Tag: Christian Apologetics


Unbelievers scoff at miracles recorded in the Bible. God “…doesn’t have a magic wand”, as one extremely well-known church leader recently put it. One reason they don’t believe in miracles is that they can’t do them…


(Healing the Paralytic at Bethesda, by Palma Giovane, 1591)

Moses could not have crossed the Red Sea, they will say: it must have been the knee-deep “Reed Sea”. Jesus couldn’t have been born to a virgin, he couldn’t have turned water into wine, and he couldn’t have risen from the dead. None of these things really happened, according to them, because such things are impossible.

In order to accept that miracles really do happen, the skeptical scientist requires that God, Moses and Jesus request appointments in his lab so that they can be examined, tested and experimented on. They would have to perform their “tricks” under control conditions, in full view of the cameras, equipment and instruments.

Granted, the scientific method rightly requires empirical observation before we can know for sure how the world really works. But the whole point of a miracle is that it is…well…miraculous. Miracles are not a normal part of every-day life. Miracles are out of the ordinary and rare. They are uncommon: not just anyone can do them.

Miracles are a negation, or a temporary suspension of the natural laws which govern our physical universe. Perhaps they’re the employment of an alternative set of laws which we’re unaware of. And as God, in the Biblical view of things, created the entirety of the physical realm (Genesis 1:1) and continues to sustain every little bit of it (Colossians 1:16-17) he must not be subject to its laws, but instead he’s in control of them, so that he’s able to manipulate them. A portrait, the work of an artist or photographer, can’t create another character: the artist and the photographer can.

Ah, but miracles just don’t happen, according to the naturalist. Is that really so? I wonder how many unbelievers have seen all events of all time in every part of the universe, so that they can say with confidence and scientific certainty that a miracle has never happened? I’ll wager that none have. Could it be possible that they’ve missed something? Could it be possible that the Creator has decided not to perform for the satisfaction and curiosity of the skeptic and the cynic? Could it be that He feels no obligation to make that appointment at the lab? Could it be that he will not stoop to the whims of unbelieving, rebellious man, when all the evidence of his creative, miraculous power is already right in front of their eyes, and at the center of all their formulae and calculations, day in and day out?

If only we had eye-witnesses to miracles! Then we could believe-right? Well excuse me, we’ve had eyewitness…refer to John’s gospel for example. But the contemporary unbeliever doesn’t want to accept the testimony of the Christian gospels. One evidence of Biblical miracles is the fact that large numbers of first-century believers who claimed to be eye-witnesses were prepared to die spreading the gospel if necessary. Modern “martyrs” kill other people: first century martyrs risked their own lives, something people don’t do for something they know to be false.


(Christ Walks On the Water, by Ivan Aivazovsky, 1888)

Have I seen a miracle? I believe I have. Outside of the fact that all of life is unfathomably complex and intricate and beautiful, so that men are “without excuse” for ignoring God (Romans 1:20) I believe I’ve had some answered prayers in my life which can’t be explained any other way but by divine intervention in my very own part of the physical universe.

So the evolutionist and the naturalist is convinced that miracles have never happened anywhere, on the basis that they’re sure they’ve never observed one. When did anyone observe a cow turn into a whale, or a lizard turn into a bird, or a few chemicals turn into a bacterium, or a gas cloud turn into a star (1)? I can answer that one: “ never”. These things have never been-and can never be-observed by scientists. Yet most of them believe that such things have happened in the past and continue to happen-when we aren’t looking.

There are, in essence, two stories about life: one is naturalistic, the other miraculous. By miraculous I don’t mean that God has a magic wand which he waves in order to cause each daisy to grow and each star to twinkle and each baby to giggle. Neither am I referring to statues shedding tears or drinking milk. By “miraculous” I mean that from nothing God created the physical cosmos with all its laws and processes. By “miraculous” I mean that the creator and sustainer of the physical realm with all its laws and processes is far more than capable of holding back a sea of water while his people pass through on dry land. By “miraculous” I mean that the One who created the eye, still revealing mind-boggling complexity not known before, is perfectly capable of repairing one, and by “miraculous” I mean that the One who created life is infinitely able to raise the dead.

