Mexico City Debate

Webcasting around the world from the desert metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona, this is the Dividing Line.

The Apostle Peter commanded Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us, yet to give that answer with gentleness and reverence.

Our host is Dr. James White, director of Alpha Omega Ministries and an elder at the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church.

This is a live program and we invite your participation. If you'd like to talk with Dr. White, call now at 602 -973 -4602 or toll -free across the

United States. It's 1 -877 -753 -3341. And now with today's topic, here is

James White. Good afternoon, welcome to the Dividing Line. On a Wednesday afternoon, we're doing the

Dividing Line today because tomorrow is Thanksgiving and I will have actually two turkeys in the oven, actually two turkey breasts or whatever they are.

I don't know. But I'll have them in the oven at that time. Therefore, I will not be here because I'm cooking tomorrow.

So we're doing the program today and I'm going to be reviewing some of the sections of a debate that took place in Mexico City featuring

William Lane Craig, the infamous Shurmur, atheist

Shurmur. Yeah, the infamous atheist Michael Shurmur, there we go. And Richard Dawkins, who honestly sounded completely lost in this debate.

The essence I got of listening to Richard Dawkins speaking was, none of the rest of you even belong on the stage with me.

I am so much more intelligent than all of you are. If you'd just listen to me, all would be well.

That's what Richard Dawkins communicates to me. I do not think there is a more arrogant man on the planet than Richard Dawkins.

I don't think there is. I don't think there's anybody who thinks himself more highly intelligent than Richard Dawkins.

I really don't. But we'll get to that in a moment. I wanted to respond to an email that was sent in,

I believe this morning. Yes, it was this morning. And I will just say this is from Cheryl.

And I want to respond to Cheryl's email today on the dividing line.

It says, James, I support you in the issue of Ergon Kanner. Well, that's good. That's sort of a truth and error issue, dividing line right there.

I also support you in many areas of theology and with your work with the cults and with Islam. Whenever I read these,

I'm just waiting for the other shoe to drop. And I know what it's going to drop about. I've been doing this for a long time now.

So I knew what was coming. I love the way you do debates with integrity and with sincerity. Good.

I am not reformed at all, but have freedom to support what is truth. Now, I have to wonder what that means.

When you say not reformed at all, does that mean you don't believe in any of reformed theology, sola scriptura, sola gratia, any of those things?

I mean, if you're not reformed at all, then you'd be a Roman Catholic, I would think. But I don't think that Cheryl is

Roman Catholic. However, your mocking attitude towards those who are not reformed on your show today was really bad.

This was referring to the Radio Free Geneva yesterday. I have heard it before and disliked every time you did that. But today was especially bad.

Calling non -reformed people as being Romanists and supporting Rome was below the belt. And you're characterizing a non -reformed position as Jesus failing actually mocks the

Lord in addition to the Christian faith of your brothers and sisters in Christ. Well, none of that Cheryl is true. I mocked no one.

It is not mockery to point out that Arminians and Roman Catholics have the same doctrine of grace and man.

That's a fact. That's not mockery. You may not like it. You may wish that I didn't point it out.

You may think it's irrelevant. Okay, make those arguments. But it is not mockery. It was not mockery to point out that Norman Geisler will not debate these issues or that Dave Hunt will not debate these issues because they won't.

So that's a fact. It is not mockery to point out that they have to caricaturize their opponents because that's a fact too.

Everything I gave you was facts. Everything I read from the papal syllabus,

Unigenitus, likewise was factual. Every quote that I played from Norman Geisler was factual.

There was no editing. There was no changing. So where's the mockery? Evidently, it is mockery if you point out that Arminians have always been viewed historically by the

Reformed as compromising on the very issues of the Reformation and the Reformation's soteriology, that Arminianism has returned to Rome just without a pope.

That's not mockery. That's a fact. And so when

I hear people asking this question or making this assertion, I go, what did you understand to be mocking?

And unfortunately, in today's society, people identify factual identification of positions as mockery if you happen to disagree with that factual position.

And so there was no mockery, and it is not below the belt. I called no one a Romanist. I did not call an

Arminian a Romanist. I called the Romanist Romanist. What I said was the Arminians and the

Romanists believe the same thing on these issues. Now if you're confused enough to think that making that identification turns an

Arminian into a Romanist, then I could see where you would be confused, because that's not what I was saying. What I was saying is that my

Arminian friends who stand opposed to Rome, I mean, let's think about it. Norman Geisler put out a book, what was that, just last year?

And his co -author, within a few months of the release of the book, became a Roman Catholic. Norman Geisler went to a

Jesuit school, that's where he got his PhD in philosophy. These are all facts.

That's not mockery, that's just a fact. And if your theology is that Jesus tries to save the maximum number of people possible, remember how many times, how many times did

Unigenitus say it was an error to believe that Jesus, by his grace, is actually able to save the elect perfectly?

It said that was an error. And so, characterizing a non -reformed position as Jesus failing, well,

Cheryl, if Jesus tries to save and does not save, was he successful or did he fail?

Or is there a third category here? When LeBron James shoots a three -pointer from 60 feet out at the end of a game, it either goes in or it doesn't.

He either succeeds or he fails. There isn't any third category. And so if Jesus is attempting to save and failing to save, then he's failing to do what he intended to do, right?

