Objection #3: Evolution Explains Life, So God Isn't Needed (2001)
(Interview w/ Walter L. Bradley, Ph.D.)
This objection is extremely poorly phrased. From a reading
of the chapter, it is clear that Strobel's phrasing, "Evolution Explains
Life" means more specifically, evolution explains the origin of
life or how evolution was able to give rise to life from non-life. Unfortunately
for Strobel, this is a non-issue because evolution explains no such thing, nor
does it purport to. Strobel smugly points out that Darwin, "didn't really
have a good idea of how life arose," (94) and didn't look into the issue
with much depth. This is because the problem of how the first life began is
totally irrelevant to Darwin's theory of natural selection. Evolution and
natural selection explain how organisms change over time. As far as origins are
concerned, the only thing that is important to evolution is that life, somehow
or other, did in fact begin. The issue of how life arose from non-life is
called "abiogenesis" and should be treated separately from evolution.
So "Objection #3" really isn't an objection at all, but rather an
excuse for Strobel to argue: "Since we can't account for the origin of
life, God must've been behind it." But this is just an appeal to
ignorance, attributing that which we can't explain to God and converting Him
into a three letter word meaning "I don't know." Almost the entirety
of the chapter is devoted to the problem of abiogenesis, and I will discuss
that a bit more in short order. But first, there are a few actual evolution
criticisms to address, as well as an issue of Strobel's journalistic integrity.
Throughout the chapter Strobel and Bradley beset us with implications that
are made explicit near the end with this quote from Bradley: "Today it
takes a great deal of faith to be an honest scientist who is an atheist" (111).
Thus he has painted a picture of a scientific community where all reasonable
and honest scientists have conceded the existence of an Intelligent Creator,
while a few rebels desperately hang on to outmoded naturalistic explanations
out of sheer stubbornness. This is completely disingenuous and Strobel should
be ashamed of such a misrepresentation. The fact of the matter is that there
are tons of honest men and women recognized for excellence in their scientific
fields who reject the notion of God. Furthermore, the vast majority of
scientists who do believe in God consider creationism to be complete
rubbish. This is why creationists are forced to always bring up the same people
(Behe, Denton) and either misquote or quote out of context everyone else, from
Einstein to Asimov, to support their position [7]. Of course,
the most important point of all is that what specific scientists say or believe
does not determine truth. On this bogus tactic, in fact, see Richard Carrier on The Fallacy of Appeal to Authority and The Fallacy of Appeal to Reverence.
Strobel does launch a couple meager attacks on evolution. Before I address
them specifically, it is vital to note three points: (1) The Creationist's
False Dichotomy: Virtually every aspect of "creation science"
involves mounting an attack on evolution. What I think they fail to realize is
that, even if these attacks were wholly substantiated and evolution was
demonstrably false in every way, it would do nothing to uphold the validity of
creationism. Even if evolution is false, it's not as if the Bible's creation
story is the only alternative. (2) God And Evolution Aren't Incompatible:
If you recognize evolution as true, it doesn't mean you have to toss God out on
the front stoop. Just because evolution occurred, doesn't mean God isn't behind
it all. As a matter of fact, there are millions of Christians who believe the
existence of God and evolution both are true, and it causes them no problems
whatsoever. (3) Scientific Debate is Not a Weakness: Creationists are
pleased by nothing more than when scientists disagree on some evolutionary
issue or when new evidence overturns an old conclusion. They seem to perceive
this as a weakness, when in fact it's one of science's greatest strengths. The
fact that science has an error-correcting machinery built into its method,
allowing even the most strongly supported issues to be open to debate, and old
conclusions to be repeatedly tested in the light of new evidence, should
inspire great confidence in science's ability to determine the truth.[8] On the other hand, religion's dogmatic assertion that it has a
special privilege to the one and only changeless truth, which cannot be tested
or questioned, should at least raise your eyebrow, if not scare the living hell
out of you.
As for his attacks on evolution: Strobel regurgitates the tired old
creationist argument that there is "a paucity of fossil evidence for the
transitions between various species of animals" (91). This is blatantly
false. When Strobel couldn't find any transitional fossils, I guess he
overlooked these:
|
Transition from primitive
jawless fish to sharks, skates, and rays:
- Cladoselachians (e.g., Cladoselache).
