Rene Descartes (1596-1650) responded to a movement call Pyrrhonism (named after theGreek skeptic Pyrrho, 365-275
B.C.), he contributed to the
trend of moving the source of truth away from the Church.Pyrrhonism was a form of utter skepticism whereby every –
thing was doubted. As a result, nothing could be known forcertain. The significance of Descartes’ cogito er go sum (“I
think, therefore I am”) is that he had used Pyrrhonists’ ownmethod of questioning everything in order to establish onefact: The doubter could be certain of his own existence(Brown, p. 184). Descartes had no intention of being a religious reformer; nevertheless, his new method of approaching truth shook Christianity to its core. It was used toshift the basis for certainty from God to man. The Enlightenment (ca.
The success of science ushered in the Age of Enlightenment. During the Enlightenment, people began to elevate science tobeing the ultimate test for truth. The discoveries of the laws of science by men like Francis Bacon (1561-1626), Robert Boyle (1627-1692), and IsaacNewton (1642-1727) gave support to the analogy that the universe was like a machine. Such an analogy , when
misapplied, tended to dismiss the need to believe in a Godwho sustained the universe. Other challenges to the Christian worldview came through philosophers Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679), David Hume(171 1-1776), and Immanuel Kant (1724-1804). Hobbes drew
out the implications of a materialistic philosophy in whichmatter was the ultimate stuf f of the universe. Hume, in his
Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, presented ar guments against the veracity of the miracle accounts in the
Bible. And Kant encouraged people to assert the power oftheir own intellect and to throw of f the shackles of
ecclesiastical authority (Brown, pp. 286-287). Still, even with the onslaught of the Enlightenment, most people in the nineteenth century , including scientists, believed
in the existence of a rational and personal Creator . The reason
was that there was no alternative theory to that of creationthat adequately explained the existence of an orderly universe. That changed with Charles Darwin. The Modern Age (ca. 1800 to pr esent)
In 1859, Charles Darwin (1809-1882) published On the
Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection , or The
Pr eser vation of Favour ed Races in the Str uggle for Life. In it,
Darwin theorized that life forms had resulted from natural, random processes and not from the pre-design of anintelligent Creator . The gap that had previously been filled
with a religious faith in a Creator could now , through the
theory of evolution, be filled with a purely scientific and naturalistic explanation. Many scientists became enthralledwith the theory of evolution, and began to apply it to everyfield of study
, including history (Marx) and psychology
(Freud). The result of Darwinism was that, for many , the belief in God
became an unnecessary hypothesis. If mankind was to find solutions for its problems and hope for its future, people mustlook inward, not toward God.
The Beliefs of Secularism
The Denial of God The most fundamental tenet of secularism is the denial of the existence of the supernatural. According to secularism, beliefin God is nothing more than a projection of man’ s own
thoughts and desires. God did not make man in His image;instead, man made God in his image. The Denial of MiraclesAfter having denied God’ s existence, it’s logical then to
conclude that miracles —the result of God’ s intervention—are
not possible. The miracles recorded in the Bible, secularists surmise, must have been the embellishments of the authorswho were promoting their particular religious agenda (Geislerand Brooks, ch. 5; Geisler , 1992).
The Fact of Evolution Secularists assert that the existence and complexity of the universe can be suf ficiently explained through naturalistic
principles as set forth in the theory of evolution. Personalityand mind also have resulted from the evolutionary processand are suf ficiently explained through the interaction of
chemical and biological elements. Thus, there is no “ghost inthe machine.” The Potential of ManSecularists see religion as being restrictive and escapist. Religion does nothing more than to assuage the fears of anignorant people. If humanity is to survive, secularists say ,
mankind must face problems squarely and find the answerswithin itself, reason, and science. Secularism begins and endswith man. Man will be able to face the issues squarely only when freed from the shackles of religion. The Centrality of ScienceSecularists are confident that the scientific method of inquiry is the only reliable avenue by which to discover truth andknowledge. According to the secularistic point of view , there
2 The Finality of Death At death, the individual ceases to exist in any cohesive or conscious form. As the signers of The Humanist Manifesto IIwrote, “There is no credible evidence that life survives thedeath of the body” (Lamont, p. 293).
is an irreconcilable antagonism between reason and faith, science and religion, empirical observation and revealedauthority
The Str ess on Relativity
Secularists deny that there is an absolute moral referencepoint beyond man (i.e., a holy God). They contend thathumankind does not need an absolute moral standard beyonditself in order to have a suf ficient foundation and motivation
for moral behavior . Humanity is by nature good, and all that
is needed to realize that innate goodness is education, notreligious transformation.
