Apologetics And Evolution

One of my past topics of interest has been apologetics as it pertains

to the Bible. One of the most interesting facets has always been the

reliability of the Scriptures- Is what we have really what the

Disciples wrote- is what we have really what Moses, etc. wrote?

Over the years spanning about 150 years many ideas have been put forth

to refute the authenticity of portions. There is one common thread that

runs throught practically all arguements against this authenticity.

The idea called "the argument from silence". What this means is since

we haven't found it, it does not exist therefore any claimm to its

existence is false.

Many of the arguments against Christianity came

out of the late nineteenth century, really an unfair time for such

arguments to take hold and convince people that the Bible is untrue

because archaeologic activity of the Middle East at this time was

really just getting started.

What is interesting is that this questioning

of the authenticity if the Bible parallels the development

of the hype of evolution. Here are some of the then poplular

arguments against Christianity:

1) Pentateuch. The Mosaic authorship was taken away and

refuted. It was commonly believed that the Mosaic Books were part of

an oral tradition. The higher critics could not believe that early

man could develop such a complex system of law. There was no proof

that such things existed. There were no early writings found that

dated to Moses' time.

2) Luke. It was believed at one time that Luke was totally

unreliable as a historian. There were many many details in his book

that at the time were thought to be wrong. They went against what was

actually thought at that time.

3)The Greek language. The written text of the Bible was found

to be a type of Greek that was unknown at the time. Many called it

"The Holy Spirit Greek" because there were no other documents in the

world that used the same language. Many thought this suspect.

No. 1 has been totally refuted especially with

the findings of the Ebla tablets with extremely complicated laws and

abundant evidence to support advanced civilizations with highly formed

written languages- extremely complex (as a matter of fact, languages

don't get more complex, they get simpler with time).

(Not to mention the "Creation Tablets") The apeal to an

oral tradition is fallacious and anachronistic.

No 2 has been totally refuted and Luke is now highly

respected as a historian ranking among the best. His details have

have proved to be incredibly accurate and helpful.

No. 3 of course has been refuted. It is now known there were

two basic styles of Greek the classical and colloquial with the

Bible being written in the colloquial. Many extrabiblical writings

have been found to support the Bible.

There's a lot more and if anyone is interested I'd be glad to

continue. BUT..... where does all this lead us? What does all this

mean ?

It is known that at the time of Darwinian Evolution the total

verdict was not in- paleontoligically speaking. As far as the fossil

record was concerned, there was no evidence to support Darwin's

theory. A few chance bones and the like were found but nothing

substantial. But yet Darwin insisted that gradualism explained the

development of all living things and he banked on the future discovery

of fossils to support his idea.

The world had finally abandoned the Bible because of the lack of

evidence but what they did was accept another idea in its place even tho'

it lacked the evidence to prove it entirely right or wrong.

What we see is the use of a double standard. The argument that

was used to refute the Bible on one hand was not used with equal weight

when applied to evolution. This type of hypocrisy still exists today.

So where are we now? Both have been given the same amount of time

to prove whether or not they are right or wrong. Evidence-wise which has

come out better? Hands-down it is the Bible. Evolution on the other hand

has become more and more muddled as time passes. In fact, scientifically

speaking, evolution had the upper hand because technology was at that

time just experiencing the "doubling effect" of scientific knowledge.

Altho' at the time it was unfair to disbelieve in the Bible because

nobody had found anything to prove it (mainly because nobody had LOOKED)

it was not unfair to challenge it. The Bible has been shown to accurately

reflect the times and the people since then.

As far as evolution is concerned every new find poses more and more

problems rather than answers. Creationists are more and more justified

in asking the same questions that were posed to them concerning the Bible.

The "argument from silence" becomes an irrelevent point.

Where is the evidence? It ain't there!!

Gary Futral