- Hybodonts (e.g. Hybodus)
- Heterodonts (e.g. Heterodontus)
- Hexanchids (e.g. Chlamydoselache)
|
|
Transition from primitive
bony fish to holostean fish:
- Palaeoniscoids (e.g. Cheirolepis);
living chondrosteans such as Polypterus and Calamoichthys,
and also the living acipenseroid chondrosteans such as sturgeons and
paddlefishes.
- Primitive holosteans such as Semionotus.
|
|
Transition from holostean
fish to advanced teleost fish:
- Leptolepidomorphs, esp. Leptolepis, an
excellent holostean-teleost intermediate
- Elopomorphs, both fossil and living (tarpons,
eels)
- Clupeomorphs (e.g. Diplomystus)
- Osteoglossomorphs (e.g. Portheus)
- Protacanthopterygians
|
|
Transition from primitive
bony fish to amphibians:
- Paleoniscoids again (e.g. Cheirolepis)
- Osteolepis -- one of the earliest crossopterygian lobe-finned fishes, still
sharing some characters with the lungfish (the other group of
lobe-finned fish). Had paired fins with a leg-like arrangement of bones,
and had an early-amphibian-like skull and teeth.
- Eusthenopteron (and other rhipidistian crossopterygian fish)
-- intermediate between early crossopterygian fish and the earliest
amphibians. Skull very amphibian-like. Strong amphibian-like backbone.
Fins very like early amphibian feet.
- Icthyostegids (such as Icthyostega and Icthyostegopsis)
-- Terrestrial amphibians with many of Eusthenopteron's fish
features (e.g., the fin rays of the tail were retained). Some debate
about whether Icthyostega should be considered a fish or an
amphibian; it is an excellent transitional fossil.
- Labyrinthodonts (e.g., Pholidogaster, Pteroplax)
-- still have some icthyostegid features, but have lost many of the fish
features (e.g., the fin rays are gone, vertebrae are stronger and interlocking,
the nasal passage for air intake is well defined.)
|
|
Transition from amphibians
to reptiles:
- Seymouriamorph labyrinthodonts (e.g. Seymouria)
-- classic labyrinthodont skull and teeth, with reptilian vertebrae,
pelvis, humerus, and digits; amphibian ankle.
- Cotylosaurs (e.g. Hylonomus, Limnoscelis)
-- slightly amphibian skull (e.g. with amphibian-type pineal opening),
with rest of skeleton classically reptilian.
- The cotylosaurs gave rise to many reptile
groups of tremendous variety. I won't go into the transitions from
cotylosaurs to the advanced anapsid reptiles (turtles and possibly
mesosaurs), to the euryapsid reptiles (icthyosaurs, plesiosaurs, and
others), or to the lepidosaurs (eosuchians, lizards, snakes, and the
tuatara), or to most of the dinosaurs, since I don't have infinite time.
Instead I'll concentrate on the synapsid reptiles (which gave rise to
mammals) and the archosaur reptiles (which gave rise to birds).
|
|
Transition from reptiles to
mammals:
- Pelycosaur synapsids -- classic reptilian
skeleton, intermediate between the cotylosaurs (the earliest reptiles)
and the therapsids (see next)
- Therapsids (e.g. Dimetrodon) -- the
numerous therapsid fossils show gradual transitions from reptilian
features to mammalian features. For example: the hard palate forms, the
teeth differentiate, the occipital condyle on the base of the skull
doubles, the ribs become restricted to the chest instead of extending
down the whole body, the legs become "pulled in" instead of
sprawled out, the ilium (major bone of the hip) expands forward.
- Cynodont theriodonts (e.g. Cynognathus)
-- very mammal-like reptiles. Or is that reptile-like mammals? Highly
differentiated teeth (a classic mammalian feature), with accessory cusps
on cheek teeth; strongly differentiated vertebral column (with distinct
types of vertebrae for the neck, chest, abdomen, pelvis, and tail --
very mammalian), mammalian scapula, mammalian limbs, mammalian digits
(e.g. reduction of number of bones in the first digit). But, still has unmistakably
reptilian jaw joint.
- Tritilodont theriodonts (e.g. Tritylodon,
Bienotherium) -- skull even more mammalian (e.g. advanced
zygomatic arches). Still has reptilian jaw joint.
- Ictidosaur theriodonts (e.g. Diarthrognathus)
-- has all the mammalian features of the tritilodonts, and has a double
jaw joint; both the reptilian jaw joint and the mammalian jaw joint were
present, side-by-side, in Diarthrognathus's skull. A really
stunning transitional fossil.
