Comment on Believing the Disproven – An Adventure in Science by gene fortner.
Hang in There Sean!
How Do We Answer Fools?
by James J. S. Johnson, J.D., Th.D. *
“A house divided against itself will not stand” is an easily understood truth.1 The same concept applies to logic used in debates and arguments. If an argument is self-contradictory, it is clearly wrong. Some accuse Proverbs 26:4-5 of self-contradiction. This is because they fail to comprehend that those twin verses teach related, but not identical, truths about arguing with fools. And arguing with fools is a frequent scenario in origins debates.
Do not answer a fool according to his folly, lest you also be like him. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes. (Proverbs 26:4-5)
Unlike Genesis, Proverbs is a book of Hebrew poetry that communicates truths through the use of parallelisms.2 It can compare similar things, opposites, a part of something with the whole, etc.2 Because parallelisms are used in combination to convey truth, both verses in Proverbs 26:4-5 must be compared with each other in order to understand the composite truth that God gives us. This composite truth is very practical, because most of us interact with overconfident fools on a frequent basis.
Applying Proverbs 26:4-5, Dr. Jason Lisle has cautioned that one needs to avoid accepting foolish assumptions whenever discussing a controversy with a fool:
In verse 4 we learn that we should not embrace the folly of the unbeliever lest we be like him. But in verse 5 we are instructed to show where his folly would lead if it were true. We make it clear that we do not actually accept his standard (Prov. 26:4), but if we hypothetically did, it would lead to an absurd conclusion; thus the fool cannot be wise in his own eyes (Prov. 26:5).3
But some would argue that the two verbs used for “answer” are the same word, so the twin verses are nevertheless countering each other. However, that is not the case. It only appears that way because we are reading an English translation of the original Hebrew text. Although both verbs are forms of the same Hebrew verb anah, the consecutive verses employ two different forms of that verb. That makes quite a difference in the meanings. Consequently, as God intended, those two verses complement rather than contradict each other.
Simply put, the verb form in verse 4 is an imperfect verb, describing a scenario where the fool is not being answered. However, the verb form in verse 5 is an imperative verb, instructing the reader to take action.4 Verse 4 is descriptive—it tells us how a fool behaves if he is not rebuffed in his folly. But verse 5 is a command—it mandates that the fool be refuted or else he will be “wise in his own eyes.” The overall meaning, therefore, is that if we don’t answer fools, we will face looking like fools ourselves. But when we refute fools (and we should), they will face the fact that they aren’t as wise as they claim to be. Obeying Proverbs 26:5 is an important part of what ICR’s apologetics school is all about.5
References
1. Matthew 12:25.
2. See Johnson, J. J. S. 2011. Genesis Is History, Not Poetry: Exposing Hidden Assumptions about What Hebrew Poetry Is and Is Not. Acts & Facts. 40 (6): 8-9.
3. Lisle, J. 2009. The Ultimate Proof of Creation. Green Forest, AR: Master Books. 71, 74.
4. The verb ta’an translated “answer” in Proverbs 26:4 is a second person masculine singular qal imperfect describing an unfinished action. However, the verb ‘enêh, translated “answer” in Proverbs 26:5, is a second person masculine singular qal imperative, commanding the reader to take action.
5. No need to be redundant or wasteful, of course. If a fool is refuted properly once but does not respond, it’s usually time to move on to someone more teachable (Mark 6:11; 2 Timothy 2:2; Jude 1:3). For more information, go to ICR.edu
* Dr. Johnson is Associate Professor of Apologetics and Chief Academic Officer at the Institute for Creation Research.
gene fortner Also Commented
Believing the Disproven – An Adventure in Science
George,
What do you base your morality on???
FYI
Richard Dawkins claims morality is evolved. Ravi Zacharias responds to that claim.
William Lane Craig also makes a valid argument, but he responds it a little differently. Watch the video here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKkcZ9…
The difference is Dr. Craig argues from a purely logical point of view, Dr. Zacharias bring both heart and mind into it. Both make great points.
Apologetic Christians: William Lane Craig, John Lennox, Lee Strobel, Ravi Zacharias and More.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL39PyMBMepLBg5WlcFRGC15iDpO-L5VcB
Believing the Disproven – An Adventure in Science
I agree about conscience.
But, you didn’t answer the question.
WUWT?
Believing the Disproven – An Adventure in Science
paul,
do you have any empirical evidence that so-called evolutionary biology is anything but a pseudo science?