God Matter , in one form or another , is all that has existed from
HumanityHumanity is by nature monistic in that man consists of only one substance: matter . Humanity represents the high –
est point of the gradual and random processes of evolution. Humanity’ s Problem
The problem is that humanity depends on the escapist promises of religion, rather than facing problems squarelyand believing that humankind has the potential to create aworld in which peace and justice will prevail. The SolutionThe solution is in extending the scientific method of ratio –
nal inquiry into all aspects of life, while at the same time maintaining a sense of compassion for the individual. Jesus Christ At most, Jesus was a good moral teacher . Because the bib-
lical authors embellished the details of Jesus’ life, though, we can be certain of very little concerning what is histori –
cally accurate. After DeathThere is no personal survival after death. Christianity
God alone is infinite and eternal. The material universe is finite and has not always existed. God created it out ofnothing. Humanity is by nature dualistic in that man consists of two substances: body and spirit. Humanity , being made in the
image of God, represents the highest point of God’ s
creation. The problem is that man has rebelled against a personal and holy God. As a result, man lives for himself and placeshope in false gods, such as success, money , nature, science,
education, etc. The solution is in man being restored to a right relationship with a holy God through faith in Jesus Christ. WhileChristianity encourages the rational inquiry of science, itopposes scientism, which goes beyond the limits of sciencein that it claims that the scientific method is a suf ficient
avenue to all truth. Jesus was the very embodiment of God on earth. The Bible meets the qualifications for being authentic history . It
records that Jesus lived, died for our sins, and rose fromthe dead. There is personal survival after death, either to eternal life with God or eternal separation from Him.
Secularism and Christianity Contrasted Suggestions for Evangelism
What Kind of God Did the Student Reject? Don’ t assume that all secularist international students have
rejected the personal God of the Bible. Since they came from cultures influenced by various non-Christian religions, theymight not have considered the possibility that a personal Godwho loves them exists. Ask questions to discern their conceptof God. Of fer Evidence for God’ s Existence
In the following section, some evidences for God’ s existence
is listed. Notice how each new bit of evidence tells us a little more about the nature of God —from Cause, to Intelligent
Cause, to Moral Being, to Fulfiller of our Longings. • The Origin of the Universe and of Life The second law of thermodynamics says that while the total amount of ener gy remains constant (the first law), the
availability of usable ener gy is constantly decreasing.
Ener gy, then, inevitably moves toward a state where it is
increasingly unusable and inaccessible. The inevitablecooling of a cup of hot tea typifies the constraintsimpressed by the second law .
What are the implications of the second law with respectto the origin of the universe? It means that the universehad a beginning. Why? Because if the universe has alwaysexisted, then an infinite amount of time would havealready passed until this present moment. But this cannotbe true because, according to the second law , the universe
would then be in a state of equilibrium —a cold and lifeless
state of absolute rest. The question that obviously follows is: If the universe has not always existed, then who or what caused it to comeinto existence? W e can appeal to science for the answer .
Scientists understand that the universe was tuned in at itsinception to a precision of greater than sixty decimalplaces, which is a precision equal to the number tenmultiplied by itself more than sixty times. Unless theuniverse had been finely tuned, it would not have“worked.” But all known natural processes are not tunedthat finely , only to several decimal places. Only a First
Cause with supreme intelligence could have produced suchphenomenal accuracy .