What's the third category? You have to say, well, Jesus isn't failing because he's only trying to make men savable.

But that's not a biblical position to take, is it? I do believe, though, that the reformed proof texts—I'm going back to the email—I do believe, though, that the reformed proof texts need to be answered and soundly explained in context to refute faulty

Reformed tradition. That is being worked on. As soon as I read that,

I immediately thought of Dr. Sanders.

Remember Dr. Sanders, 2001 Open Theism Debate at a Reformed Theological Seminary in Orlando.

And I kept asking, pressing him on how open theists understand this and what about this text.

And remember what he eventually said? You Calvinists have had hundreds of years to come up with your answers. We're still working on ours.

And the fact of the matter is, these issues have been around for 2 ,000 years.

And to have someone say, well, we're working on that. We're just now getting around to it? You don't think that all this has been dealt with in every generation?

It has. Someone might say, well, then why do you keep bringing it up? Because every generation has to think these things through.

It's worth doing so. But there's nothing new under the sun. So that is being worked on.

Well, I look forward to a new interpretation of John Chapter 6.

I think I've heard almost every one there is out there. I've collected them for a long time. But I'd like to hear this.

But something tells me that there really isn't anything more to be said on these particular subjects.

The truth will not mock Calvinists or Calvinism, for that would have failed the test of brotherly love by falling into the same sarcasm.

Well, I hear a lot of mockery from Arminians. But given that you misinterpreted firm, factual argumentation as mockery, that causes a problem.

There is so much good that you offer, James, if you would stop with the sarcasm, the mocking and the misrepresentation of the opposing view.

Ah, wait a minute. I wonder why we didn't get any examples of misrepresentation. I mean, the only thing we were given was, well, saying that Jesus failed.

Again, logically, how can you say anything other than that? Unless you say Jesus does not try to save, then

Jesus tries and fails, right? What's the other option?

You would surely reach more people with a strong godly love for their brethren. Reach more people. I thought that was the work of the

Holy Spirit of God. I almost brought up the letter that was sent to the

Apostle Paul. Did you all catch that one by the Asian Presbytery?

Have you all seen that one online? I'm sure somebody could Google it. But I said nothing, absolutely positively nothing, in yesterday's program that was any stronger than anything

Paul said in Galatians. But there are a lot of people that are really concerned about how strong Paul was there.

And you know what? When I read things like Unigenitus, which is nothing but a bold -faced attack on the gospel of Jesus Christ, when

I hear Norman Geisler misquoting Matthew 23, when I hear Norman Geisler pretending to respond to what

I myself have written and then completely ignoring what I actually said, you know what? I think you need to point those things out because truth matters.

It really does. And the people who support this ministry, they support this ministry because that's what we've been doing for about 27 years now.

And I don't sit behind this microphone and try to be politically correct, and I don't sit behind this microphone and try to sit here and go, okay, but we've got these supporters over here and we've got these supporters over there, and if I say this,

I'm going to offend those folks. If I say this, I'm going to offend those folks. I have said many, many times, I'm not smart enough to run everything through a filter like that.

The people who support this ministry do so because they believe what we're doing is what God's called us to do and they will stand with us.

And we don't, and our supporters will tell you this, we don't call them up during dinnertime and try to get them to give us more money.

We don't have a group of people that tries to build up support bases.

There's nothing wrong necessarily with those things, but there's only two of us in this ministry and we don't have time to do it.

And the people who support this ministry want me on the front lines doing what I do and not doing that kind of stuff.

And so, the people that we reach are the people that can sense that we're no nonsense, we're straightforward, here's what the truth is, honor the truth,

God's spirit will lead you to the truth, that's how you do it. As it is, there are those who turn you off because the mocking just doesn't sound like the

Lord Jesus Christ and our requirement to love him by loving each other. Well, A, again, Cheryl, I didn't mock anybody, and I'm sorry you interpret truthful speaking as mockery.

There are a lot of people that turn me off. I will never, ever be a popular person. You don't see me on the big speaking circuit because, yeah, we address issues that a lot of other people just shy away from.

And I'm very straightforward in what I have to say. I'm not trying to offend anybody. But I also refuse to adopt a postmodern mindset where human offense is the greatest good.

In other words, you can't offend anybody. That's the highest standard there is. Well, you know what?

When people abuse the scriptures, when people call themselves moderate

Calvinists, when they're anything but a Calvinist at all, I'm sorry. I'm going to point it out.

I'm going to shine a light on it and say that ain't the case. And there are going to be a lot of people that aren't going to like it.

But Cheryl, you're wrong. I didn't mock anybody. And so I hope you listen to that.

I think I'll probably drop her a line. And when you say it doesn't sound like Jesus, ever read

Matthew 23? Ever read that one, Cheryl? It's amazing what's there.

Whenever I hear that, I sort of wonder. All right. Anyway, we've got folks on Skype. But I need to get to what

I said I was going to be talking about. And that is I want to play some segments here from the debate in Mexico City.

I listened to this on the way down to Alterna, Tucson this past weekend. And the main thing

I'm going to play is Richard Dawkins stuff. But I didn't even know most of the other people.

I mean, Michael Shermer, yeah. I didn't know most of the people that were involved. There was a Jewish rabbi involved.

So it's another one of those, you know, bare theism type situations. But listening to Richard Dawkins was just amazing.