Recent Comments by gene fortner
The Creative Potential of Randomness and Chaos?
Bill,
A scientist starts with data, the proposes a hypothesis to explain that data. A creation scientists uses the scientific method to test the validity of the Bible.
So far the Bible is way ahead of secular scientist attempts to explain the universe.
Neo-Darwinism is dead.
Here are some of the attemps to replace it.
They too will fail
In Search of “Evolution 3.0”
There are eight contenders for the next incarnation of the theory of evolution.
I have heard and read that the theory of evolution is a “theory in crisis.” But the research path I’ve been on has led me to flip-flop on that notion depending on what I was reading at the time. However, very recently, I think I have come to settle on the “theory in crisis” side of the fence. It has always been my contention that, by far, the best refutations against the theory come from evolutionists themselves. By “best” I mean ones likely to be taken seriously by those who adhere to the tenets of evolutionary theory. This is because no matter how scientifically sound an argument is, if it comes from a source with the slightest religious or Intelligent Design affiliation, it is automatically discredited on that basis.
That being said, the ongoing search for the theory’s replacement, in my opinion, offers some of the most powerful evidence against the theory. It appears that the recent developments in microbiology and genetics have been at work silently in the background (i.e. with limited public exposure). I’ve just read through Stephen Meyer’s refutation of evolution in Darwin’s Doubt. It is very compelling scientific evidence. The result of this silent work is now manifesting itself in a search for a replacement for neo-Darwinian evolution.
The surfacing theories that I am currently aware of are:
1. Context-driven Actualization of Potential (CAP)
2. Self-organization
3. Natural Genetic Engineering
4. Neo-Lamarckism
5. Symbiogenesis
6. Evolutionary Developmental Biology
7. Neutral Evolution
8. Facilitated Variation
The fact that all of these new theories are surfacing
http://scienceagainstevolution.info/v17i11f.htm
http://scienceagainstevolution.info/v17i12f.htm
.
“Blindingly Obvious Artifacts” of Intelligent Design
Sean,
True but some try to use snowflakes as the appearance of design.
The ability to detect design is God given.
Send a couple of 10 year olds through a field looking for artifacts, they will come back with arrowheads, broken pieces of pottery, nails, ……
Louie Bishop Testifies, Again, about His Experience at La Sierra University
@Professor Kent: Prof,
The 2nd law applies to the universe, including open and closed systems.
Notice how sunlight (UV) degrades paint/skin/…
The Creative Potential of Randomness and Chaos?
@Pauluc:
Paul,
What you need to do to refute Dominic Stratham’s hypothesis is to come up with a hypothesis that matches the data better than his.
His hypothesis matches the data much better than current just so stories and it makes sense.
Your attempt to refute his hypothesis was a lazy man’s attempt at an apopeal to authority.
FYI,
Engineers are much harder to fool because they design things.
Academia only has to come up with a story that matches the current dogma’s premise.
PS: A few hundred years ago, the consensus was against Galileo.
Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith
@pauluc: Bacteria did have the digestive function before nylon was invented. The fact that they could not digest nylon before nylon was invented is simply because there wasn’t any nylon to digest.
New evidence shows that the ability was due to plasmids [e.g. K. Kato, et al., ‘A plasmid encoding enzymes for nylon oligomer degradation: Nucleotide sequence analysis of pOAD2’, Microbiology (Reading) 141(10):2585–2590, 1995.] In fact, more than one species of bacteria have the ability, residing on plasmids. This suggests that the information probably already existed, and was just passed between different types of bacteria.
All that would be needed to enable an enzyme to digest nylon is a mutation causing loss of specificity in a proteolytic (protein-degrading) enzyme. This may seem surprising—how would a loss of information create a new ability? Answer: enzymes are usually tuned very precisely to only one type of molecule (the substrate). Loss of information would reduce the effectiveness of its primary function, but would enable it to degrade other substrates, too. Since both nylon and proteins are broken down by breaking amide linkages, a change in a proteolytic enzyme could also allow it to work on nylon. If this process were continued, the result would be a general enzyme with a weakly catalytic effect on the hydrolysis of too many chemicals to be useful where much selectivity is required. To put it into perspective, acids and alkalis also catalyze many hydrolysis reactions, but they also lack specificity. Indeed, an inhibitor of a protein degrading enzyme also inhibits the action of the nylon degrading enzyme.
