For those of you who care about young people today, Sex & The Soul is a must read (Donna Freitas, Oxford Press, 2008). Freitas is a professor at Boston University who became interested in how college students relate religion to sexuality. She interviewed hundreds of college students from public, private, and evangelical schools and amassed data from thousands more through online surveys. What she founds was eye-opening, alarming, and yet hopeful.

One of the most significant findings of the book is that dating, as is typically conceived, is virtually non-existent on college campuses (with the exception of evangelical schools). She says, “According to students…most relationships develop like this: one night after a party, two people hook up, then it happens again, then it becomes a regular thing, and eventually they find that they are in a relationship…If any coffees, dinners, or ‘just talking’ romantic encounters occurred with these students, these experiences typically happened after  multiple hookups and the decision to become a couple…Students don’t see many avenues to committed relationships aside from hooking up” (139). Thus, most students go on dates only after they’ve been sexually intimate for quite some time. At most universities the hook up has replaced the first date. The old formula was dating first, and then sex. Now it’s sex first, and then dating.

continue reading

If you’ve been following the progress of the big particle collider in Geneva, the title of this article may come as a surprise to you. After all, we learned this week that $21,000,000 more dollars is needed to get it up and running by next summer (at the earliest). So, if the collider is not up and running yet, then how can it point to design? Let me explain.

The particle collider is designed to simulate the earliest moments (one trillionth of a second) after the big bang, so scientists can learn more about the makeup of the smallest components of matter. So far, the collider has cost 10 billion dollars. Yes, that’s $10,000,000,000.

Why didn’t the collider succeed during its much hyped launch September 19th? The problem, according to the organization, is the failure of a single, badly soldered electrical connection. In other words, this multi-billion dollar machine, which was so carefully designed, failed to work because of one solitary poor connection. The lesson we learn is clear: the machine won’t work unless it is exquisitely fine-tuned.

continue reading

Last weekend I had the opportunity of watching a debate between Dinesh D’Souza (author of What’s So Great about Christianity) and Michael Shermer (editor of Skeptic magazine). The debate was held at Southern Evangelical Seminary and the question was: “Does it make sense to believe in God?” The debate was lively, informative, and fun.

I’ve included the two opening statements (abbreviated) as well as their initial responses. I offer two quick critiques of each debater first:

First, Dinesh argues that we cannot know what happens after death, thus we should “leap” toward the Christian side since we have more to gain (ala, Pascal). He says neither Christians nor atheists have knowledge about life after death, which is why we have faith. Thus, he sees belief as taking over when we cannot know something. But this betrays the biblical perspective that we do in fact know what happens after death. 1 John 5:13 says, “These things I have written to you who  believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life.” Evidence from the resurrection of Jesus, the existence of the soul, and near-death experiences provide solid reasons to believe that consciousness (and judgment) comes after death.

continue reading

In the past couple weeks two of my former students (now in college) have contacted me with the same question: Is there any evidence for the existence of the soul? Our secular culture believes that only physical things that can be investigated by the empirical senses are real. Thus, immaterial things such as the soul do not exist, or at least could never be proven. But this is at odds with the biblical perspective, which views the soul as being as real as the body. Jesus said, “Do not fear those who can kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell” (Matthew 10:28).

One of my students recently emailed me the following interaction she had with her professor:

The first day of class my English teacher read an article about how a science fiction writer believes computers and technology will someday produce “superhumans” that will eventually take over the world by 2030…he was hoping they would be environmentalists so that they would want to preserve our lesser-evolved selves. So I asked, “How can this be so? How can a purely material thing spawn consciousness?” He simply laughed and said, “Oh, so I suppose you believe in the soul too?” The whole class laughed at me.

continue reading

Is Darwin really that important? Why not just accept Darwinian evolution and move on? Since the release of my book Understanding Intelligent Design (co-written with William Dembski), this is one of the most common questions I have received. Many Christians have suggested that we should simply accept Darwinian evolution as the mechanism through which God created the world and then move beyond the controversy.