Further questions include: What is life, and how did itoriginate? Could life have arisen from the gradual changesthat resulted from the interaction between natural forcesover billions of years? T o help answer such questions, try doing a simple
experiment. Pour salt and pepper into a clear container that can be covered, and keep the salt and pepper separate.Then shake it. What happens? The salt and pepper becomemixed. Now continue shaking the container to try toseparate the two. Do they become unmixed? What wouldbe the best way to separate the salt from the pepper? What does this experiment illustrate? First, that the ran –
dom processes of nature destroy , not create, patterns. Sec-
ond, that it would take an intellect (by physically separating the salt from the pepper) to restore the pattern(see Gange, ch. 7). Living cells are like the pattern of the salt and pepper being separated, except that the patterns in such cells aremuch more complex. They are not only complex but alsoviable, in that not just any pattern will do; living cells mustmaintain a particular pattern that will produce and sustainlife. Such a pattern, moreover , contains a vast amount of
information, such as is found in DNA. Life is not the mererepetitive pattern that is contained in crystals, which therandom processes of nature can produce, but it is like thepattern contained in a blueprint, which can be producedonly by an intelligent being. The question of origins, then, concerns the issue of what is a suf ficient source for the information —the coherent and
viable patterns —contained within living cells? T o say that
the information contained in a complex living cell camefrom the random and gradual evolutionary processes ofnature is to believe that one can separate the salt from thepepper by shaking the container —an outcome that, being
unobserved, is a matter of faith and one that goes againstthe observed second law . The best explanation for the
source of information in living cells is not blind nature, buta Supreme Intellect. After all, it is an everyday empiricalfact that people, not random forces, are the source ofmeaningful and coherent patterns (e.g., words, cars,buildings, etc.). Also, it is not mere coincidence that thetheme of separation —the instilling of information —is
found in the creation account of Genesis 1, where Godseparated light from darkness; the waters above from thewaters below; sea from land; time into days and years; sea,air , and land life, each after its own kind; man from dust;
and woman from man.
• The Pr esence of Design
The ar gument from design is built on the premise that
design indicates the work of an intelligent designer (see Ps.19:1, Rom. 1:20). The classic example is that of a watch.Obviously , the intricate inner workings of a watch could
not have come about as the result of random chance, but
Approaching Secularists doubt that lingers. For example, Corliss Lamont, who was voted Humanist of the Year in 1977, wrote, “Even I, disbe –
liever that I am, would frankly be more than glad to awakesome day to a worthwhile eternal life” (Lamont, p. 98).Atheist philosopher Bertrand Russell, too, expressed somehesitation concerning the idea that this life is all there is: “Itis odd, isn’ t it? I care passionately for this world and many
things and people in it, and yet…what is it all? There mustbe something more important, one feels, though I don’ t
believe there is” (Heck, p. 224). What would be the sourceof our yearning for an existence beyond? Perhaps the uni –
verse has played a cosmic joke on us. Or , our yearning is a
mistake of evolution. What, though, if it’ s not a joke or a
mistake, but a pointer to that which is real?
The Deeper Issues People make decisions based not only on their intellect, but also on their emotions. So, one should also try to pluck thosedeeper chords.
only by the thoughtful planning of an intelligent designer (see Olsen, pp. 26-27, and Denton, ch.14). The same is trueof the relationship between the creation and the Creator(e.g., the intricacies of the human eye).
• The Stirring of the Conscience
Our consciences and feelings of guilt give evidence to ourmoral nature. Such moral feelings are like currency —they
are worthless unless backed up by something of value out –
side themselves. They also indicate that the best explana –
tion for why we have moral sensibilities is that our Sourcemust be both moral and personal, for impersonal naturalforces do not have moral sensibilities. In other words, sincethere is a moral law binding on all of that insists we dowhat is just and good, there must be a Moral Law Giver(see Geisler and Brooks, ch.13).