- Morganucodonts (e.g. Morganucodon) --
early mammals. Double jaw joint, but now the mammalian joint is dominant
(the reptilian joint bones are beginning to move inward; in modern
mammals these are the bones of the middle ear).
- Eupantotheres (e.g. Amphitherium) --
these mammals begin to show the complex molar cusp patterns
characteristic of modern marsupials and eutherians (placental mammals).
Mammalian jaw joint.
- Proteutherians (e.g. Zalambdalestes) --
small, early insectivores with molars intermediate between eupantothere
molars and modern eutherian molars.
- Those wondering how egg-laying reptiles could
make the transition to placental mammals may wish to study the
reproductive biology of the monotremes (egg-laying mammals) and the
marsupials. The monotremes in particular could almost be considered
"living transitional fossils". [see Peter Lamb's suggested
marsupial references at end]
|
|
Transition from reptiles to
birds:
- Lisboasaurus estesi and other "troodontid dinosaur-birds"
-- a bird-like reptile with very bird-like teeth (that is, teeth very
like those of early toothed birds [modern birds have no teeth]). May not
have been a direct ancestor; may have been a "cousin" of the
birds instead.
- Protoavis -- this is a highly controversial fossil that may or may
not be an extremely early bird. Not enough of the fossil was recovered
to determine if it is definitely related to the birds, or not. I mention
it in case people have heard about it recently.
- Archeopteryx -- reptilian vertebrae, pelvis, tail, skull, teeth, digits,
claws, sternum. Avian furcula (wishbone, for attachment of flight
muscles), forelimbs, and lift-producing flight feathers. Archeopteryx
could probably fly from tree to tree, but couldn't take off from the
ground, since it lacked a keeled breastbone (for attachment of large
flight muscles) and had a weak shoulder (relative to modern
birds).
- "Chinese bird" [I don't know what
name was given to this fossil] -- A fossil dating from 10-15 million
years after Archeopteryx. Bird-like claws on the toes,
flight-specialized shoulders, fair-sized sternal keel (modern birds
usually have large sternal keel); also has reptilian stomach ribs,
reptilian unfused hand bones, & reptilian pelvis. This bird has a
fused tail ("pygostyle"), but I don't know how long it was, or
if it was all fused or just part of it was fused.
- "Las Hoyas bird" [I don't know what
name was given to this fossil] -- This fossil dates from 20-30 m.y.
after Archeopteryx. It still has reptilian pelvis & legs, with
bird-like shoulder. Tail is medium-length with a fused tip (Archeopteryx
had long, unfused tail; modern birds have short, fused tail). Fossil
down feather was found with the Las Hoyas bird.
- Toothed Cretaceous birds, e.g. Hesperornis
and Ichthyornis. Skeleton further modified for flight (fusion of
pelvis bones, fusion of hand bones, short & fused tail). Still had
true socketed teeth, which are missing in modern birds.
- [note: a classic study of chicken embryos
showed that chicken bills can be induced to develop teeth, indicating
that chickens (and perhaps other modern birds) still retain the genes
for making teeth.]
|
|
Now, on to some of the classes of mammals.
|
|
Transitional fossils from
early eutherian mammals to primates:
- Early primates -- paromomyids, carpolestids,
plesiadapids. Lemur-like clawed primates with generalized nails.
- Notharctus, an early Eocene lemur
- Parapithecus, a small Old World monkey (Oligocene)
- Propliopithecus, a small primate intermediate between
Parapithecus and the more recent O.W. monkeys. Has several ape-like
characters.
- Aegyptopithecus, an early ape.
- Limnopithecus, a later ape showing similarities to the modern gibbons.
- Dryopithecus, a later ape showing similarities to the non-gibbon apes.
- Ramapithecus, a dryopithecine-like ape showing similarities to the hominids
but now thought to be an orang ancestor.
- Australopithecus spp., early hominids. Bipedal.
- Homo habilis.
- Homo erectus. Numerous fossils across the Old World.
- Homo sapiens sapiens. This is us. (NB: "Cro-magnon man"
belongs here too. Cro-magnons were a specific population of modern
humans.)
- Homo sapiens neanderthalensis (not on the direct line to H. sapiens
sapiens, but worth mentioning).