No, we don’t observe creation happening today, because on the sixth day God “finished” his work of creation (Genesis 2:1-2). No, we don’t see water turning into wine today because the one who is able to do such a thing isn’t among us, and did it not to begin a trend or a habit, but to show exactly who he was and who had sent him. No, we don’t see everyone being healed today because mankind is in rebellion against God, and God’s holiness will not allow him to “fix” everything that’s wrong in the world just so that we can continue on our own rebellious way and in our own direction. No, we don’t see Jesus rising from the dead, because he’s already risen.

The greatest miracles being done today involve the changing of lives. I’ve experienced such a miracle myself. I know that when a person decides to agree with God that he or she is a sinner in need of repentance and forgiveness, and when he sincerely accepts the gospel message that God has given us concerning his son, he is miraculously changed for ever, and moves into a relationship with him.

Search my posts on the gospel…


1: https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/stars/star-formation-and-creation/


Hold on to your sanity and composure if you dare…as you read my fearsome tale of warfare, woe, and…wasps!


My son and I had a rather unpleasant confrontation with the inhabitants of a wasp nest one day. They clearly decided that we were a threat and were trespassing on their territory. In the ensuing battle my nine-year old, bearing the brunt of the assault, received ten stings, and I received two while attempting to rescue him. The event got me wondering how the wasp may have managed to “evolve” its own stinger, had it not been created.  Here are one or two little “Just So” possibilities.


Willy wasp was wandering winsomely through the warm wet forest one day, minding his own business, and whistling a song with wonderful words beginning with ‘w’ which he’d heard one week while watching Bert on ‘Sesame Street’. But as he skipped and fluttered gaily along his merry way he was suddenly gobbled up by a Lizow:

“SNAP!” went the jaws of the Lizow.

A Lizow, as you probably already know dear readers, is a creature which is no longer a lizard and not yet a crow.

“Good heavens!” whimpered Willy, as he started to slide down the Lizow’s throat:

“If only I’d evolved a stinger, I could stab this beast, and he’d have to spit me out!”

So Willy resolved that very minute that he would start evolving a stinger right away. There was only one problem…


As you can imagine, little Willy’s terrible misfortune was repeated billions of times over countless millennia, because all of his descendants had no defense against the Lizow or their other enemies. That is, until a wonderful waspy miracle happened…


Wayne wasp watched in wonder while his wife Wanda wasp wiggled and writhed, until “whoosh!”…out popped little Wichard, their first baby wasp, weak, wet and wailing. Wayne’s joy changed to astonishment when he noticed a strange appendage on little Witchard’s bottom. It was a spike – a long thin pointed object actually growing out of the babe’s bottom.

“Well! Nature be praised!” said Wayne: “He’s got a stinger! And what’s even more wildly bewildering is that it’s complete with connective tissue, nerves and blood supply!”

It wasn’t long before little Witchard had his first opportunity to test the stinger. He was on his way to Grandma Wasp’s house one day, when:

“SNAP”- little Witchard disappeared inside Lizow’s mouth!

Slithering down the Lizow’s long, dark throat, Witchard put his incredible weapon into operation, and poked at the beast’s throat with his pointed bottom. But alas! The spike alone wasn’t enough to put the Lizow off his snack:

“Caw!” said the Lizow to himself, “This one’s a bit tickly in my throat! I wonder if he’s poking me with his newly evolved stinger?”

But Lizow breathed a sigh of relief and thought to himself, “It’s a good thing he didn’t evolve venom too!”



Unperturbed by their loss, Wayne and Wanda gave birth again. As little Wendle popped out, Wayne’s joy was tinged with disappointment when he noticed that Wendle didn’t have a stinger. “Woe to us and all wasps, Wanda”, he whined: “Our DNA wasn’t altered to give our offspring stingers, it was just a miraculous and totally unique mutation event that gave poor little Witchard his stinger”.