• The Longing for Something Beyond While secularists might say publicly that they accept deathas being the final end, there is nevertheless that private
“There is no absolute truth.” “Life is meaningless.” “Science is the only avenue to truth.”“All morality is relative.” “Each individual determines his or her own purpose in life. There is no ultimate purpose.” The theory of evolution, which is lauded as a natural law ,
contends that complexity (life) arises out of simplicity (non –
life) without the aid of intelligence. “Humanity is, by nature, good.” “What is needed today is rational and logical thinking.” Contradiction or Problem
Such a statement itself claims to be an absolute truth. The person who says this claims to make a meaningful state –
ment (Zacharias, p. 73).Such a statement cannot itself be proven to be true by the sci –
entific method.How can we tell if a person who makes such a statement is telling the truth, since he or she might consider it convenientto lie? Plus, such a person often does not hesitate to makemoral judgments concerning social issues, or concerning hisor her view of God (e.g., Why did God permit evil?) If there’ s no ultimacy to any purpose, then even the
individual purposes are meaningless. How does anyone know there is no ultimate meaning unless he or she has an ultimateperspective? Contradiction or Problem: But the law of entropy , which is an
indisputable law of nature, says that complex things disinte –
grate to a state of simplicity (see Noebel, pp. 330-333).Such a statement lacks meaning since there is no moral refer –
ence point in secularism by which to gauge goodness.How can our thoughts be trusted to reflect reality if they are the product of nothing more than chemical and biologicalelements?
Contradictions and Problems within the Secularistic W orldview responding to their objection directly, ask them to consider
something: What is the source of their sense of justice? Some might answer that each individual is his or her own source. Others might say that the moral foundation for oursense of justice is to be found in social consensus. The problem with such answers is that they derive the sense of “ought” from that which “is.” But that which “is” is aninsuf ficient basis for our sense of “ought.” Just because most
people have told a lie does not negate our sense that lying ismorally wrong. If we base our sense of justice on nothinghigher than ourselves or social consensus, then we will bemired in moral relativity . But is not “relative justice” a
contradiction in terms? In order for one’ s sense of justice to have meaning, it must be
based on a firm moral standard. What we observe is that moral sensibilities are properties of personal beings, not natural forces. But what kind of being would be 1) personal,2) beyond humanity , and 3) have moral sensibilities? The
answer: God! Therefore, the sense of justice raised in theobjection actually af firms the existence of the very thing that
is being questioned, for only a personal, holy God is a suf ficient moral basis for our sense of justice. In brief, then,
things can’ t be ultimately unjust unless there is an ultimate
justice (God). But will God indeed judge those who have never heard of Jesus? No and yes. No, in the sense that He will not judge uson the basis of revelation that we have not received. Y es, He
will judge us, though, on the basis of how we respond to theknowledge that we have received (Rom. 2:12). God has giveneveryone an awareness of who He is. By what means?Through what is called “general revelation,” which includesthe disclosure of God through creation and conscience (Lewisand Demarest, ch. 2; Rom 1:19-20; 2:14-15; cf. Ps. 8:1, 3;19:1-4; Isa. 40:12-14, 26; Acts 14:15-17; 17:24-25). “The Bible Is Not W orth Serious Consideration”
Secularists dismiss the Bible, contending that it is filled with myths, contradictions, and scientific inaccuracies. Because ofspace limitation, only a few responses to this objection will besummarized (see Boice, ch. 5; Geisler and Howe, ch.1). First, ask if they have read the Bible, and if they have not done so, challenge them to read it. It’ s very possible that their
attitude toward the Bible was received through someone else. Second, every educated person should be familiar with the Bible. Why? Because, according to the Guinness Book of
W orld Recor ds, the Bible is the number one bestseller of all
time (MacFarlan, p. 383). Also, the Bible has had a signifi –
cant influence on W estern literature. One book on literature
says, “Great authors commonly show a familiarity with theBible, and few great English and American writers of the
Show That Y
Floyd McClung of Y outh with a Mission articulated this prin –
ciple in a catchy way: “People don’ t care how much you
know until they know how much you care” (Aldrich, p. 35). Obviously , part of what it means to care is being concerned
about people’ s needs.
Caring also means building a friendship that is unconditional.While we should not be shy in sharing our faith with an inter –
national student, neither should our friendship be conditionedon how a student responds to the message of Christ. Another way of showing that you (and God) care is by praying for your international friend. Ask how you may prayspecifically for him or her . For many international students, it
will be news that God cares about their individual needs.