- [I haven't described these fossils in detail
because they're fairly well covered in any intro biology text, or in any
of several good general- interest books on human evolution.]
|
|
Transitional fossils from
early eutherian mammals to rodents:
- Paramyids, e.g. Paramys -- early
"primitive" rodent
- Paleocastor -- transitional from paramyids to beavers
- [yick. I was going to summarize rodent fossils
but Paramys and its friends gave rise to 5 enormous and very diverse
groups of rodents, with about ten zillion fossils. Never mind.]
|
|
Transitional fossils among
the cetaceans (whales & dolphins):
- Pakicetus -- the oldest fossil whale known. Only the skull was found. It
is a distinct whale skull, but with nostrils in the position of a land
animal (tip of snout). The ears were partially modified for
hearing under water. This fossil was found in association with fossils
of land mammals, suggesting this early whale maybe could walk on
land.
- Basilosaurus isis -- a recently discovered "legged"
whale from the Eocene (after Pakicetus). Had hind feet with 3 toes and a
tiny remnant of the 2nd toe (the big toe is totally missing). The legs
were small and must have been useless for locomotion, but were specialized
for swinging forward into a locked straddle position -- probably an aid
to copulation for this long-bodied, serpentine whale.
- Archaeocetes (e.g. Protocetus, Eocetus)
-- have lost hind legs entirely, but retain "primitive whale"
skull and teeth, with forward nostrils.
- Squalodonts (e.g. Prosqualodon) --
whale-like skull with dorsal nostrils (blowhole), still with
un-whale-like teeth.
- Kentriodon, an early toothed whale with whale-like teeth.
- Mesocetus, an early whalebone whale
- [note: very rarely a modern whale is found with
tiny hind legs, showing that some whales still retain the genes for
making hind legs.]
|
|
Transitional fossils from
early eutherian mammals to the carnivores:
- Miacids (e.g. Viverravus and Miacis)
-- small weasel-like animals with very carnivore-like teeth, esp. the
carnassial teeth.
- Arctoids (e.g. Cynodictis, Hesperocyon)
-- intermediate between miacids and dogs. Limbs have elongated,
carnassials are more specialized, braincase is larger.
- Cynodesmus, Tomarctus -- transitional fossils between arctoids and
the modern dog genus Canis.
- Hemicyon, Ursavus -- heavy doglike fossils between the arctoids
and the bears.
- Indarctos -- early bear. Carnassial teeth have no shearing action, molars
are square, short tail, heavy limbs. Transitional to the modern genus
Ursus.
- Phlaocyon -- a climbing carnivore with non-shearing carnassials,
transitional from the arctoids to the procyonids (raccoons et al.)
|
|
Meanwhile back at the
ranch,
- Plesictis, transitional between miacids (see above) and mustelids
(weasels et al.)
- Stenoplesictis and Palaeoprionodon, early civets
related to the miacids (see above)
- Tunguricits, transitional between early civets and modern civets
- Ictitherium, transitional between early civets to hyenas
- Proailurus, transitional from early civets to early cats
- Dinictis,
transitional from early cats to modern "feline" cats
- Hoplophoneus, transitional from early cats to "saber-tooth"
cats
|
|
Transitional fossils from
early eutherians to hoofed animals:
- Arctocyonid condylarths -- insectivore-like
small mammals with classic mammalian teeth and clawed feet.
- Mesonychid condylarths -- similar to the
arctocyonids, but with blunt crushing-type cheek teeth, and flattened
nails instead of claws.
- Late condylarths, e.g. Phenocodus -- a
fair-sized animal with hoofs on each toe (all toes were present), a
continuous series of crushing-type cheek teeth with herbivore-type
cusps, and no collarbone (like modern hoofed animals).
- Transitional fossils from early hoofed animals
to perissodactyls:
- [Perissodactyls are animals with an odd
number of toes; most of the weight is borne by the central 3rd toe.
Horses, rhinos, tapirs.]
- Tetraclaeonodon -- a Paleocene condylarth showing
perissodactyl-like teeth
- Hyracotherium -- the famous "dawn horse", an early
perissodactyl, with more elongated digits and interlocking ankle bones,
and slightly different tooth cusps, compared to to Tetraclaeonodon. A
small, doggish animal with an arched back, short neck, and short snout;
had 4 toes in front and 3 behind. Omnivore teeth.
