“Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? “  ~ 1 Corinthians 1:20

I sit here, watching my cursor blink at me, totally dumbfounded that Tommy Rodriguez does not get it.  Not an inkling.  Not a spark.  Not even a hint of an inkling or a spark.  I used one of the very simplest analogies in my repertoire: “Racing for Pinks.”  How can anyone not understand the basis of this argument?  How could anyone with Tommy’s education not have a clue as to what is going on here?  Tommy is by no means dumb.  He is educated, he is articulate, but he is no closer to getting it than when we started our interaction.

I have been counseling people on the Biblical way of defending the faith for a few years now.  One of the sentiments they convey to me when employing this apologetic is their frustration that although the argument is plain as day,  the person they are communicating with just does not get it.  I always counsel them the same way: “They can’t get it. Repentance comes BEFORE a knowledge of the truth, not after.”  (2 Timothy 2:25).  Tommy cannot and will not get it unless and until he repents of denying the God that he knows exists.  “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge” (Proverbs 1:7), surely Tommy cannot grasp the truth until he repents of denying the very foundation of truth.

See, with me it is not frustration though.  I have done this enough times to be beyond that.  For me it is sheer astonishment at the foolishness of unbelief.   Clearly Scripture calls unbelievers “fools” for a reason.  Why then am I so amazed when the fool behaves and reasons foolishly?  I wish there was someone I could call on to tell me: “Sye, that is what fools do.”

Now I know that Tommy will read this, and likely take offense to the title of “fool,” but it is not in the sense of name-calling, and it is not a title that I have given him.  It is merely the Biblical description of the unbeliever’s moral ineptitude in the area of reasoning.   Yes, moral ineptitude.  The fool is not someone who unknowingly slips up, but one who willfully ignores what he knows to be true, and careens down the path of destruction.

I will have to omit large chunks of Tommy’s response as most (read all) of it does not pertain to the discussion at hand.  Remember folks, I’m looking for his pink slip and he’s still just spinning his tires.  As always, Tommy’s words will be in the //”  “//  brackets.

//”In any case, on this occasion I tried changing gears in order to discuss Darwin’s theory of evolution. My academic background is in bioinformatics and molecular biology. Naturally, this is a place I feel most comfortable. Plus, I really wanted to hear his take on these matters.”//

Tommy is forgetting that in order to even begin a discussion on these matters he must make fundamental assumptions which I claim that he cannot account for according to his worldview.  In my very first response to Tommy I said: “I’d like to discuss the fundamental assumption of science – induction, or the uniformity of nature.” And later: “No use talking about science, when it is my claim that you need God to do science. Too often (most often) secular scientists do science without considering the very foundation of science.  You see, if I argue science with you apart from your accounting for your ability to do so, then I am conceding my position from the start. Even if I were to convince you of a certain scientific argument , you could still say: “Well, I did not need your God to come to that conclusion.”

We are right back at square 1.  Tommy wants to race, and I first want to see his pink slip.

//”But as I had anticipated prior to this discussion, Mr. TenBruggencate refused to discuss evolution. In fact, he wanted nothing to do with the subject, claiming that evolution has nothing to do with our initial debate over nature.”//

I am perfectly happy to entertain Tommy’s use of evolution in his justification for truth, and knowledge, and logic, and induction, but I refuse to grant him the very things our argument is about.  Tommy wants to assume truth, and logic, and knowledge and induction in order to argue about evolution, but he does not want to justify his assumptions according to his worldview.  Again, he wants to race without giving his ownership.  Can it be any more clear?

//” How absurd is that? Evolutionary theory is cornerstone of all biology. It explains the mechanisms at work in all living systems. I think this makes it more than relevant. Don’t you?”//

Of course we will come to different conclusion on this based on our respective presuppositions.  The argument is not about what evolutionary theory can or cannot explain.  The question is whose worldview can account for any theory explaining anything, and it ain’t Tommy’s.

//”Instead, Mr. TenBruggencate insisted on reasserting his old circular arguments about ‘presupposing uniformity’, making reference to his 3 initial questions again and again.”//

That’s right Tommy, I want to see your pink slip.  I want to see what your justification is for calling any argument circular, by what standard you claim that circularity is fallacious, and how you account for that standard according to your worldview.  I keep making reference to those questions, because till now you have totally dodged them, and they get to the heart of what this discussion is actually about.

//” His reasoning is based around the notion that you cannot account for science, logic, or truth (or anything) without presupposing God first. If I go on to say ‘evidence … about this’, he says, ‘you can’t account for evidence without presupposing God’. If I say ‘logic … about that’, he’ll say, ‘you can’t account for logic without presupposing God.’//z

EUREKA!!! 

//” Sir, you are being overly ambitious. You cannot account for truth, evidence, science, or logic without a universe (with people in it), not God.”//

Just give me your justification Tommy, and we’ll go from there.

//”Anyways, I tried persuading Mr. TenBruggencate into thoroughly explaining creationism (in a concise, logical, outlined, and descriptive manner that included some evidential support – either empirical or scientific – and how it all ties into his ‘uniformity of nature’).”//

All of which presuppose elements which Tommy has yet to account for (because he cannot).  He wants a logical explanation, but has yet to account for logic.  He wants to race, but has not provided his ownership.  This is not that difficult.

//” But I got nothing. I asked him to describe how he thinks evolution works in his own words. I find that misconceptions regarding evolutionary theory are quite wide and quite commonplace.”//

And quite irrelevant.