Responding to Hindrances and Objections
The Pr oblem of Evil
The problem of evil is that if there is an all-powerful and all-good God, then He wouldn’ t allow evil. But evil does
happen, so God is either not all powerful or not all good. One may respond to this objection by pointing out, first, that the problem of evil actually assumes the existence of an abso –
lute standard of goodness. That standard can be found only ina holy God, the very thing that the ar gument is trying to deny
(see Geisler and Brooks, ch. 4; Zacharias, pp. 174-178). Second, identify the source of evil (see Kreeft, pp. 49-56). W e
are talking about moral evil, not natural disasters or physical diseases. W ith respect to moral evil, we are persons, and per –
sons have the ability to choose between good and evil. Evil isthe result of persons having chosen wrongly . God cannot be
held responsible for the way His creatures have chosen to goagainst Him, since their ability to choose is real. Could God have made a world where the people were programmed to choose to do only that which is good? Y es,
but such creatures would have been automatons, not persons,and they would not have had the ability to make real choices. Third, when a person cites the problem of evil as an objection, he or she is assuming that God has not dealt withevil. The Bible declares, however , that God has dealt with evil
through the atoning death of Jesus Christ. The real issue, then,is that He has not dealt with it in a way they expected or assoon as they desired. But if God is all good and all powerful,then we know that if evil is not defeated, it eventually will be,because Jesus Christ’ s resurrection demonstrated that victory .
“How Can a Just God Judge Those Who Have NeverHeard of Jesus?” This objection raises the issue of justice. So, before seventeenth, eighteenth, nineteenth, and twentieth centuries
can be read with satisfaction by one ignorant of Biblical literature” (Holman, pp. 61-61). Third, the Bible should be given serious consideration because it is historically accurate (see Bruce; Geisler andBrooks, ch. 9; Kitchen; W ilson; and Yamauchi).
Fourth, the secularist should give the Bible serious considera –
tion because it is unique among religious scriptures in that itspeaks of a God who is absolute in His holiness and whojudges sinners. In light of that fact, would bad men write suchfierce judgments against their own sin? Or , on the other hand,
would good men put “Thus saith the Lord” on something thatthey had devised themselves? Isn’ t it more likely that it came
from God (Boice, pp. 57-58)? Other approaches to this objection include: 1) the Bible’ s
amazing unity , considering it consists of 66 books that were
written over a fifteen-year period (see McDowell, p.18); 2) the biblical authors being led to avoid scientific misconcep –
tions about the body , the heavens, and the earth that were pop –
ular in the cultures and religions of its time (see Barfield;Montgomery , part 3); and 3) the fulfillment of prophecy (see
McDowell, ch. 9; Montgomery , part 4, chs. 3-4).
“Evolution Suf ficiently Explains the Origin of the
Universe and the Diversity of the Species” Most of us don’ t have the expertise to present the evidence
against evolution with any sense of scientific sophistication. How , then, should we respond to the objections raised by
those who believe in evolution? 1. Keep it Simple Keep the meaning of creation basic. Y our definition of
creation should include nothing more than the belief that anintelligent Creator is necessary to explain the origin of theuniverse. Anything more will divert the discussion away fromthe core issue. 2. Evolution Is Also Based on Infer ence
Evolution is based on faith just as much as creationism. Be aware that evolutionists move from the observable to the theoretical in a way that is not warranted by the evidence.They observe that minor changes occur within species(microevolution), but they then extrapolate from those observations the theory that such changes eventually add upto the formation of entirely new species (macroevolution).While microevolution is empirically verifiable, the extrapola –
tion to macroevolution is only a theory that has never beenobserved and that is a matter of faith (Johnson, p. 1 15).