His followers don't recognize the level of religious devotion they have for this man.

He is the Peter Ruckman of atheism. He really is.

There are so many parallels between himself and Peter Ruckman. And he would be so offended by that. But it's the truth.

And he doesn't see it. He is so enslaved to his fundamentalist atheism that I see no evidence of any recognition.

There is no self -reflection on his part at all. Now there isn't amongst most atheists that I listen to that are in leadership positions.

But Dawkins is amongst the worst. Really, really is. So I'm going to sort of go in chronological order here and just sort of comment on these things as we go along.

877 -753 -3341 is the phone number. We already got both of our Skype connections taken up.

We'll get to you guys as we can here. At least you're not burning, if you're on Skype, you're not burning long -distance bills for anybody, for that matter.

All right. Let's just dive in here. Let's start with Michael Shermer.

Let's listen to the non -reflective Michael Shermer. Good morning. As Thomas Huxley said,

Richard, the good Lord has delivered them into our hands. I am the publisher of this magazine,

Skeptic Magazine. By chance, and that's all it is, our latest issue is on the pseudoscience and nonsense of the whole happiness purpose movement.

Now, listen to this absurd understanding of what

Christian prayer is supposed to be. I hear atheists constantly, the leading atheists, constantly representing prayer as if it's basically what you find on TBN.

Pray for something, you get it. Pray for a car, you get it. Pray for healing, you get it. Theology matters.

A theology of prayer would be nice here, where actually prayer is not your means of manipulating

God, but is the means of communion with God that changes people.

But you see, that requires that reformed theology thing again, which isn't overly popular.

And by the way, I wanted to add one thing. I forgot to say this to Cheryl. I don't understand why anybody likes what

I do in any area. I am thoroughly reformed in everything I do. Every debate I have with a

Muslim, every debate I have with an atheist, every debate I have with a Mormon, my defense of the

Trinity is reformed, my gospel is Trinitarian. It's all one thing.

I've never understood that. Love how you debate these folks, but I'm debating as a reformed person. I've never understood that.

It takes me aback every time someone says, Oh, I love what you do on the Trinity. As if that's somehow separate from...

Because, see, the same view of Scripture leads to both. It's all one whole cloth.

You can't divide it up. Just so I'd mention that. Same thing here. If you have a meaningful doctrine of God's providence, a meaningful doctrine of God's sovereignty, a meaningful doctrine of man's creatureliness and fallenness, then your doctrine of prayer is not going to be what you have on TBN.

And so, here theology matters again, and listen to the atheist's misrepresentation.

That is, once you believe that the universe somehow has a designed purpose for us and us alone, that I can have anything

I want, all I have to do is wish it, pray for it, ask for it, and it will appear, the

Mercedes in my driveway, the healing of my aunt's cancer, or miracles to appear upon my wish.

That's just pure nonsense. There is not a shred of evidence that any of this is actually true.

It's wishful thinking. Now, and of course, he then just takes that as being representative of all of Christianity.

No reflection on his part, no accuracy. But then again, he's not going to be taken on on much of that, which may be why they just continue to make the misrepresentations,

I don't know. And that's the problem of thinking that the universe has some design just for us. However, I'm a scientist.

What does that have to do with anything? What did that have to do with, excuse me, logically, what is the connection between goofy, word -of -faith people claiming a

Mercedes and design and purpose in the universe? Where did, excuse me,

I missed the connection. I'm a scientist. I'm willing to look at new data, some evidence.

So here's an example. I'm willing to look at new data as a scientist. Do not allow that false assertion of neutrality to ever impact you.

These folks have already decided what data will and will not be accepted and what conclusions are and are not acceptable.

Do not even begin to think that they are in any way unbiased.

Guys, if you could have God grow some new limbs of amputees, of soldiers in the

Iraq War, Christian soldiers with Christian families, praying for them to be healed,

I would seriously consider that and changing my mind. So far, this has not happened, not even once.

So there you go. Amputees, there's his standard. And if you believe him, then you're saying

Jesus was a liar. Read Luke 16. As Abraham said to the rich man, they have

Moses and the prophets. If they will not believe them, they will not believe even one rose from the dead, which is even more of a trick than growing back a limb.

There's your choice. Apparently, God can't even do what amphibians can do in growing new limbs.

If there's a purpose, surely we would see at least one sign like this, and yet we have zero.

Again, connection here. Could someone, this man claims to be a scientist. And by the way, for those of you who are wondering what mockery actually is, you just heard it on Michael Shermer's part about the amphibian crack.

That would be mockery. This man is supposed to be a scientist. But logically, what's the connection between the two statements he just made?

If there's supposed to be a purpose, we'd expect this. Why? Why? Can you substantiate this somehow?

I don't get it. Okay, so then what is our purpose? We come from stardust.

All of the elements of which we are made out of were cooked inside stars, coalesced into new solar systems like ours, and here we are, complex organisms.

For three and a half billion years, life has evolved from one generation to the next.

Not one broken chain in this long link. Well, except for, like, species that, you know, like, go extinct.

And that's the end of that. Darwin said, instead of finding this to be depressing, as our opponents think, this is a grim worldview.

In fact, it's an ennobling worldview. Why would a secular humanist even care about making something ennobling?

Why would a naturalistic materialist care about making something ennobling? In fact, I wanted to look up a quote.

