Apologetics conference

My friend Christine informed me of an apologetics conference at Calvary Chapel in Costa Mesa that took place this past Friday/Saturday. Apologetics is sort of the discipline of proving and/or teaching why Christianity is a true and valid way of life. Since I've been on this complicated journey for the last several years, I decided it was right up my alley and I went. I must say it was very engaging.

I won't go into details about all the speakers we saw at the conference, but I will go over a few parts that stuck out in my mind. The first speaker we saw was Stephen Meyer with "Signature in the Cell: Evidence for Design". He was examining cellular and molecular biology for scientific proof of intelligent design. His biggest focus on "intelligent design" vs "naturalistic evolution" was the creation of the very first life – the first living cell in existence. He showed, quite compellingly, that the first cell complete with replicating DNA structures, proteins, functioning RNA, etc, was far too complex to have been brought together by random chance from random elements floating throughout the entire universe, let alone from a primordial soup on ancient earth. He also showed that usable and functioning information must be created by some pre-existing intelligence. For any information available to us today – WE are the pre-existing intelligence that created it. And DNA is ultimately, at its core, a living piece of information with a very specific purpose, which suggests that a pre-existing intelligence created it. And add that DNA and the functions of a living cell are more advanced than any technology humans have ever created. Meyer's presentation used many different scientific and logical approaches, without one quote of scripture.

Another moment that stuck out was during Norman Geisler's talk "If God, Why Evil?". This was a much more philosophical talk of course (and some scripture to boot). No science here, but quite a lot of general logic. One subject he discussed was why pain exists and how it is seen by many as an evil of the world and something that God should eradicate if he truly loves his people. He argued that God allows pain to exist because of this concept: pain is more effective of a teacher and builds more character than any pleasure. He used the example of a study done with people suffering from leprosy. Nerve damage is a common effect of leprosy, and many lose the use of their hands and feet due to repeated injury resulting from lack of sensation. A device was developed and attached to the hands of patients that would deliver a slight electric charge when the hand was about to be injured by something. The electric shock wasn't enough, and patients continued to injure themselves. The shock was increased dramatically (to be quite painful in fact), and it would work only the very first time, until the patients turned down the intensity themselves, to the point where it was no longer effective and they would injure themselves again. He said this proves three points about pain: 1) it has to exist to keep us out of harm; 2) it has to be strong enough to be effective; and 3) it has to be out of our control.

And Lee Strobel spoke about the legal investigation he undertook proving that Jesus Christ was in fact executed to the point of full death, and became alive again and interacted with approximately 515 people. He elaborated on the Romans' efficient ability to ensure death during their brutal executions, and the eyewitnesses who first discovered his tomb empty and later interacted with him. He quoted sources both within and outside of the Bible. I was hoping he would also touch on the historicity of Jesus (was he a real-life historical figure, or a compilation of myths from the ages), but that was not for this discussion apparently. Nevertheless he presented a good argument.

For any of you atheists out there who are shaking your head and automatically preparing your rebuttals, all I can say is maybe you should have attended the conference yourselves (I know I invited some of you!), because:
A) you might have had some widely-held misconceptions intelligently and justifiably challenged (as I did)
B) you should always continue to ask questions and seek new information
C) It's harder to justify arguing against something you didn't attend

I want the truth – both what's true in the tangible world and what's true in my heart. The information I got this weekend pushed some very strong arguments for not just Christianity, but even intelligent design. And I have to admit there have been many moments on this journey that tug at my heart like nothing in the physical world ever has; things that people say about God, or corrected misconceptions I've had about God's role in life, or what I see it do to people that make my eyes go wide like some life inside me is taking a breath for the very first time. I'm not getting all gushy or saying I love Jesus Hallelujah, I'm just calling 'em as I see 'em.

And to be fair, I'm willing to attend a seminar for atheism if there is one locally. Because how can I truly be looking unless I hear both sides of the argument?