Some Positions I Hold on Issues

The following is a list, in no particular order, of various positions I hold within philosophy and theology. I don’t really explain these positions as follows. I also hold these positions to varying degrees ranging from “fairly certain” all the way down to “leaning this way,” and I don’t provide any way to distinguish these degrees in this list. I encourage you to comment on some of my positions, whether you want clarifying questions (I’m happy to explain both the question and the answer) or want to know the degree to which I hold these things. I am also willing to answer questions about positions I forgot to include!

Theism: Theistic personalism

Worldview: Christianity

Human constitution: Cartesian dualism, dichotomy

Modal actualism/modal realism: Modal actualism

Omniscience: Yes, full omniscience

Providence: Molinism (middle knowledge)

Soteriology: Corporate election and individual election

Eschatology: Premillennial, pre-tribulational

Dispensational/Covenant: Progressive dispensationalism

Sign gifts: Moderate cessationalist

Science, realism/anti-realism: Realism

A priori knowledge: Yes, intuitionism

Justification: Basic foundationalism

Epistemology: Reformed epistemology, proper functionalism

Perception: Direct realism (adverbial theory)

Abstract objects: Nominalism-Divine conceptualism (tie)

Internalism/Externalism: Externalism

Natural Theology: Yes

Ontological argument: Yes, including original and modal formulations

Apologetic method: Cumulative case

Free will: Soft libertarianism

Ethics: Objective morality, deontological, divine command theory

Coherence of moral law: non-conflicting absolutism

Truth: Correspondence theory

Knowledge: warranted true belief

Time: A-theory

Bible: Inspired, inerrant

Trinity: Trinity Monotheism model of Social Trinitarianism

Impeccability/Peccability of Christ: Impeccability

Original sin/Original guilt: Original sin

Atonement: Kaleidoscope theory

Eternal security: Yes

Creation/Evolution: Creation

Genesis 6, fallen angels or godly/ungodly lines: Lines

Rahab: sin/innocence: Innocence

Logical Problem of Evil: Free will defense

Probabilistic Problem of Evil: Skeptical theism

Theodicy: Kaleidoscope theodicy approach

Do Atheists Know God Exists?

The Bible claims all men (atheists and skeptics included) have a knowledge of God. Romans 1:20-21 states, “For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse. Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.”

Many atheists find such a claim both wrong and offensive. This is because it generally seems, both to skeptics and Christians alike, that there are only two choices for response when an atheist claims he doesn’t really know God exists. First, we can accuse him of being dishonest. Second, we can accuse him of being deluded. Neither seems particularly appealing. Is there a way to harmonize the biblical record without being firmly committed to one of these options? I think there is.

I believe the answer lies both in intuitive knowledge and the idea of awareness. Intuition is knowledge gained independently of a process. It is simply “in born,” as it were. This passage seems to teach we have some kind of sensus divinitas within; we know God exists.[1] This knowledge does not require conscious awareness of that fact. Here are some clear, everyday examples of knowledge not requiring conscious awareness: ever described something as being “on the tip of your tongue”? Or what about saying, “Oh! I know his name, I just can’t remember it!” You do in fact know his name but you are not currently aware due to forgetfulness.

These examples of forgetfulness are not the only ones of knowledge without awareness. I know my breathing is regular and my individual breaths to be quite frequent and high in number throughout a day. However, when I am sleeping, I am completely unaware of these and other bodily functions that I do in fact know about. Even when I am awake, there are facts of which I have knowledge but of which I am not always aware, like: the 16th amendment of the U.S. Constitution concerns income tax, my mother’s favorite thing is strawberries, South Africa has another country within its borders, etc. It’s quite apparent one can know something and yet not be aware of it.

So how does this apply to the atheist? Well, I do not think he is necessarily being dishonest or deluded, at least not in the senses these terms immediately imply. We see in life as well as the Bible that character is formed by choices and experiences (cf. Exodus 7:13). These do not causally determine our choices, but they are influencers of these choices. A result of these choices (not to worship God for who he is) is a suppression of knowledge (cf. Romans 1:28)—in other words, they have knowledge of which they are not aware. “But Randy,” one may protest, “doesn’t this mean they are deluding themselves, or just lying to themselves?” Not quite. Instead, I think this rather has to do both with the will of the individual and the consequences of choosing to suppress the knowledge. Now an atheist may find this just as offensive, but I think it’s a better alternative to “lying” or “delusional.”