I'm sorry that I didn't do this. It was on my list. I didn't do it. William Lane Craig, in his opening statement, quoted

Dawkins, and I want to find out exactly where this was, where Dawkins basically says there is no purpose, there is no transcendent purpose, there's nothing to the universe, all we are are gene replication machines.

That's all we are. And Dawkins never denied that. Even though, functionally, by the end of the debate, all the atheists were trying to come up with reasons to have purpose, as Shermer especially did.

But they never contradicted what Dawkins said. And it's sad to be in debates with atheists and press them on being consistent with their own worldview.

I understand the scientific worldview of the naturalistic materialist. I understand what it means to be a gene replication machine.

And that's the only reason you're there. But you see, the problem is, there are ramifications to being a gene replication machine.

If he who has the greatest distribution of his genotype in the next generation is the one who wins, if that's what success is, and from Darwinism, that's exactly what success is, then there would be certain behavior patterns that would flow from that.

And monogamy and loving your wife would not be one of them. And self -sacrifice would not be one of them.

And love of your children might selfishly be part of that, but not in the way we understand it.

And yet, they can't live that way. And why can't they live that way? I'll tell you why they can't live that way. Because they're creating the image of God.

And they can only suppress so much of that. All beings, not as special creations, but as the lineal descendants of some few beings which lived long ago, they seem to me to become ennobled.

It's ennobling to think how fortunate we are to be part of that three and a half billion year long chain.

Why? Why? I mean, is a crystal ennobled by being a part of a three and a half billion year...

It's a longer chain to be a crystal. I mean, you go right back to...

You go back 10 billion years. So crystals must be much more ennobled than we are.

It's just so sad to listen to atheists. But let's jump to Richard Dawkins here.

And let's listen to a man who honestly functions as a messiah for many atheists today.

He really does. He is a religious figure and he loves it. My colleague

Peter Atkins, whose works I recommend to you, I think that it's high time that a scientist won a

Nobel Prize for Literature and Peter Atkins would be my nominee for that. He was once invited to give a lecture in Windsor Castle, which, as you know, is one of the homes of the

British monarch. And at the end of his lecture, Prince Philip said, You scientists are awfully good at answering the how questions, but what about the why question?

And Peter Atkins said, Sir, the why question is just a silly question.

Now, I hear people and his is always the quietest. That's how I was able to find him in the waveform.

He has the least amplitude. But I can hear people laughing.

But I'm going to play a section from William Lane Craig that I really agree with. And that is, he said the most reprehensible part of the presentations, the atheist was

Richard Dawkins saying the why questions are silly questions. Why is it silly?

Well, because we don't have answers to many of them. But here's a here's a man who calls himself a scientist saying that the why questions are silly questions.

Science wouldn't exist without the why question. But you see, he is so narrow in his thinking, so blinded.

I'd say so much under the very wrath and judgment of God that he cannot even see how irrational his own statements are and how circular his statements are and how self -contradictory his statements are.

You're talking about a completely shut down conscience here, singed by constant expression of hatred toward God.

It's just amazing. We humans are obsessed with purpose.

It seems perfectly natural when we're presented with an object to say, what's it for? It starts in childhood.

Now check this out. To want to know a purpose is going to be identified here as something we should grow out of.

There's the worldview of Richard Dawkins. Listen. Or is it so that animals could scratch on them when they get itchy?

And below a certain age, I think it's about six, most children answer with the teleological answer, answer with the purpose question.

Yes, they're pointy so that animals can scratch on them when they get itchy. Children then mostly grow out of that purposive way of looking at the world, but not apparently everybody.

And there's laughter and applause. Now logically, on any logical or rational basis, analyze that as an argument.

Because children look for purpose and may give simplistic teleological answers, adults should not.

Anybody up for putting that one into a logical paradigm for us? It's amazing.

How can anyone take such a man seriously and yet he is taken seriously all over the place?

He is looked to as just this massive intellect. And yet that kind of argumentation is just absurd.

I mean, it's childish. It's shocking. In medieval times,

I was about to try to work this, who's good with iPads? I'm trying to get... I am. Oh, here we are.

Oh, never mind. In medieval times... No, wait a minute.

I have to ask a question. Is there a purpose why he's using an iPad?

Is there a purpose for the iPad? Is there a connection between the iPad and maybe the digital presentation he was making?

Oh, those are silly questions. I can't ask them. Divines would look at living things and see purpose for human benefit in them.

In the 19th century, the Reverend William Paley thought that the louse was an indispensable incentive to cleanliness.

Savage beasts, according to Elizabethan Bishop, fostered human courage and provided useful training for war.

Horseflies, for an 18th century writer, were created so that men should exercise their wits and industry to guard themselves against them.

Lobsters were given hard shells so that before eating them we could benefit from the improving exercise of cracking their claws.

Another medieval writer thought that weeds were there to benefit us. It's so good for our spirit to have to work hard pulling...

Now, let me stop right here. Again, this is called scholastic mockery.

There's no question that people have given purposes within a

Christian worldview to all sorts of things that may or may not be true. But let's just talk about weeds for a second, shall we?

I hate weeds. I'm thankful for Roundup, but Roundup's expensive and you have to apply it regularly and it's a bit of a pain.

But is it possible that weeds have multiple purposes?