Wendle was gobbled up by the Lizow while on his first flight to the dentist.

Heartbroken, Wayne and Wanda wasp decided to doggedly-I mean waspedly-continue their family, and Wanda was soon reproducing again.


As Wanda was giving birth, Wayne could see that another of those unique mutation events had occurred, for there, on little Walter’s face, like a huge, lonely-mountain shaped nose, was a stinger! However,Wayne’s joy quickly turned to panic when the brevity of the situation hit him. “Oh no Wanda!” He cried, “Little Walter’s eyesight will be blocked by the stinger! He won’t be able to see where he’s going!”

Sure enough, it was not long before Walter wandered unwittingly into the very glade where the Lizow just happened to be looking for his lunch. As the Lizow loomed leeringly towards our unwary waspling, Walter did see a large shadow moving rapidly in his direction, so fearing the worst, Walter prepared himself for battle. But there was a problem: not only could little Walter barely see what was going on, but  his stinger was not connected to his nervous system-it was not operational. The Lizow, with his raven-sharp eyes, spied the unsavory looking appendage on little Walter’s face, and decided to just take his body and let the head fall to the ground. “SNAP…bonk”.


The Mayor of Waspville was animated and passionate.

“This must not go on!” he shouted to the crowd of wasps who had gathered at the annual meeting of Waspville’s citizens, buzzing with anger.

“Wallace, Wilson, Waylon, Willoughby, Wes and Juan were all eaten up yesterday by the dreaded Lizow! Our numbers are decimated! If we don’t act now Waspville will be wiped out completely!”

So that very day, the fearful but determined citizens of Waspville channeled their anger into action. Squatting in circles, they began chanting and praying that Mother Nature would give them stingers. “Not only do we need stingers with venom…on our bottoms and not on our faces…” they entreated, “…but we need loud, stripey uniforms to warn Lizow not to eat us in the first place!”

One million years later, Wayne yawned in boredom and looked around at the circle of wasps around him, all praising Mother Nature for finally causing some of their babes to be born with stingers, fully operational and loaded with venom, with bright scarey looking suits also.

Now, Wayne had always been a bit of a rebel who liked to speak his mind and stir up trouble, and today was no exception. So loudly enough for everyone else to hear, he turned to his mother next to him and said,

“Mom, if wasps need stingers and stripey suits to survive, how did we manage to survive for millions of years without them?”

Copyright August 11th, 2012 by Nick Fisher

This is an edited version of something I first published exactly four years ago. I offer it here in tandem with a recent, more serious post,  “The Positive Negatives of Creation and Design” https://nickyfisher.com/2016/05/19/the-positive-negatives-of-creation-and-design/




Evolutionists love to claim the moral high ground in the debate over origins by stating that their beloved theory is supported with only empirical and rigorously tested science, whereas those “ignorant”, “deluded” creationists rely solely on faith, hope and mysticism…

MAY 2012 to JULY 2013 158

However, even though they now speak of evolution as if we all “know” it’s proven, scientific fact, I’ve noticed how many times they still use words and phrases like “we think”, “probably”, “most likely” and “scientists are of the opinion that…” This is hardly “empirical” evidence.

Another word-set commonly used in the preaching of evolution is this one: “must have”. I herein offer a few interesting examples.

Such “empirical” evidence came into play in a discussion I heard recently on the subject of photosynthesis. Photosynthesis is the process by which plants absorb sunlight, water, carbon dioxide, nitrogen and magnesium, grow themselves, and provide food for other life forms. Just coincidentally, of course, they also eject oxygen as a “waste” product, something which certain life-forms not a million miles away from us are rather partial to. We, in turn, release Carbon dioxide as a waste product. Quite a coincidence, eh?

It was an intellectual presentation, the panel consisting of highly qualified biologists and educators*. As is normal these days in any scientific discussion or documentary, half of the time was spent in the preaching of the relevant evolutionary “understanding” of how it all came to be.