Part of the confusion may come from the barrage of recent books propagating this idea. Evangelical Christian Francis Collins makes this case in The Language of God, Eastern Nazarene college professor Karl Giberson writes Saving Darwin: How to Be a Christian and Believe in Evolution, and Denis Alexander, director of the Faraday Institute for Science and Religion, argues for this view in Creation or Evolution: Do We Have to Choose?

The answer to this question is actually quite obvious—of course he doesn’t. Obama has gone out of his way, when asked, to emphasize that he believes in Darwin’s theory of evolution. Nevertheless, it’s worth considering the particulars of his response, because it typifies the liberal/secular view of the relationship between faith and science.  In short, Obama accepts the secular view of epistemology (the study of knowledge) which claims that science is the prime purveyor of knowledge, whereas religion belongs in the realm of personal “faith.” Obama recently made this statement in the York Daily Record:

I’m a Christian, and I believe in parents being able to provide children with religious instruction without interference from the state. But I also believe our schools are there to teach worldly knowledge and science. I believe in evolution, and I believe there’s a difference between science and faith. That doesn’t make faith any less important than science. It just means they’re two different things. And I think it’s a mistake to try to cloud the teaching of science with theories that frankly don’t hold up to scientific inquiry.

continue reading

Wednesday night I was on a panel for a live simulcast at The Rock Church (San Diego) on proposition 8, which Californians will vote on next month. Prop 8 will overturn the recent ruling by California judges to allow same-sex marriage. While the economy and VP debates have been dominating the news headlines recently, this is one of the most important votes in the upcoming election. Let me respond briefly to the three questions I was asked.

Question 1:  Same-sex marriage doesn't do anything to me. Why should I be against it?

SEAN: When confronted with an ethical dilemma, we naturally ask how it affects us. But as responsible citizens who make choices that deeply affect other people, we should first ask, “What is best for society as a whole.” I don’t just have a responsibility to myself, but to others as well. That’s the essence of the golden rule.

continue reading

A Discussion by Sean McDowell & Tony Jones

Sean says:

Tony, it’s hard to imagine a topic more important or hotly debated than the question of the origin and order of the universe. Are humans the result of a blind, purposeless process (as Darwinism suggests), or were we intentionally designed by a personal and loving creator?

The biblical writers take a clear and bold position: “The heavens proclaim the glory of God. The skies display his craftsmanship. Day after day they continue to speak; night after night they make him known” (Psalm 19:1-2). According to David, the natural world reveals knowledge about God. Thus, it should come as no surprise to Christians that remarkable scientific evidence is emerging for intelligent design (ID) in diverse fields such as neuroscience, biology, chemistry, physics, and cosmology.

“Why couldn’t God have just used evolution as his means of creating the world? Why do many Christians consider it a threat to their faith? What’s the big deal?” This is one of the most commonly asked questions about the origins debate, especially from young people. Many people wonder why Christians don’t simply accept Darwin’s theory as the means through which God created and then get on with it.

This is a question I have wrestled with quite profoundly. I have asked many theologians, scientists, and philosophers the question, Is Darwinian evolution compatible with Christianity? After much thought and research, the conclusion I have come up with is that they are not compatible. To accept Darwinian evolution would be a grave mistake. Let me explain.

Christianity and Darwinian Evolution: An Oxymoron!

continue reading

I would be a rich man if I had a dollar for every time I heard or read an emerging leader say something like: “Apologetics don’t matter anymore in our postmodern world,” “Young people no longer need evidence; it’s about relationships.” Are these claims true? Have we moved into a new era in which apologetics are no longer needed? From my perspective, nothing could be further from the truth.

This past weekend I spoke at the Big Dig youth apologetics conference by Focus on the Family to over 2,200 youth. Speakers included Lee Strobel, Josh McDowell, Ryan Dobson, Mark Mittelberg, and Alex McFarland. I was blown away at how engaged, interested, and attentive the students were. Many of them took notes and hung around book tables to ask questions. There is clearly a movement of young people who desire to know not only what they believe by why. They want to dig deeper.

continue reading