Is it possible that there are means... I'm sorry, that there are purposes God has for creation in mankind's experience that transcend or are in another category than specific purposes?

For example, most of the time weeds and the kind of underbrush that we have in vegetative systems is a...

Well, I'm pointing out my own creation viewpoint here, but evidently, for Richard Dawkins, has no purpose.

There is no purpose in the universe at all. But we recognize that in the ecological cycle these things function to preserve soil and to prepare grassland for greater things, shall we say, like a forest.

That after a devastating fire, these are the first things that spring up and they help to preserve the soil and they then in their death help to fertilize the soil.

And in the ecological cycle, we see these purposes. But is it possible that there are purposes beyond that?

Well, if there's a God that there would be, or at least there could be, but he doesn't even allow for that.

And so you look at just one aspect of things and say, oh, but we know that there's a materialistic purpose as if the two cannot exist side by side.

Now, it's not difficult to see that such people would also have found purpose in the physical world, in mountains.

What's the purpose of a mountain? What's the purpose of a stream? We humans love to see purpose everywhere.

And it's one of the great achievements of science, I think especially Darwin, but other scientists as well, to show that the impulse that we have to see purpose in anything doesn't work.

And he did it, not with the easy things like mountains. I mean, essentially, any fool can see that mountains don't have a purpose.

Any fool can see that mountains don't have a purpose. They, of course, are very important meteorologically, but you see, for Dawkins, meteorology is just simply a massive fractal equation that has no purpose at all.

From a Christian perspective, to a man created in the image of God, the mountains testify of the majesty of God.

I am rarely more moved to consider the greatness of God than when

I contemplate mountains in Colorado, or I remember when I flew into Italy and we flew over the

Alps. Oh my, what beauty, what grandeur. Now, he would say that's just silliness, just something that I've been conditioned to do, because he represents such a low view of man and such a low view of creation.

I'll be honest with you. I may have opportunities next year to debate some fairly well -known atheists again.

We are actually in negotiations with Christopher Hitchens' folks again. I don't like doing it.

I've told people this. I've told some folks, I give it my all because I know that it benefits people of God, but I do not enjoy interacting with atheists.

I just don't. People are amazed that I would rather interact with a

Muslim because sometimes that's a considerably less wide -ranging discussion.

But someone who can be so foolish, and I'm using the biblical term there, so numb to their own nature, so diminishing not only of God's glory, but of their own humanity.

More power to those who are really into doing that, but it is very difficult for me to do.

It is more difficult for me to listen to Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens than to do the study

I had to do to write The Same -Sex Controversy. I find it so apprehensible, so offensive, so demeaning to my own spirituality, to my own enjoyment of God's creation, to have those voices in my head that I just don't like it.

I just don't like it. And if the debates that may take place next year do take place,

I'm going to be perfectly honest with you, my desire right now is that that would be the last atheist debating

I do. I just don't like it. It is just the way it is.

So I decided I'd mention that. He did it with living things, and living things on the face of it have purpose written all over them.

We look at a bird's wing, an engineer looks at a bird's wing, an albatross wing, say, and sees that it's perfectly designed for the particular way of flying that albatrosses have.

Swifts have a different way. You look at an eye, you look at a heart, you look at a kidney. Everything looks designed.

The Reverend William Paley himself, who was one of the earliest, one of the most coherent,

I should say, advocates of this point of view, elevated the living world as being the most important place where you can find evidence for, as he thought, a deity.

Don't look at astronomy, he said. Look at living things. But what Darwin did... Now listen to this.

This, folks, this is as religious a presentation as anything you will hear when

I preach at the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church this coming Sunday. I'm preaching both services.

This man is just as religious in his worship of his deity.

Listen to what this man says. ...was to show that even the worst case, even the most difficult case, that's the living case, has a perfectly rational, simple explanation.

You do not need to resort to the idea of a designer. That was an astonishing intellectual achievement.

Astonishing. Something as complicated as an eye, something as complicated as a heart, even a brain.

Who would have thought that by the laws of physics, unaided, unviolated, just filtered through this brilliant process of...

Did you catch that? Brilliant process. The laws of nature. He's saying it with this hushed reverence.

This brilliant... What do you mean brilliant? How can that word even have meaning in a naturalistic, materialistic worldview?

What do you mean brilliant? It's not brilliant. It's not beautiful. It just is. No purpose, no direction, no end, no nothing.

...of natural selection, evolution by natural selection, that the blind laws of physics...

Blind. ...could produce the illusion of design... Illusion. ...as complicated and as persuasive as we see in the living world.

Well, our colleagues on the other side have probably mostly given up on the living world. That was their happy hunting ground.

That was the best place for them to operate, as Paley recognized. So they've been forced back now into places like the origin of the universe.

And they like to point to the origin of the universe and say, well, science can't explain the

Big Bang or science can't explain where the laws of physics come from. You're just about to hear the atheistic statement of faith.

Physicists are working on that. That's what scientists do. They don't lie down and pathetically say, oh, we don't understand it, so God did it.

Scientists actually work on the problem. They set to work, they roll up their sleeves, and they work on the problem.

Just trust us. We are your leaders. We are scientists. This man is a high priest.

He's a science priest. You can hear it in his voice. And you can hear when people respond to him that the mockery and the denigration all flows from his fundamental conviction.

Why won't you listen to my authority? I am a scientist. Listen to me.