Photosynthesis, declared the all-knowing panel, began when the only life forms around billions of years ago, single-celled bacteria, were “captured” by large inorganic molecules, and conscripted as energy-producing slaves for their new masters. Thus, they say, the necessary process to grow plants came into being.

Asked by the admiring program host if they could give an idea of “when” said evolution from bacteria into the necessary chloroplast organelles happened, “within, say, seven hundred million years or so”, one of the expert answers was:

“…there are no fossils of this kind of thing-to date-in rocks, but it must have happened…

howling wolf

To summarize, there is no empirical evidence: there is no fossil evidence of the alleged two-billion years past transition from single-celled bacteria into chloroplasts, but they know that it “must have happened”. Well, that proves it then, doesn’t it?

A text book on the evolution of life from non life similarly bridges an enormous gap in one deft leap by invoking the “must have” imperative, demonstrating-on paper-how to easily solve a giant mystery by adding non-testable elements to the non-observable narrative:

Once the necessary building blocks were available, how did a living system arise and evolve? Before the appearance of life, simple molecular systems must have existed that subsequently evolved into the complex chemical systems that are characteristic of organism” (“Biochemistry. 5th Edition).


One of my favorite “must have” episodes was in a movie called “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed”, released in 2008. Towards the end of “Expelled” Director Ben Stein interviews none other than the high priest of Neo-Darwinism, Richard Dawkins.

Stein asks Prof. Dawkins how life began from non-life. Prof. Dawkins answers:

Nobody knows how it started…we know the sort of event that must have happened for the origin of life”.

Stein: “What was that?”

Prof. Dawkins: “It was the… origin of the first self-replicating molecule.”

Notice that Dawkins had just made a gargantuan leap from nothing but soup to the first self-replicating molecule, actually skipping the substantive information that Stein had asked for.

The conversation continued…

Stein: “Right. And how did that happen?”

Prof. Dawkins: “I’ve told you, we don’t know”

Stein: “So you have no idea how it started?”

Dawkins: “No, no, nor has anybody.”

So in summary, the great Professor assures us that while they “don’t know” how life evolved from non-life, they’re pretty darn sure that it “must have”.


The Prof went on to suggest that life may possibly have come from somewhere else in the universe. This is a convenient theory-in-reserve for some evolutionists, just in case the problem of life from non-life on earth proves too difficult to explain convincingly. Life “out there” in the universe is an increasingly popular subject, because, well, we all know that just about anything is possible in space, don’t we. And in another theory called “convergence” the idea is that there must be plenty of other beings out there which have evolved to look just like us. Cambridge News discusses one scientist’s book on the theory:

Extra-terrestrials resembling humans must have evolved on other planets, according to a new book by a Cambridge professor.

An evolutionary biologist based at St John’s College, he says evidence different species will independently develop similar features means life similar to that on Earth would also develop on other, equivalent planet”.

That’s the theory-or perhaps we should really call it a hypothesis, or better still, “wild speculation”, because, as Cambridge News states:

Professor Simon Conway Morris says it is ‘paradoxical’ no evidence of life ‘out there’ has yet been discovered”.


* “IN OUR TIME”: “Photosynthesis”, with Melvyn Bragg





A few years ago , while observing the world of politics and the affairs of men, the word ”lawlessness”, in its Biblical sense, began to pop into my mind…


Recently I’ve noticed several Christians commentators using the same word to help define the spirit of our times. Anyone who’s missed the proliferation of lawlessness either isn’t looking or doesn’t want to call it what it is.

I decided to do a little Biblical word study, and it seems the word “lawlessness”, used in my ESV and NIV versions, and translated “iniquity” in the KJV and some other versions, most often refers to a rejection of God’s moral law. However, it can also refer to legal injustice (NIV “Strongest Concordance”). We’ve seen a considerable fulfillment of both of these interpretations in recent times.

How is it that the former Secretary of State can lie to the Congress of the United States under oath and jeopardize national security with impunity, and still run for the office of President? (1). Why is most of the mainstream media so dismissive of the implications of her actions, as though they say nothing about her character and her fitness for the position of leadership of the free world? What will she get away with if she becomes President? How is it that so many potential voters can freely ignore such questions?