---

                [1] Interestingly, this may have application to my discussion on what happens to those people who have never heard of Jesus Christ. See the article by clicking on this sentence.

------------------------------------------------------------

All posts, and the blog Possible Worlds, are the sole intellectual property of Randy Everist. One may reprint part or all of this post so long as: a) full attribution is given (Randy Everist, Possible Worlds), b) all use is non-commercial, and c) one is in compliance with the Creative Commons license at the bottom on the main page of this blog.

Appeal to Consequence

From time to time I examine a particular informal fallacy to see when it is fallacious and when it is not. Today, we will look at appeal to consequence. What is appeal to consequence? Briefly, it is an argument that takes the form “If X, then Y. Y is not desirable. Therefore, not X.” One may note, quite correctly, that this is really just modus tollens, a completely valid and acceptable logical form of inference. What makes it fallacious is often there is no reason to believe the major premise. This is also closely related to the slippery slope fallacy.

Here’s an example: “If you vote to re-elect the President, then this country will cease to exist within the next four years. You do not want this country to cease to exist. Therefore, you should not vote to re-elect the President.” Now, as it may turn out, the major premise may be entirely correct. However, the thrust or force of the argument depends upon a powerful connection to or dislike of the consequence. This typically clouds the issue for the hearer of the argument and can influence them to accept something more readily than they should.

Here’s a recent example from the theological world, paraphrased: “If interpretation and inerrancy are not identical, then simply because the Mormons have a faulty interpretation of the Bible they could not be accused of denying inerrancy! They should be accused of denying inerrancy. Therefore, interpretation and inerrancy are identical.” The problems are multiple here. First, with respect to the major premise, it just doesn’t follow that because the Mormons have a faulty interpretation they are still not denying inerrancy. For what is necessary and sufficient for a belief in inerrancy is: Any agent X believes in inerrancy in general just in the case X believes for any P that the Bible affirms, P is true and not false, and Any X believes in inerrancy specifically just in the case he believes in inerrancy in general and X believes the Bible has affirmed P, and X believes P is true and not false. Mormons tend to believe in places the Bible contradicts other Mormon doctrine, the Bible is in error. Further, inerrancy isn’t the primary concern with Mormonism. Their views of God, the Trinity, man, sin, salvation, Heaven, and Hell are. We don’t reject Mormons because of inerrancy; we reject them for bad theology.

Here’s a final example from the perspective of a skeptic: “If you teach children to have faith in God, then you are stunting their intellectual growth—a form of child abuse. This is bad; therefore, you should not teach your children to have faith in God.” Forms of this abound on the Internet, and are sometimes put forth by people such as Richard Dawkins. The key here is to challenge the idea that a robust intellectual life is incompatible with belief in God. All one has to do is name a few scholars. At this point, the skeptic will be placed in the bad position of either having to admit he was wrong, or simply claim that all of these scholars are really unintelligent.

The appeal to consequence doesn’t rely on much logically for the error, and even is a formally correct way of reasoning. In fact, the primary error here is one of emotions. One must be sure that he is evaluating carefully the premises of an argument, and not merely agreeing out of a psychological response or conditioning.

--------------------------------

All posts, and the blog Possible Worlds, are the sole intellectual property of Randy Everist. One may reprint part or all of this post so long as: a) full attribution is given (Randy Everist, Possible Worlds), b) all use is non-commercial, and c) one is in compliance with the Creative Commons license at the bottom on the main page of this blog.

Pragmatism and Christian Doctrine

Pragmatism is a very easy philosophy to fall into. By pragmatism I mean, loosely, the idea that whatever works is correct. Too many people in Christianity have fallen into this. It especially occurs in the realm of biblical interpretation or preaching.

In one particular instance, someone read a passage of Scripture and concluded all sorts of truths were present. Truths such as serving others, praying, reading the Bible, and faith in God were all mentioned from various words within the text. The only problem is that the text did not indicate these things at all! Instead, they were things that “sounded good” and were even true (in other biblical texts), but they were not present in the immediate text. Why does this matter?

First, it matters because we must be faithful to the biblical text. If the Bible is God’s inspired Word, then why do we think we have the right to change the intent of the passage? We shouldn’t.

