The Ultimate Proof of Creation

by Jason Lisle

It’s a bold title: “The Ultimate Proof of Creation.” But is there such a thing? There are many books that contain seemingly powerful arguments for biblical creation. But is there an ultimate proof of creation? There is an argument for creation that is powerful, conclusive, and has no true rebuttal. As such, it is an irrefutable argument – an “ultimate proof ” of the Christian worldview biblical creation. Master the method outlined in the following chapters, and you will be able to defend Christianity against all opposition.

* Learn how to apply the ultimate proof in dialogues with evolutionists,
how to spot logical fallacies, and biblical examples of defending the faith

* Discover the nature of scientific evidence and its proper role in the
origins debate

* Details how to address theistic evolution, “day age” creationism, and
other compromised positions of biblical creationism

* An exceptional book for pastors, ministry leaders, seminary attendees,
and students of religion and philosophy

This book is a complete guide to defending the Christian faith, emphasizing the defense of the Genesis account of creation, built on techniques that have been developed over many years and presentations. They are not difficult to apply when you learn how to do it properly. Ready to move beyond the circular arguments? It is time to get to the real heart of the issue and rationally resolve the origins debate. It is time to discover The Ultimate Proof of Creation.

Genres: Christian, Science, Nonfiction, Philosophy, Christianity, Theology, Religion

256 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2009

About the author

Dr. Jason Lisle is an astrophysicist who formerly worked for the creationist organization Answers in Genesis as both a speaker and researcher, but is now Director of Research at the Institute for Creation Research.

Dr. Lisle is a creationist who has a PhD in Astrophysics, which he obtained through the University of Colorado in Boulder. His postgraduate research concentrated on solar dynamics, utilizing NASA's Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO) to monitor the surface of the sun. His PhD dissertation "Probing the Dynamics of Solar Supergranulation and its Interaction with Magnetism." is available from the University of Colorado and he has also published numerous papers in scientific literature concerning convection cells in the sun.

Although some creationists claim, as in the film Expelled, that holding to creationist beliefs while pursing a degree at an accredited University will get you kicked out, Dr. Jason Lisle recieved his undergraduate degree from Ohio Wesleyan University summa cum laude with a double-major in physics and astronomy and a minor in mathematics. For his thesis and dissertation, (Master's and Ph.D accordingly,) though members of his Peer-Review Panel might have been aware of his young Earth beliefs - their evaluation of his work was based on his actual research and not his personal beliefs.

Reviews

[Joey · Rating 4 out of 5]

A LOT of it went over my head because Dr Lisle is just sooo brainy I can’t even. But I still learned sooo much. I may buy it eventually (I borrowed it from a friend and had to return it) so I can read it again.

[C · Rating 5 out of 5]

An intellectually stimulating defense of Christianity, powerfully making the case that no other worldview (belief system) has an ultimate standard that can account for rationality, science, and morality. Even though the title mentions creation, this book's scope is broader than creation; it's about Christianity in general. It includes several sample conversations showing how to apply the principles. The book is fairly easy to follow, even though Lisle is a Ph.D. astrophysicist.

As Lisle states, "If biblical creation [God's creation of the universe] were not true, we could not know anything!" and "The biblical creation worldview alone provides the preconditions of intelligibility in a way that is consistent and non-arbitrary."

Lisle doesn't call this an "ultimate proof" because it will persuade everyone (there are people who will reject even very good arguments), but because it's "powerful, conclusive, and has no true rebuttal."

Notes
Introduction

If you can master the ultimate proof, you will not have to read a lot of other books on apologetics, or memorize a lot of scientific information. (Of course, it never hurts to do either of these as well.) Defending the Christian faith is not difficult once we learn how to do it properly. Most of it comes down to good, clear, logical thinking.

The Nature of Evidence
1. There's no known law of nature, process, or sequence of events that can cause information ("a coded message containing an expected action and intended purpose") to originate in matter by itself.
2. When you trace a piece of information backward along its chain of transmission events, it always leads to a metal source: the mind of the sender.

Mutations have never been observed to add brand-new information, so they can't be the driving mechanism of evolution.