Surely the answer must be that we are now a lawless people: a civilization which sets its wishes and proclivities above truth and consequences. And it’s no surprise really, given the lawlessness of the administration over the last several years: the blatant ignoring of law and constitution, of history, of the will of the people, and of the religion which birthed and guided the nation for over two hundred years.

At the same time people who are elected to be public servants perpetuate a crass determination to deny life to multiplied millions of humans in favor of convenience, and now the promotion of and apologetic for a foreign god (Islam’s god) at the expense of liberty, truth and free speech. The consequences for the future of America are not good. Our leaders-who hardly deserve to be called leaders-are setting the worst possible example, first of all by so arrogantly fulfilling their own will, and secondly by showing no shame or remorse once discovered.

The elites who consider themselves our masters and our betters want to control us all in every way possible, and as Plato wrote, tyranny will be the end product. Millions of people died over the centuries in order to preserve and pass on to future generations the knowledge of the law of God, and the gospel of Jesus Christ. In many ways the entirety of World War II was a battle to preserve free, Christian civilization. Don’t believe me? Refer to this speech by Sir Winston Churchill to the House of Commons on June 4th 1940:

“I expect that the Battle of Britain is about to begin. Upon this battle depends the survival of Christian civilization; upon it depends our own British life and the long continuity of our institutions and our Empire” (2).


And just in case someone may think in these times of historical revisionism that Churchill was an anomaly-a rare fundamentalist wacko, consider the opening of a prayer read to the people of the United States by President Franklin D Roosevelt, on the eve of D-Day, 1944:

And so, in this poignant hour, I ask you to join with me in prayer:

Almighty God: Our sons, pride of our nation, this day have set upon a mighty endeavor, a struggle to preserve our Republic, our religion, and our civilization, and to set free a suffering humanity (3).

Notice that Roosevelt called the US a “Republic”. Even the fact that The US was established as a republic is being denied in some circles.


The truth that the knowledge of the law of God shaped western civilization (and much of that to the East also) is now being denied or deleted by presidents, politicians, professors and some church ministers. President Obama, apologizing to the Muslim world in his first days in office, declared that the US is “not a Christian nation”. How things have changed before and since then, with help from others who intend to bring about“fundamental transformation”.

Those who wish to impose their will on us all know very well that:

Those who control the present control the past, and those who control the past control the future” (4).


The goal of present-day political-correctness is to homogenize the world, to dilute or destroy the gospel of Jesus Christ, and to convince us that all religions and philosophies are equal. This, I believe, can also be termed “lawlessness”, because it rejects the supremacy of the ways of God, and because if everything is true, nothing is true: there is no objective law of God to shape our lives by and to govern our governments by. If everything is true there is no transcendent law of life by which the founders of the United States can make such statements as these:

We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights” (5).

So I considered “lawlessness” and “iniquity” and the rejection of the ways of God, and in the course of my study realized that lawlessness isn’t something new-it’s been going on almost since day one of human existence. First Eve and then Adam were prompted to reject God’s law, which at that point consisted only of a simple command stating, in effect, “You can eat anything you like-just don’t eat from that tree there, or you’ll die”. The serpent convinced Eve that in this simple commandment, intended to give freedom of choice and love, God was intentionally spoiling not only her fun but her “right” to freedom of choice, and she and her mate rejected God’s law.


Later in Scripture we read about the Israelites doing essentially the same thing, also fulfilling the other definition of lawlessness involving legal injustice, to the extent that:

In those days there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes” (Judges 17:6).

Perhaps the most well-known use of the word “lawlessness”, the one my mind has been returning to, and the one frequently being referenced by others, is in Paul’s second letter to the Thessalonians (2:3). It speaks of a “secret power” at work in the world, even in Paul’s time: it’s nothing new. However, it is something we can expect to increase as time goes on:

But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived” (2 Timothy 3:13”.

As Jesus put it:

… because lawlessness will be increased, the love of many will grow cold” (Matthew 24:12 ESV).