One day, physics will answer those deep questions. One day.

One day. Have faith. And even if it doesn't, even if physics doesn't answer those questions, what on earth makes you think that religion can?

Thank you very much. Well, there you go. Why do people think that that man is just incredibly brilliant?

I do not know. I did say I'd play this one. Maybe we'll play some more of this next time, but I need to get to our callers.

But I did want to play this one quick clip, and then we'll go to our callers. I appreciate what

William Lane Craig said in this rebuttal. I think the most reprehensible position represented in tonight's debate is

Richard Dawkins' claim that why questions are just silly. These are the deepest existential questions that human beings can ask, and to refuse to ask such why questions is to reduce human beings to mere animals, which is, of course, exactly what

Professor Dawkins believes. We're just animated chunks of matter in motion. Love, questions of meaning, and so forth, they're all ultimately just spinoffs of the blind bioevolutionary process.

Agreed. And it is reprehensible, grossly reprehensible, to take that perspective, as Dawkins does.

No question about it. 877 -753 -3341. dividing .line on Skype is the address that Jesse in Denver used.

Hi, Jesse. Hey, how's it going, Dr. White? Doing good. I had the pleasure of meeting you back in May at the

Northern Ridge Baptist Church, so it's a pleasure to talk to you again. Yes, indeed. Had a lot of fun out there.

When are you coming back to Colorado? I'm going to be up there in July. I'm going to be at the

Flatirons Baptist Church in July of next year. Oh, excellent. I'm going to be riding in the

Sunrise Century, if you've ever heard of it up there. I sure have, yeah. Oh, yeah. That's great. 100 miles, 7 ,700 feet of ascent.

I'm looking forward to it. Hopefully the weather will be nice for you. I hope so, too. If it's raining, that's not going to be a lot of fun.

Yeah, you bet. Well, I had a couple questions for you related to this debate. I've listened to this debate twice now, and I'm actually very interested in talking and engaging a lot of the atheists that I know.

More power to you. In work and things like that. And I wanted to know, have you read two books, one

Nancy Piercy's Total Truth and then Signature in the Cell? And if you have, have you found those as meaningful responses to a lot of the arguments that you heard here?

Signature in the Cell I have. I don't have the other one. And I don't ever hear

Dawkins or the others actually engaging in meaningful dialogue on those subjects.

Maybe Dawkins especially. There are some other people who try. But I think that the...

Unfortunately, some of the folks in the ID area are not overly theologically sound, shall we say, and wander off into some goofiness.

But there is absolutely no question in my mind that one of the clearest evidences that we have, and again, all evidence is interpreted within a framework within presuppositions.

And the evidence of the existence of the Creator that we have discovered,

I posted this past week the ATP synthase video on my blog.

Yeah, I got to see that. And very similar to what I had used in the debate with Dan Barker.

And that level... I wrote a little youth book.

I wish it was still available from Bethany House called What's With the Mutant of the Microscope? It was a co -authored job with Kevin Johnson.

And I did the writing and then Kevin sort of translated into junior high speak. But one of the things that I pointed out in there was the language used in the science textbooks that I studied at a

Christian college. These were not Christian textbooks. I was the only non -evolutionist in the science department.

And you can over and over again catch these folks using language, just like Dawkins just did, that has no meaning in their worldview, but they are forced to use it.

They have to recognize not just the illusion of design, but even the beauty of what they're seeing.

And so I think that when you recognize these things, and there's just so much now that can be documented on this, that it is a tremendous mechanism of demonstration of the truthfulness of the first words of Genesis 1 -1.

But again, all facts are interpreted within a context. And as Richard Dawkins points out over and over again, and proves over and over again, you can have the greatest amount of evidence in the world pointing to one conclusion, and you can still suppress that knowledge.

That is the nature of man in rebelling against God. One of the best evidences that you rightly pointed out that I saw was his just— he almost despised teleology.

And I can't help but recognize that that's one of the most powerful arguments that I see now for God's hand in everything.

About 50 minutes into the debate, I was listening to Matt Ridley talk about DNA and how he called it a simple molecule.

Yeah, simple molecule. How can something that's almost 4 billion characters long, even if it doesn't have any meaning, be considered simple?

I heard the same thing and just sort of chuckled when you think about messenger RNA and transfer

RNA and ribosomes and DNA polymerase and the entire interpretational mechanism in the cell.

Yeah, that's simple. Yeah, right. Unbelievable. Well, what was so fascinating, too, is that he said the only difference between like us and I think a rabbit was we have different patterns and they're arranged in a different order.

Right. We have the same 21 ,000 genes, we just use them in a different order. Right, right, which is true from everything that I've been able to find.

But by definition, that is precisely what everything is that we're seeing in DNA.

We use a lot of the same mechanisms. And yet come up with something absolutely, completely different, which demonstrates that the mapping of the human genome left more questions than it gave answers.

I mean, these folks were thinking we had found the Holy Grail, this was going to be it. But there's so much more to it than that.

There's something that's beyond all of this. Same with all the brain studies that have been done. It doesn't reduce down to just some kind of mechanistic process.

Yeah, that's becoming even more clear. And yet the fact of the matter is that there is a

Greek participle in Romans 1 that is proven to be true over and over again thousands of years after it was written.