- [The rest of horse evolution will be covered in
an upcoming "horse fossils" post in a few weeks. To whet your
appetite:]
- Orohippus -- small, 4/3 toed, developing browser tooth crests
- Epihippus -- small, 4/3 toed, good tooth crests, browser
- Epihippus (Duchesnehippus) -- a subgenus with Mesohippus-like teeth
- Mesohippus -- 3 toed on all feet, browser, slightly larger
- Miohippus -- 3 toed browser, slightly larger [gave rise to lots of
successful three-toed browsers]
- Parahippus -- 3 toed browser/grazer, developing "spring
foot"
- 'Parahippus' leonensis -- a Merychippus-like species of Parahippus
- 'Merychippus' gunteri -- a Parahippus-like species of Merychippus
- 'Merychippus' primus -- a more typical Merychippus, but still
very like Parahippus.
- Merychippus -- 3 toed grazer, spring-footed, size of small pony (gave rise
to tons of successful three-toed grazers)
- Merychippus (Protohippus) -- a subgenus of Merychippus developing
Pliohippus-like teeth.
- Pliohippus & Dinohippus -- one-toed grazers, spring-footed
- Equus (Plesippus) -- like modern equines but teeth slightly
simpler.
- Equus (Hippotigris), the modern 1-toed spring-footed grazing
zebras.
- Equus (Equus), the modern 1-toed spring-footed grazing horses & donkeys.
[note: very rarely a horse is born with small visible side toes,
indicating that some horses retain the genes for side toes.]
- Hyrachyids -- transitional from
perissodactyl-like condylarths to tapirs
- Heptodonts, e.g. Lophiodont -- a small
horse-like tapir, transitional to modern tapirs
- Protapirus -- a probable descendent of Lophiodont, much like modern tapirs
but without the flexible snout.
- Miotapirus -- an almost-modern tapir with a flexible snout, transitional
between Protapirus and the modern Tapirus.
- Hyracodonts -- early "running
rhinoceroses", transitional to modern rhinos
- Caenopus, a large, hornless, generalized rhino transitional between the
hyracodonts and the various later groups of modern & extinct
rhinos.
- Transitional fossils from early hoofed animals
to some of the artiodactyls (cloven-hoofed animals):
- Dichobunoids, e.g. Diacodexis,
transitional between condylarths and all the artiodactyls (cloven-hoofed
animals). Very condylarth-like but with a notably artiodactyl-like
ankle.
- Propalaeochoerus, an early pig, transitional between Diacodexis
and modern pigs.
- Protylopus, a small, short-necked, four-toed animal, transitional between
dichobunoids and early camels. From here the camel lineage goes through Protomeryx,
Procamelus, Pleauchenia, Lama (which are still
alive; these are the llamas) and finally Camelus, the modern
camels.
- Archeomeryx, a rabbit-sized, four-toed animal, transitional between the
dichobunoids and the early deer. From here the deer lineage goes through
Eumeryx, Paleomeryx and Blastomeryx, Dicrocerus
(with antlers) and then a shmoo of successful groups that survive today
as modern deer -- muntjacs, cervines, white-tail relatives, moose,
reindeer, etc., etc.
- Palaeotragus, transitional between early artiodactyls and the okapi &
giraffe. Actually the okapi hasn't changed much since Palaeotragus
and is essentially a living Miocene giraffe. After Palaeotragus
came Giraffa, with elongated legs & neck, and Sivatherium,
large ox-like giraffes that almost survived to the present.
|
So, there's a partial list of transitional fossils. And this really
only scratches the surface, since it doesn't include all groups that have no surviving
relatives, didn't discuss modern amphibians or reptiles, left out most of the
birds, ignored the diversity in modern fish, didn't discuss the bovids or
elephants or rodents or many other mammal groups.... I hope this gives a taste
of the richness of the fossil record and the abundance of transitional fossils
between major vertebrate taxa [9].
Strobel then takes up the "irreducible complexity" argument
espoused by Michael Behe (the same guy, yet again). This is nothing more than
the antiquated argument from design wrapped up in the raiment of modern
molecular biology. The problem with Behe's irreducibly complex systems is that
their irreducibility is based on the assumption that a particular molecular
component's function has not changed over time. But we have every reason to
suspect that component functions can and do change. There is a wealth of
criticism for Behe available: see the Secular Web's library on Michael
Behe.