That “secret power” of lawlessness will culminate in the appearance of a man (and the Bible does say “man”, not “woman”) who is lawlessness personified, and the spirit of his time a “rebellion”:

Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him…that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed…” (2 Thess. 2:1-4).


There’s a resolution to the whole problem of lawlessness, and its ultimate expression, the “man of lawlessness, is already “doomed to destruction” (verse 4).

But it’s not just that one man who will be doomed to destruction. The one who deceived Eve and Adam, and many others since, will be “thrown into the lake of burning sulfur” (Revelation 20:10). Those who have willingly paid attention to him and rejected the ways of God will go the same way:

And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened…The dead were judged according to what they had done…” (Revelation 20:11-15).

The only question remaining is, whose side are you on? Are you on the side of lawlessness and rebellion, or are you on God’s side? If you’ve lived a life of rebellion and lawlessness as I once did, there is forgiveness for you if you’re willing to change. Please see my post on the gospel of Jesus Christ:



1 http://aclj.org/executive-power/the-fbi-and-the-metastasizing-virus-of-deception

2 http://d-dayrevisited.co.uk/planning/american-armed-forces.html

3 http://www.historyplace.com/speeches/fdr-prayer.htm

4 George Orwell, “Nineteen Eighty Four”

5 From The Declaration of Independence


In our post-modern age, truth is whatever you want it to be. But for the Christian, even in the twenty-first century, there’s just one very clear choice…


It’s always amazed me how many believers and how many churches are holding apparently “religious” services, with all the trappings for the faithful, and even talking about God and Jesus, while leaving out the original and ancient message claiming to be from God, in the collection of books we call the “Bible”.

In many churches today, if the Bible is referenced at all it’s used sparingly as a support for whatever feelgood message the minister has cooked up. Why is this? There are surely a variety of reasons: the minister and many in his congregation think it’s out-dated, irrelevant, disproved, politically-incorrect, archaic, or just plain unpopular; his denomination holds the Bible in contempt; he only has his little empire in mind, or he’s so arrogant as to think that his own ideas are better conceived.

Since I’ve been a Christian it’s always seemed to me that you either accept the Book for what it claims to be, or you stop wasting time and discard it altogether. Either it’s inspired by God, or it’s written by men and it’s an intentional deception: every word is suspect. So what’s the Church and the Christian religion all about if the Bible is just a collection of the ideas of men-many of those being rejected? Isn’t it an empty sham, an invention designed to make us feel better about life and death, a set of “suggestions” and platitudes, a human construct designed to give the minister a vocation and his flock a sense of belonging? Isn’t that what every other religion in the world is doing?

If the Bible is what it very clearly claims to be from cover to cover and we’ve failed to accept the fact, we’re doing ourselves and those around us a very serious disservice, we’re being hypocritical, and we’re disobeying God. For those who’ve been kept in the dark about what it declares, here are a few examples:

“If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free” (John 8:32 NIV);

“I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life” (John 5:24);

“The word of the Lord came to me…” (Jeremiah 1:4);

“This is the one I esteem: he who is humble and contrite in spirit, and trembles at my word” (Isaiah 66:2);

“All Scripture is God-breathed…” (2 Timothy 3:16).

And it’s no good loosely adhering to the New Testament while claiming the Old Testament is irrelevant and only for the past. Jesus Christ frequently quoted from the Old Testament and referred to it, and he said:

“If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. But since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?” (John 5:45-46).

When speaking to his disciples after he’d risen from the dead, he said to them:

“How foolish you are, and how slow of heart to believe all that the Prophets have spoken! Did not the Christ have to suffer these things and then enter his glory? And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself” (Luke 24:25-27).

You can reject the Maker’s instructions if you wish, and continue in the “club” so as to feel good about yourself, but count me out of that empty, powerless charade: I’m throwing myself entirely into the conviction that God has spoken, that he’s perfectly capable of preserving his message through the ages to its fulfillment, and that the creator of the heavens and the earth means what he says.