Catechons, suppressing, that's what they're doing. Yeah, I was wondering if you had heard of the

ENCODE project, the Human Genome Project, came out with about three years later in 2007.

Not off the top of my head, no. No, it stands for the Encyclopedia of DNA Elements, and it's fascinating.

I learned of it by Stephen Meyer, who wrote Signature in the Cell on a podcast.

And he was basically saying that this is kind of the next step into examining what junk

DNA is. So epigenetics, you mean? Yeah, I believe that. Yeah, epigenetics is the next frontier.

No question about it. It's fascinating stuff. What I found so amazing is that the process, the amount of information that is present as far as non -protein coding

DNA is so much higher in highly organized organisms, and it's so much simpler or smaller amounts of that compared to the protein coding sections.

And I just, I can't help but see that there's a connection there, and I think the article unweaving the genetic code article that you talked about a few weeks ago mentioned that.

And it just seemed that books like Total Truth, Nancy Peercy talks about how this is not only an appropriate analogy, but is the kind of analogy for language and how we utilize language and logic.

There's just so much stuff out there, and unfortunately you've now lost the vast majority of our listeners, but it is the case that I don't believe a

Christian has any reason to be browbeaten by these folks.

But yeah, we definitely need to be exposing ourselves to a broader stream of things, but it is an amazing time to live.

There's no question about it. I don't want to take up too much more of your time, but I was wondering what things you would find helpful for getting sort of lay people involved with breaking down these kinds of concepts.

It seems like language and logic are absent in a lot of these conversations. I don't know. Good question.

That's really beyond me. I mean, I find it fascinating and interesting because I have a science background, but a lot of folks don't today.

And yet because of things like YouTube and the ability to do digital presentations and things like that, the video that I posted was an excellent example of how to use a visual aid to help people understand this complex molecule and its clear purposefulness and its design.

I mean, if you ever found a machine like that sitting out in the desert, you would know somebody made it. Yet we have millions, billions of these things in our bodies functioning right now.

At a size we cannot yet manufacture ourselves with all of our computer prowess, and yet we go,

Nope, no creator. Nope, no creator. It's just absolutely amazing. So, you know, more books that explain these things, but we still have to call people to a little higher level,

I think, just in what they're willing to read and what they really struggle with as well. So, hey,

Jesse, look forward to seeing you next summer, hopefully. I guess

Jesse's already gone. I guess so. All right. Nice talking to Jesse. And sometimes the

Skype transitions are a little rough. We're working on it. Let's go down under and talk with David.

Hi, David. Hey, how are you going? I'm doing pretty good. Very good. When was the last time you took the kids to McDonald's?

It's been a long time. Not since I took you. Oh, okay. All right. Thanks for covering this subject today.

We're getting the same sort of issues with the new atheists down here in Australia, and certainly we as a little parish church have been working hard to equip our saints here to answer the questions.

We really appreciated the work as well of Dr. John Lennox from England in this area. But I actually wanted to ask you an exegetical question.

And of course, I should mention, you've done debates with atheists there as well, haven't you?

Yeah, a little bit, formal and informal. Yeah, quite enjoy it. And I think we want to encourage all our guys to engage in this stuff.

There's a lot of bluster that's coming across, and just blowing through that is helpful, isn't it? And in fact, the first night that I was there, the

Sydney atheists showed up in my talk. That's right. And it's ongoing, and if we ever have you back, we'd love you to speak to a bunch of Christians on,

I don't know, something in that area, maybe reliability of the Scriptures, something like that. Yeah. Yeah. So it's really an exegetical question on the same issue, just coming from the other direction.

I'm interested in your opinion on some stuff that Paul says in Romans 10 when speaking about Israel not responding to the

Gospel, after that famous stuff about how can they not hear, no one tells them, etc.

He then stops and says, but have they not heard? And his answer is, yes, of course they have.

And then he quotes Psalm 19. Their voice has gone out as the ends of the earth. And again, in Colossians 1,

Paul, when speaking about the Gospel, says, 123, this is the Gospel that you heard, and it has been proclaimed to every creature under heaven.

So what are your thoughts, I'm just interested in this, I have my own musings, but what are your thoughts on how is it that the

Gospel is itself proclaimed in and to the creation, not simply the existence of God, that theosis stuff going on in Romans 1, but actually the very

Gospel itself. How is that being declared in and to the creation? Well, I'm afraid this could be somewhat surface level because it's not something

I've preached on before, so I haven't gone into depth on that. I mean, my understanding, drawing back from the days of seminary and all those distant past memories, obviously you have different interpretations, including the concept of either looking at the extent of the proclamation of the

Gospel within the Roman Empire, and people saying, well, that's the ends of the earth, et cetera, et cetera.

And then those who say, no, this has to be more drawing on the Romans 1 concept of the declaration of the glory of God in creation itself, which is the other presentation that's taken.

And I don't recall off the top of my head if there was any kind of a division as to what kind of theologians took which perspective.

But yeah, it is interesting that verse 18 says, but I ask, have they not heard? Indeed they have, for.

And so I'd want to spend some time on who the they is.

Who is the they that is here? Because it picks up in 19, but I asked, did

Israel not understand? Exactly. So if that's Israel, that's going to make a huge difference as to how you interpret this particular text if you take they in a more generic.

Or is it possible that he is arguing Israel has heard, since the Gospel proclamation, whatever it is, has been made to the whole of creation.