//”After all, I wanted to know if Mr. TenBruggencate knew anything about his opponent’s position. But again, nada.”//

I know for certain that Tommy is “suppressing the truth in unrighteousness” (Romans 1: 18-21).

//”Ultimately, I believe my suspicions are correct. Mr. TenBruggencate’s avoidance has more to do with his inability to explain away the overwhelming evidence in behalf of evolution, rather than anything else he can ever affirm with his circular arguments.”//

No Tommy, I will not race you to you provide your pink slip.  This is not that difficult.

//” That’s the bottom line. But what’s worse, Mr. TenBruggencate did not (or could not) explain his own position regarding creationism either. ??? “//

Well, if you would allow me to publish our private discussion, the world would see that this is false.  God created everything, simple as that. If you want to discuss our separate views, fine, but Tommy, you are not in the race yet.

//”Sir, if you cannot logically outline the core of your own explanations, what are you arguing for or against? Steering blind, are we?”//

Logically Tommy?  Do I really have to say it again?

//”Furthermore, if I do not know the basic foundation of my opponent’s creationist worldview, then I cannot continue to debate him. “//

This is a common tactic of the unbeliever, they ignore the fundamental issue of the debate, and set up an escape route.  Tommy is looking for a way out of the race, cause he’s checked his pockets, and voila, pas de pink

//”I have agreed to answer his 3 initial questions with the hope that Mr. TenBruggencate will extent me the same level of gratitude and engage in my questioning regarding evolution and creationism.”//

Well folks I have read Tommy’s “responses,” and not surprisingly, have ascertained what type of vehicle he has brought to the race (see pic).

My first question was:  1. What is your basis for assuming that the words you type to me (or the laws of logic, scientific method) apply the same way they did 5 seconds ago if nature is random?

I won’t post Tommy’s response in its entirety, as mostly he was defining randomness, which has exactly nothing to do with my question.  I wanted to know his basis for assuming that any past pattern (with the full understanding that he can’t even justify past patterns) will, or probably will continue into the future.

//”Sye, nature consists of patterns that reflect a cause and effect. We observe this phenomenon as a sequence of events. We call it time. Time is an attribute of the universe that can be measured in light years, minutes, seconds, hours, etc. Our measurement of time is pretty accurate as we use it consistently to make predictions in science and mathematics.”//

As I said, even if Tommy could justify the logic and reasoning, not to mention senses and memory, to justify past patterns, which he can’t, this does not even start to answer the question as to his basis for assuming that past patterns have anything to do with the future!  The best way that I have found to expose Tommy’s error is to in simplest terms define what he is doing.  In order to justify that Tommy’s words will mean the same thing in the future that they did in the past, Tommy is looking back at the past, and using this as his explanation.  Let’s call that type of reasoning “looking back at” reasoning.  My question, in a nutshell though, is how does Tommy know that “looking back at” reasoning is valid?  What does Tommy do, he “looks back at” to tell me that such reasoning has been valid. He is employing the very reasoning that I am asking him to justify.  This is viciously circular.  I’m asking for Tommy’s pink slip, and he is saying: “I had a pink slip once.”  Tommy, please try again.

My second question was:   2. Please tell me one thing that you know to be a fact and how you know it to be a fact. (If you invoke your senses, memory or reasoning, please include how you know that they are giving you valid information).

//”A fact is a fact when it is confirmed and collaborated by mass majorities. Facts must be publicly verifiable, if not it losses it’s label as a fact. Facts are everywhere, but they do not explain how things work. Only theories give us explanations of natural phenomenon.”//

Well, that is not what a fact is, but I am NOT asking Tommy what a fact is, I am asking him what he knows to be a fact and how he knows it.  There is no answer to that question.  Even in this erroneous definition though, he is employing senses, memory and reasoning, which I asked him to justify, and, as expected, he did not.  Tommy, please try again.

My third question: 3.What is “truth” in an evolutionists worldview, and how can you possibly know anything to be true?

//”Sye, Darwin’s theory of evolution is an explanation for the mechanisms at work in living systems. You are not grasping this concept my friend. Your line of questioning clearly demonstrates it.”//

And this defines truth how?

//”One of the requirements for a statement to be labeled ‘true’ (for truth) rather than ‘false’ is publicly verifiable evidence.”//

Problem is “verification” ASSUMES truth, the very thing you are trying to justify.

//” For example, “the Earth orbits the Sun” is a statement that is to be considered ‘true’ because we have substantial data to support it as such.”//

Which assumes that the data is “true” but does not define truth and does not answer the question.

//”Most people will agree and collaborate with that statement to make it true.”//

So truth is by consensus???

//”On the other hand, “the Earth is flat” is a false statement because all of our models and data suggests otherwise.”//

Would it have been a “true” statement if the consensus said that the earth was flat in past ages when past models and data suggested that the earth was flat?  Of course not!  It would have been a wrong belief, but not truth!  Truth, by definition cannot change.  Surely something cannot be true, which is actually false?

//”Fortunately, science has helped us refine truth through a fairly accurate, scrupulous, and rigid body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, and correcting and integrating previous knowledge.”//

Tommy, just give us your definition of truth, and how you know anything to be true!  Please try again!

No folks, I am not frustrated, but I have discovered that astonishment at foolishness feels a lot like frustration.