Next, it matters because if we do not arrive at the conclusion in a sound manner we risk being incorrect. While it is true that a poor method of reasoning does not ensure a false conclusion, it does make one more likely. Some of the more damaging teachings of the independent Baptist movement over the years have come from reading into the text things that “sounded good” but were not actually there.

Finally, it matters because pragmatism cannot itself be justified by pragmatic purposes. At least it is the case that it cannot be done in a non-circular fashion. If one says pragmatism is justified because it works, then one is simply assuming some form of pragmatism is true. If one seeks to justify it with logic and reason, then the reality is that logic and reason are superior to pragmatism. In either case, pragmatism takes a back seat to truth.

The only takeaway from this for most Christians will be to ensure truths that shape their lives are based on the Bible. They should not be based on what they feel to be true or what sounds good to them at the time. The development of foundational beliefs is especially important to this idea and will be explored at a later time. Until then, feel free to comment below!

---------------------------------------------

All posts, and the blog Possible Worlds, are the sole intellectual property of Randy Everist. One may reprint part or all of this post so long as: a) full attribution is given (Randy Everist, Possible Worlds), b) all use is non-commercial, and c) one is in compliance with the Creative Commons license at the bottom on the main page of this blog.

What is Essential Doctrine?

Are there essential and non-essential doctrines? If so, what are they? What impact should this or would this have upon my Christian life and beliefs? This article will attempt to answer these questions. First, we should distinguish between at least two aspects of what is considered to be essential doctrine. That is, we must ask ourselves the question, “essential to what?”

The first aspect is what I will call truth essentialism. This essentialism deals with truths that are necessary to be true in order for Christianity as a whole to be true. Truth essentialism includes: the existence of God, the Trinity, Jesus being the Son of God, Jesus’ resurrection, salvation, etc. Perhaps surprisingly, truth essentialism does not include things like the evolution/creation debate, old earth vs. young earth, biblical inerrancy, the inspiration of Scripture, Calvinism, speaking in tongues, trichotomy vs. dichotomy, and so on. This is because Christianity could still be true even if these particular teachings happened to be false.[1] Notice also truth essentialism is not concerned with telling us which doctrines are important or not; it is only concerned with describing what must necessarily be the case if Christianity is true.

The next aspect is what I will call practical essentialism. Practical essentialism includes all of truth essentialism as part of its set. However, it is concerned with what is necessary to be true in order for mainstream, orthodox, evangelical Christianity to be true. This surely covers more ground. It includes: the virgin birth, the inerrancy and inspiration of Scripture, the institution of the local church, the second coming of Jesus Christ, etc. Practical essentialism still would not include things like Calvinism vs. Arminianism, speaking in tongues, a particular hermeneutics, pre-tribulational Rapture vs. post-tribulational Rapture vs. no Rapture, the doctrine of Hell, etc.
(EDIT: I have come to think the virgin birth belongs in truth essentialism, because if Jesus were not born into mankind, he would not truly be human; and were he not born of a virgin, he would not be sinless [he would eventually sin because of his proclivity for sin, which Jesus does not have])

When people say things like “in essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty,” they are more or less referring to practical essentialism. If you were in a country where Christianity was illegal and there was one underground church around the area, what would prevent you from joining them in fellowship? If they adhere to practical essentialism, nothing should. In fact, biblically, separation from other believers was only done in one of two contexts: false teachers of the Gospel (who are not believers anyway) and those who had been admonished by church discipline.

Again, it should be stated that all true doctrine is important, as God is truth (John 14:6). However, truth and practical essentialism are basic guides for discovering orthodox Christianity’s truth. Those who differ with us on teachings that do not fit into these categories should not be ostracized.

[1] For example, imagine that God never chose to inspire the Bible, but rather chose to work through it. Doubtless, we would have a much different Bible and world history, but it nonetheless could still be true that Christianity is correct.

---

What if God commanded murder?

A while back I was invited to respond to an article written last year concerning a challenge to the goodness of the Abrahamic God. This article holds a central question: “If God commanded you to kill your child, would you be morally justified if you were to obey?” He then proposes a trilemma, for which he points out various problems. He then concludes, “no matter how one answers [the question] . . . the notion of an omnibenevolent God seems untenable.” The example he uses is the famous one of Abraham and his only true son (with Sarah), Isaac.