Therefore, just by logic, Israel was included in that definition in the very least, let alone all the other stuff, all the other benefits that they received.

That's a possibility. I just happened to notice as you were asking that, that the NET specifically identifies the they as Israel, which is interesting.

Yeah, in the flow of Romans 10 that seems to be the most obvious. Yeah, definitely. And does this have something to do with the diaspora?

Good question. You're not going to be preaching on this soon, are you? No, I'm not, but I'm thinking of a rather large blog post.

Doc, I recognize time is going quick. Can I ask you one other almost larger question?

Oh, I was waiting for this. Yes, please. And here it is, and I need you now to, I realize on the matter of eschatology, you cannot, you know, you're reluctant to take a stand.

I realize on other deep theological issues, you are also reluctant to issue a firm opinion.

However, there is something on which you do this morning, critically in the next four minutes, need to opine. I agree.

I understand you love the saints in England dearly. Oh, yes, I did. You love the saints here in Australia as dearly as you should.

You are aware that in four minutes time, the first ball of the ashes 2010 is going to be bowled in Brisbane, Australia.

I am. Between England and Australia, which side are you going for? Well, no one.

Careful. Very small. No one. No, no, no. What I say is no one in the audience, well, a very small percentage of the audience has any idea what in the world you and I are talking about.

It doesn't matter, does it? They don't know what the ashes are. They don't know anything about what's so important to both

Australia and England, and they don't understand cricket. And you were surprised that I actually got into watching cricket during the ashes when

I was in Brisbane. Pleasantly surprised. I think it was that guy getting hit by a cork and leather ball.

I thought that was awesome. And the fact that he just walked off like, ah, it's not going to hurt me.

He cried for his mummy once he was out of sight. I'm sure he did. I'm sure he did. But I'll be honest with you,

I like going for the underdog, and from what you're telling me, the Aussies are the underdogs this time.

So let's just put it this way. I don't think it would be good for the ashes if this was not competitive.

It wouldn't be good for the ongoing thing. So I'd like to see the Aussies make some hay and at least make it competitive.

But I have no earthly idea who's going to win. Shameless fence sitting. Yes, shameless fence sitting, but I would like to see it come down to the end and really, really be a good match and not just be a blowout.

How's that? It's appallingly vague, but it'll have to do.

Thanks, David. You've preserved your invitation for next year. Looking forward to having you back. I'm looking forward to being there.

All right, God bless. Bye now. Bye -bye. Hey, Lauren, we're going to have to make this quick, but let's go ahead and let's get to Lauren's question really, really quick.

We're going to keep the music from starting. Lauren in Houston. Hi, Lauren. Hello, thank you. Very quickly, thank you.

Atheists often point to the problem or evil, but sometimes non -Calvinists do it well with regards to limited atonement.

So I know it's a big issue, but very quickly, how would you approach that if you were discussing with them? If I was discussing with who?

With a non -Calvinist? A non -Calvinist or an atheist, either one. Well, an atheist has never raised the issue of limited atonement to me before.

So I'm not sure why they would, unless they were just repeating what they've heard from an Arminian. And the answer that I would have to each would be different because the

Arminian claims to believe the testimony of the Word of God. And if you believe the testimony of the

Word of God, then I am going to go with you to the Word of God, and I'm going to say, who was the high priest?

What did the high priest do? Do you accept what the book of Hebrews says about the role of the high priest, the perfection of the atonement, the fact that when the high priest would give the sacrifice, it had the exact same audience of those for whom he then interceded in the holy place.

I would demonstrate the unity of the work of Jesus as our high priest as the foundation for particular redemption.

The fact that he has perfected for all time those for whom he makes his sacrifice. For the atheist,

I don't have that foundation. What I have to establish with the atheist is that God is under no obligation to provide us with anything as far as grace is concerned.

And so to criticize the mechanism he chooses to glorify himself in freely saving people, well, the creature has no basis upon which to do that.

So it would seem to me that the objections would be fundamentally different between an atheist or an

Arminian arguing against limited atonement, and therefore the responses that I would give would be different because I'd have to deal with the different nature of the objections.

Okay. I wish we had more time, but thank you anyway. Well, we'll be back next week, so we can pick it up there if you'd like.

Okay, thanks. Thank you. God bless. Bye. All right, folks, thank you very much for listening to The Dividing Line today, and I do hope that you will have a blessed time with your families and friends tomorrow as we think about all the great benefits that God has poured into our lives.

Thanksgiving is a Christian attribute. Thanksgiving helps you to grow in holiness and humility and faith and in trust of God.

It is a beautiful term, Eucharistia, in the New Testament. Unfortunately, it's been stolen by us, from us, by Roman Catholicism, but it's a beautiful word.

It's something that we should ponder much, not only tomorrow, but in the days to come and in every day because it is commanded of us.

Thanks for listening to The Dividing Line. We'll see you next week. God bless. Thank you.

The Dividing Line has been brought to you by Alpha and Omega Ministries. If you'd like to contact us, call us at 602 -973 -4602 or write us at P .O.

Box 37106, Phoenix, Arizona, 85069. You can also find us on the

World Wide Web at AOMIN .org, that's A -O -M -I -N .org, where you'll find a complete listing of James White's books, tapes, debates, and tracks.