Before I totally let Behe off the hook, I'd like to point out another of
Strobel's spurious journalistic tactics. He describes Behe's book, Darwin's
Black Box, as "award-winning" (92). Now, he doesn't explicitly
say what kind of award this was, yet I believe he expected the reader to
presume this was an award for scientific merit from a scientific
organization--and I think most readers probably did. However, the distinction
was actually bestowed upon Darwin's Black Box at the Christianity
Today Book Awards [10]. Shouldn't Strobel have mentioned
that little fact?
The Building Blocks Of Life
The entire Bradley interview itself is concerned with abiogenesis, which, I
would again like to note, is irrelevant to evolution. Nevertheless, this
interview is also flawed. Bradley informs Strobel that the initial
conditions were assumed in the famous Miller-Urey Experiment in which amino
acids were created by simulating earth's early environment and adding
electrical energy to the system. Strobel makes a great to-do of Bradley's
revelation (to him) that Miller assumed an environment rich in the elements
which he used for the simulation. They then dismiss the entire experiment (95-7).
Problems:
Firstly, just because Strobel couldn't recognize that the experiment is based
on a hypothesis, doesn't mean everyone else is so blind. I don't believe Miller
attempted to hide the fact that he was guessing as to the composition of the
early earth's atmosphere. Secondly, we still have an experiment where the
building blocks of life formed spontaneously from non-life conditions. Even if
those were not early earth's conditions, it still says something about the
possibility of abiogenesis.
Assembling A Cell
Bradley extols the complexity of the cell and declares the origin of life to be
an unsolved problem. He then goes on to refute six theories of abiogenesis
(95-106).
Problems:
Bradley is right that the cell is complex and the origin of life unknown. As
for the six theories, I am not qualified to discuss them specifically. However,
there are several considerations to keep in mind when evaluating abiogenesis
theories (and refutations):
To begin with, to actually calculate the 'odds of life
evolving by chance' one must calculate the odds of the first living (i.e.
replicating) organism arising by chance. But no one knows what that first
organism was, for it naturally had no bones and thus left no fossils, and it
certainly would have been vastly overpowered and driven to extinction by its
more advanced children who were born after successive mutation and selection.
It is not even known if this first life was DNA-based, much less how complex it
was. But even if we could estimate the simplest possible biochemical replicator,
the task would only be beginning. The odds of such a replicator forming by
chance would not be based on its complexity alone. The chances would have to be
calculated based on the number of materials available (e.g. more than one
different molecule may serve the same purpose at any given point in a chain),
the probability that they will form into collectives (e.g. amino-acids
naturally chain, water molecules do not), and the number of tests (e.g. the
number of chemical reactions that occur in a given environment, and the number
of times any kind of chain or collective is formed in the population). In other
words, to actually calculate the odds of 'life' developing from inanimate
matter, one must be acquainted not only with a vast arrangement of data and know
how to estimate all the statistical relationships involved, but one must even
know things that no one on Earth presently knows, or ever may know.[11]
Therefore, any one who claims to be able to tell you about
the likelihood (on unlikelihood) of a particular abiogenesis theory should be
treated with the utmost suspicion.
The Most Reasonable Inference
Bradley suggests that an Intelligent Designer is, indeed, the most reasonable
inference (107-9).
Problems:
Bradley says, "If there isn't a natural explanation and there doesn't seem
to be the potential of finding one, then I believe it's appropriate to look at
a supernatural explanation" (108). But this solves nothing, because
Bradley is simply handing off the problem to God, who can explain anything. It
is not a reasonable inference because it is based on ignorance. To Bradley's
credit, it should be noted that he claims, "what I've found is absolutely
overwhelming evidence that points to an Intelligent Designer" (109). To
his detriment, it should be noted that he fails to produce any such evidence.
Reasoning By Analogy
Bradley would have us believe that, "we can legitimately use analogical
reasoning to conclude that the remarkable information sequences in DNA...had an
intelligent cause" (109-11). He trots out a couple of analogies for just
this purpose.
Problems:
Analogical reasoning is useful as an explanatory tool, allowing us to
understand more complex issues by their comparison to simpler ones. However,
because analogies do, by nature, simplify an issue, their conclusions are often
specious. If a Christian doubts this, I invite them to examine the following:
1. David Koresh claimed to be God, therefore he was a
lunatic.
2. Jesus Christ claimed to be
God, therefore he was also a lunatic.
Back to Table of Contents