He first runs into the problem that one may answer the question with just anything (by the principle of explosion) if one assumes that the question contains an impossible antecedent. He anticipates this response and says that on the contrary such is not “inconceivable.” The problem is this, however: if one considers God to be morally perfect[1] and the antecedent is not morally perfect, then the question is in fact inconceivable. To say it isn’t is just to admit, in the case of the omnibenevolent God (which the argument assumes in order to show its untenability), that such a God’s commanding the actions is possible, and hence the conclusion is false. My point here is that the worst that follows is that Abraham was mistaken and the Bible is not inerrant (a hefty price, to be sure, but one that is somewhat less than an omnibenevolent God’s existence!).

Of course, he may rightly question whether I would take the above route. The answer is that I would not. So, what are the three options? The first (1) is to answer, “No, because this would be murder.” If we do that, then we accept the premise that a supposedly good God commanded murder (and murder is always wrong). (1) is obviously not a viable option.

(2) is to answer “yes,” we would be morally justified in obeying. However, the reasoning is because what “God commands is by definition good.” He offers a two-pronged critique. I will quote his own words here: “If what is good is that which God commands, then, presumably, He may command and perform any act which, ex hypothesi, must be good, in which case morality may be said to be arbitrary and capricious; entirely contingent upon what God may at any time decree.” The other prong of the critique is to say that God’s commands and the good are simply identical, and thus the question of what “good” is really becomes meaningless for the theist here.

The third option (3) is to say that God is a necessarily good being, and thus it is always good to follow commands given by a necessarily good being. His criticism seems to mirror the second prong against (2) above, followed by supposed counterexamples (i.e., examples of the Abrahamic God behaving in ways different than we would expect an omnibenevolent being to behave).

It occurred to me he did not quite tease out the third option, for it will be this teased-out third option that I will claim. If one will recall, the second option is that of a causal chain: God commands X, X becomes good. This is indeed arbitrary, and it is for this reason I think it should be rejected. However, (3), properly understood, should reverse the causal direction: X is good, God commands X.[2]

The author claims, “To say God is by necessity ‘good,’ and for such a pronouncement to be meaningful, the theist must be able to delimit actions that God cannot perform because they are bad.” The only way I know to take this indicates he thinks we ought to be able to list all the actions God cannot perform before we are able to say God is a necessarily good being, and that I don’t think has been shown. In fact, he doesn’t really argue for it at all. All we mean by “necessarily good” is that he is the ground of objective moral values; it is a part of his nature. That does, by definition, mean there are certain actions he cannot perform, but it does not at all follow that we cannot say God is a necessarily good being without knowing all the actions he cannot do. I certainly do not need to know all of the false answers to 2+2 in order to claim 4 is correct. While it is true that the value of 4 ontologically delimits the number of values that can be sufficient for combining a pair of 2s, it does not follow that we must delimit a list of things it cannot be to know what it is!

However, I think the author’s point is that if we say “yes, we are justified in killing our children if God so commands because God is necessarily good,” that this necessary goodness also necessitates God cannot perform evil. Killing children is evil. Therefore, (3) is not an acceptable answer. However, this just assumes what it seeks to prove. Using words like “genocide,” “murder,” “torture,” and “slavery” is just question-begging. This is because the way we use such words entails morally evil content. Now, if the author merely means to be descriptive of the events, let him use synonyms or sentences to describe them. In many cases, they lose some (or even most) of the force.

Next, he attempts to demonstrate the biblical record contains these atrocities. Aside from ignoring Paul Copan’s critique (which defends the biblical accounts quite well), those who take (3) as an option have plenty of avenues to explore. The argument runs like this:

A. No act commanded by a necessarily good being is evil

B. A perceived command is evil.

C. Therefore, it is either not the case that the command was given or the command was not given by a necessarily good being.

In neither option is the theist committed to saying that holding to an omnibenevolent God is untenable. In the first scenario, possible (and even plausible) solutions include: commands being misunderstood, Biblical inerrancy’s falsehood, the command is not to do evil (in the case of Copan’s defense), God’s not being obligated to extend life, etc. In the second, solutions include: command misunderstood to be from God but from other source, made up command, infused genuine command with meaning to kill all, etc. I don’t even have to pick any one of these (especially since some are decidedly less plausible or palatable than others), but it remains that holding to an omnibenevolent God is not “untenable.”

---

                [1] Here, moral perfection shall be defined as God’s every action comporting with goodness (though certainly much more developed definitions exist).