3. Belief in Cr eation Is a Reasonable Infer ence
Creationism is a reasonable alternative to evolution. After all,one of the principles of science is that every ef fect has a
suf ficient cause. Creationism posits a suf ficient cause for our
7existence as persons: a personal God who is morally holy
intelligent, and self-existent. Evolution, on the other hand, posits what appears to be an insuf ficient cause in that the
complex (human life) comes out of the simple (nonlife), orthat the universe arose from nothing without a cause. Creationism is reasonable, moreover , because it is able to
make a distinction between operation science, which has to do with the principles that govern the continued operation of theuniverse, and origin science, which has to do with the principles that caused the universe to begin. By saying thatscience can make statements about the origin of the universe,evolutionists are assuming that the very same laws involvedin the operation of the universe are adequate to explain theorigin of the universe. Such an assumption is similar to sayingthat the very same laws that explain how a car functions aresuf ficient to explain how the car was designed and built. They
aren’ t, because the origin of the car needed the guidance of
intelligent beings (Geisler , 1983, pp. 137-138).
If you want to garner evidence against evolution that is of amore scientific nature, the following are fruitful lines or ar gumentation (see Noebel, ch. 14).
• the fossil record: the sudden appearance of complex life forms and lack of transitional forms,
• the problem of life coming from nonlife (see Gange, ch. 9; Thaxton),
• the problem of complexity arising out of simplicity without the aid of intelligent intervention,
• the immense amount of information encoded into the DNA, which would indicate an intelligent source rather than thatof a random chance (see Grange),
• the lack of beneficial mutations, • the limits to the amount of change possible within a species. For books that address the theory of evolution from a scientific perspective, the following three are recommended:Evolution: A Theor y in Crisisby Michael Denton, Darwin on
T rial by Philip Johnson, and Of Pandas and Peopleby
Percival Davis and Dean Kenyon.
For books that address most of the common objections raisedby secularists, see Copan, Geisler and Brooks, Gish, Kreeft,Moreland (1987), and Strobel (2000 and 2004). For books that give scientific evidence for the existence of an Intelligent Designer , see Broom, Dembski and Kushiner , and
Moreland (1994). For books that could be given to secularists for them to con –
sider ar guments for the existence of God, see Boa, Geisler
and T urek, and Strobel (2000 and 2004). For DVDs that could
be shown to a secularist, see ColdW ater Media and Illustra
Media (2002 and 2004). Kreeft, Peter. Yes or No: Straight Answers to Tough Questions about Christianity . San
Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1991.
Lamont, Corliss. The Philosophy of Humanism . New York: Continuum, 1988.
Lewis, Gordon and Bruce Demarest. Integrative Theology, Vol. 1.Grand Rapids, Mich.:
Zondervan Publishing House, 1987.
MacFarlan, Donald (ed.). Guinness Book of World Records . New York: Bantam Books,
McDowell, Josh. Evidence that Demands a Verdict . San Bernardino, Calif.: Campus
Crusade for Christ, 1972.
Montgomery, John (ed.). Evidence for Faith: Deciding the God Question . Dallas: Word
Moreland, J. P. Scaling the Secular City: A Defense of Christianity . Grand Rapids,
Mich.: Zondervan, 1987.
Moreland, J.P. (ed.). Creation Hypothesis: Scientific Evidence for an Intelligent
Designer . Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1994.
Noebel, David. Understanding the Times . Manitou Springs, Colo.: Summit Press, 1991.
Olsen, Viggo. The Agnostic Who Dared to Search . Chicago: Moody Press, 1990.
Ross, Hugh. The Fingerprint of God . Orange, Calif.: Promise Publishing Co., 1989.
Strobel, Lee. The Case for a Creator: A Journalist Investigates Scientific Evidence That
Points Toward God . Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2004.
Strobel, Lee. The Case for Faith: A Journalist Investigates the Toughest Questions to
Christianity . Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2000.
Thaxton, Charles, Walter Bradley, and Roger Olsen. The Mystery of Life’s Origin:
Reassessing Current Theories . New York: Philosophical Library, 1984.
Wilson, Clifford. Rocks, Relics and Biblical Reliability . Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zonder-
van Publishing House, 1977.
www.worldchristiandatabase.org. 3/20/05. Yamauchi, Edwin. “Archeology and the New Testament.” The Expositor’s Bible Com-
mentary, Vol. 1. Frank E. Gaebelein (ed.). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1979.
Zacharias, Ravi. A Shattered Visage: The Real Face of Atheism . Brentwood, Tenn.:
Wolgemuth & Hyatt, 1990.