                [2] This should not be understood to imply God commands every person to do every good act, but rather that the good “causally informs” the content of the commands. In other words, if something is evil, God will not command it.

All posts, and the blog Possible Worlds, are the sole intellectual property of Randy Everist. One may reprint part or all of this post so long as: a) full attribution is given (Randy Everist, Possible Worlds), b) all use is non-commercial, and c) one is in compliance with the Creative Commons license at the bottom on the main page of this blog.

Top 13 List for Christian Debates

This list is mostly a joke. I just wanted to poke a little fun at Christian debate, especially Internet Christian debate. The following is in no particular order (except for the end), and details my (sometimes not so) mild annoyance with these kinds of things. Enjoy!

How to Annoy Me, or How To Beat Me in a Debate

1. Claim my argument is not found in Scripture, especially right after I show a verse where it is found.

2. Pretend your position is the default one to be preferred until proven otherwise.

3. Accuse me of wishing to worship myself or my ideas instead of God.

4. State that I do not believe in the “God of the Bible.”

5. Use slippery slope arguments whenever possible, so that any mild disagreement results in calling Jesus a liar.

6. Accuse me of denying inerrancy.

7. Misstate my position subtly, then defeat that and proclaim my position untenable.

8. Misstate my position obviously, then defeat that and proclaim my position untenable.

9. In the midst of a critique, randomly mention other, unsubstantiated objections. But quickly move on, thus allowing the critique to have the appearance of being warranted.

10. Bring up several objections, allowing me to dispel each of them one by one. After a while, bring up the first one again.

11. Repeat all of these, ad infinitum. Or at least until I get frustrated. Then…

12. Claim I have never dealt substantively with any of the criticisms/I don’t understand your position/I’m not spiritual.

13. Finally, if you happen to be rude during any of this, claim Jesus and Paul did it too.

;)

------------------------------------------

All posts, and the blog Possible Worlds, are the sole intellectual property of Randy Everist. One may reprint part or all of this post so long as: a) full attribution is given (Randy Everist, Possible Worlds), b) all use is non-commercial, and c) one is in compliance with the Creative Commons license at the bottom on the main page of this blog.

Christian Blog Carnival

Possible Worlds is proud to present the Christian Blog Carnival, featuring submissions from the Christian blogosphere on a wide variety of topics. For those who may have submitted but do not see their post, please note that I only included around 20 submissions this time, and thus it was nothing personal. Inclusions do not necessarily indicate agreement with the article, but they do indicate interest.

Theology

“The Bronze Snake,” by Russ White at Thinking in Christ", is an interesting look at an Old Testament judgment.

Matt Zowada examines differing idols in our lives, including the possibility that morality is one, in “Idolatry: Morality.”

In “From Genesis to Revelation,” Kaleb passes on a neat listing of Jesus in the Bible.

Over at Reality in Red, Timothy Payne provides an allegory for sin in the lives of the lost worth reading.

David R. Wells gives us an interesting look when he says, ‘Slavery is Illegal,” and it’s worth checking out.

At American Church History blog, Chris Price gives a brief but interesting look at the separation of church and state and what the Founding Fathers had in mind.

Richard H. Anderson provides a fascinating look at the dating of the book of Luke, and hence the other Gospels as well.

Reflections in the Word tackles the often-thorny problem of biblical authenticity, and what that may mean.

Apologetics

Daniel Smith over at Rational Theism gives a brief summary and response to the logical problem of evil using an interesting method of God’s benevolence.

Tom Gilson at Thinking Christian has provided a wonderful review of the film “Metamorphosis” and how it relates to scientific apologetics.

Collegevue.com has some apologetic and theological resources one may find quite interesting.

The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument is examined by yours truly at Possible Worlds.

Christian Life

Rob Sisson, at In Faith, writes of the true faith we must have in our lives when we approach Christ.

Ridge Burns shares a powerful story of being Jesus to the world in everyday circumstances.

Annette holds an examination of 1 Corinthians 13 in a devotional style that I think you will enjoy.

Joy Shepherd at BibleCollege.org takes a good look at the top 10 Bible colleges in the United States and what makes them that way.

“But it’s just a little thing,” by Violet, shows that grumbling and complaining in the Christian life is not acceptable.

Joe Plemon wants to know what we are willing to give up in order to follow God.

Rebecca LuElla Miller reminds us of the importance and primacy of serving God—even if it means going against our country, in “Treasonous Prayer.”

At Strawberry Roan blog, Shanyn examines some devotional and emotionally-stirring thoughts following the events of 9/11.

Lynn Dove wants to know if chivalry is really dead, and what attitudes our cultural norms today represent.

Please check out the Christian Blog Carnival on a regular basis at: http://blogcarnival.com/bc/cprof_1551.html
-------------------------------------------------

All posts, and the blog Possible Worlds, are the sole intellectual property of Randy Everist. One may reprint part or all of this post so long as: a) full attribution is given (Randy Everist, Possible Worlds), b) all use is non-commercial, and c) one is in compliance with the Creative Commons license at the bottom on the main page of this blog.

The Geisler-Licona Controversy

These are my few thoughts about the controversy surrounding Mike Licona and Norm Geisler, two very competent Christian scholars. A dispute has arisen over whether or not Licona’s view of Matthew 27 amounts to a denial of inerrancy. I’m not convinced it does, even if he is dead wrong about his interpretation. Consider the following:

Inerrancy is true if and only if for any proposition, fact, truth, or event P that the Bible affirms, P is true and not false.

Inerrancy is false in the case that for any P that the Bible affirms, P is false and not true.

Any agent X believes in inerrancy in general just in the case X believes for any P that the Bible affirms, P is true and not false.

Any X believes in inerrancy specifically just in the case X believes the Bible has affirmed P, and X believes P is true and not false.

X’s belief about P entails inerrancy’s falsehood in the case the Bible affirms P and X believes not-P.

First, we should note that one can affirm inerrancy even in the case that he believes something contrary to what the text actually teaches. For the text means what it means independently of our understanding of it, so that if P is actually true, but we teach not-P, we may nonetheless affirm inerrancy if we believe the Bible teaches not-P in the first place. This means Licona may be well within the bounds of orthodoxy in terms of whether or not he is an inerrantist.

Next, notice the final proposition means that, if X’s belief about P is true and it opposes what the Bible actually teaches, then inerrancy is false. Note what it does not teach: that X believes the Bible is not inerrant. Further, we should see that this would make anyone who held an interpretation of a text that we found to be incorrect one who denies inerrancy (that is, if the final proposition means one is not an inerrantist [which I submit it does not]).

Third, I believe we may formulate a brief argument against the final proposition’s conclusion. The Bible is inerrant. If the Bible affirms X, and A teaches not-X, then A is incorrect. The Bible affirms X and A teaches not-X. Therefore, A is incorrect. Or keep the first two premises and add in: A is correct. Therefore, it is not the case that the Bible affirms X and A teaches not-X. One of the two is false. Inerrancy is thus safe from human error.

Finally, I realize that the above may be constituted by some as a “safe haven” to question the Bible everywhere. But in relation to inerrancy, this is just not so. For if they actually believe the Bible teaches one thing, but they say another, they are guilty of denying inerrancy. Now what of those people we think are wrong about major interpretive issues? We take it up with them on those grounds. Those grounds that are biblical truth are sufficient to correct an error. People can be inerrantists and have poor interpretations. Some people have taken just this track to Licona’s interpretation of Matthew 27, which can be made independently of the charge of denying inerrancy.

As it so happens, I think Licona is incorrect regarding his original assessment of Matthew 27 (which he may end up revising, anyway). I dealt with the issue briefly in a Q & A on this blog. Atheists and skeptics often get quite the laugh at our expense in these issues, and the people on the sidelines shake their heads. Let’s get charitable. Argue, debate, and correct: but there’s no need to try to drag someone through the mud.

------------------------------------------------------------------

All posts, and the blog Possible Worlds, are the sole intellectual property of Randy Everist. One may reprint part or all of this post so long as: a) full attribution is given (Randy Everist, Possible Worlds), b) all use is non-commercial, and c) one is in compliance with the Creative Commons license at the bottom on the main page of this blog.

Poll on Evolution

Below is a poll on evolution and its implications for theism, Christianity, and particular doctrines within Christianity. Please feel free to comment explaining your position or rationale. Enjoy!

If evolution is true, what follows?
	God does not exist
	Christianity is false
	The Bible is not the Word of God
	The Bible is not inerrant
	Creation narratives are not to be interpreted literally
	Other/Unsure
pollcode.com free polls