Christian Apologetic W ebsites
Apologetics Resear ch Networkwww.arn.or g
All About God www.allaboutgod.com
Discover y Institute’ s Center for Science and Cultur e
www .discovery .org/csc
Genesis Foundation www.genesisfoundation.or g
Josh McDowell www.josh.or g
Reasons to Believe www.reasons.or g Bibliography and Resources
Aldrich, Joseph C. Life-Style Evangelism . Portland, Oreg.: Multnomah Press, 1981.
Barfield, Kenny. Why the Bible Is Number 1: The World’s Sacred Writings in the Light
of Science . Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1988.
Barrett, David and Todd M. Johnson. “Annual Statistical Table on Global Mission..” International Bulletin of Missionary Research . January 2002.
Boa, Kenneth and Robert Bowman, Jr. 20 Compelling Evidences that God Exists . Tulsa,
Okla.: River Oak Publishing, 2002.
Boice, James M. Foundations of the Christian Faith . Downers Grove, Illl.” InterVarsity
Broom, Neil. How Blind Is the Watchmaker? Nature’s Design and the Limits of Natural –
istic Science . Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2001.
Brown, Colin. Christianity and Western Thought: A History of Philosophers, Ideas and
Movements, Vol. 1 . Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1990.
Bruce, F. F. The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? Downers Grove, Ill.:
InterVarsity Press, 1978.
ColdWater Media. Icons of Evolution: The Growing Scientific Controversy over Darwin
(DVD). Palmer Lake, Colo.: ColdWater Media, 2001.
Copan, Paul. That’s Just Your Interpretation: Responding to Skeptics Who Challenge
Your Faith . Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 2001.
Davis, Percival and Dean Kenyon. Of Pandas and People: The Central Question of Bio –
logical Origins . Dallas: Haughton Publishing, 1989.
Dembski, William and James Kushiner. Signs of Intelligence: Understanding Intelligent
Design . Grand Rapids, Mich.: Brazos Press, 2001.
Denton, Michael. Evolution: A Theory in Crisis: New Developments in Science Are
Challenging Orthodox Darwinism . Bethesda, Md.: Adler & Adler, 1985.
Gange, Robert. Origins and Destiny: A Scientist Examines God’s Handiwork . Dallas:
Word Publishing, 1986.
Geisler, Norman. Is Man the Measure? Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1983.
Geisler, Norman. Miracles and the Modern Mind . Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book
Geisler, Norman and Frank Turek. I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist .
Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Books, 2004.
Geisler, Norman and Ron Brooks. When Skeptics Ask: A Handbook on Christian Evi –
dences . Wheaton, Ill.: Victor Books, 1990.
Geisler, Norman and Thomas Howe. When Critics Ask: A Popular Handbook on Bibli –
cal Difficulties . Wheaton, Ill.: Victor Books, 1992.
Gish, Duane. Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No! El Cajon, Calif.: Institute for Creation
Heck, Joel (ed.). The Art of Sharing Your Faith . Tarrytown, N.Y.: Fleming H. Revell
Holman, C. Hugh. A Handbook to Literature (third ed.). Indianapolis: Odyssey Press,
Hummel, Charles. The Galileo Connection: Resolving Conflicts Between Science and
the Bible . Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1986.
Illustra Media, The Privileged Planet: The Search for Purpose in the Universe (DVD).
La Habra, Calif.: Illustra Media, 2004.
Illustra Media. Unlocking the Mystery of Life: The Scientific Case for Intelligent Design
(DVD). La Habra, Calif.: Illustra Media, 2002.
Johnson, Phillip. Darwin on Trial. Washington, D.C.: Regnery Gateway, 1991.
Kitchen, K. A. The Bible in Its World: The Bible and Archeology Today . Downers
Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1977.
PO Box C Colorado Springs, CO 80901T oll Fr ee: 1-800-ISI-TEAM
Phone: (719) 576-2700; Fax: (719) 576-5363Email: email@example.com g; www.isionline.or g
For International Students: www .internationalstudents.org
Written by Dean Halverson, Dir ector of Apologetics for
International Students, Inc.. Copyright © 1992, 2005 by International Students, Inc.