Irreducibly complex systems (systems in which their complexity can't be reduced without destroying functionality) can't be the result of an evolutionary process, because every piece requires all the other pieces at the same time. Examples: parts of cell; interdependent heart, kidney, and lungs.

C-14 has a half-life of 5,736 years, so after 100,000 years, it will decay to an undetectable level. However, it's found in rock layers that evolutionists say are hundreds of millions of old.

Everyone interprets evidence in light of their worldview. Because of their different worldviews, creationists and evolutionists interpret the same evidence differently. Any scientific evidence can be interpreted in a way to fit a given worldview. Any evidence that challenges a worldview can be explained by invoking a "rescuing device" (a conjecture designed to save a view from apparently contrary evidence). So, evidence alone won't cause a person to reconsider their worldview.

Resolving the Origins Debate
"Neutral ground" is a secular concept, and therefore not neutral. If a Christian agrees to debate on "neutral ground" (without Bible or Christian concepts) they've already lost, since they've given up what they're trying to defend.

It's impossible to be neutral about worldviews. Both creationist and evolutionist believe their worldview is correct. A third "neutral" worldview would interpret some evidence differently than both creation and evolution worldview. If "neutral" interpretation is incorrect, then why trust it to decide if creation or evolution is correct? If "neutral" interpretation is correct, then creation and evolution must both be incorrect. "Everyone must have an ultimate standard by which evidence is evaluated. That ultimate standard cannot itself be judged by a lesser 'neutral' standard, otherwise it would not be the ultimate standard!"

Bible says there's no neutral ground (Matt 12:30; Rom 8:7; Jas 4:4), so anyone who says there is neutral ground is saying Bible is wrong, which isn't a neutral position.

A rational worldview must be logically consistent; it can't be true if it has internal contradictions or absurd consequences.

Relativism says, "there are no absolutes," but that's an absolute proposition, so relativism is self-defeating.

Empiricism says, "all knowledge is gained through observation." Ask empiricist how they know that, since it can't be known through observation.

A rational worldview must provide preconditions of intelligibility; things that must be accepted as true before we can know anything: basic reliability of memory and senses, laws of logic, uniformity of nature, morality, personal dignity and freedom. Without Bible, there's no good reason to believe in these.

Illustrations of the Ultimate Proof
If humans are result of evolution, there's no basis for an absolute moral code, and nothing is wrong (lying, theft, rape, murder, etc.). But people can't consistently live amorally.

"Right/good is what brings the most happiness to the most people" is arbitrary; why should that be the standard, if humans are chemical accidents?

Basing morality on will of majority is arbitrary and leads to absurd conclusions.

If humans are chemical accidents, why care what anyone does?

A rational worldview must explain why laws of logic exist.

If laws of logic are just electrochemical reactions in brain, they would differ from person to person.

If laws of logic are just descriptions of how physical universe behaves, we'd have no reason to expect that they'd apply in future.

If laws of logic are just descriptions of how brain thinks, we wouldn't need laws of logic to correct thinking.

Laws of logic aren't matter, so they can't exist if materialism is true.

If universe and our minds are result of time and chance, why would we expect mind to make sense of universe? How could science be possible?

Science requires uniformity of nature (that universe is logical, orderly, obeys mathematical laws that are consistent over time and place). The fact that nature has been consistent in the past is irrelevant to the future, unless we presume that future will be like past (uniformity). And asserting that since there's been uniformity in the past, there will likely be uniformity in the future is circular (it assumes uniformity). Also, because human memory depends on uniformity, to assume uniformity to argue that you know/remember that uniformity exists is circular. Christian worldview provides basis for uniformity: only a God Who is beyond time, consistent, faithful, all-powerful, omnipresent, and has revealed Himself to humanity can guarantee uniformity throughout space and time.

Evolutionism says thoughts are result of chemistry over time, which undermines free thought and choice, and, in turn, knowledge and science.

Reasoning with an Evolutionist
Pro 26:4 says we shouldn't embrace fallacious presuppositions of unbeliever. Pro 26:5 says that without embracing the unbeliever's philosophy, we should show that its logical conclusion is absurdity.

It doesn't make sense to leave the Bible out of a discussion because it's the only infallible record we have regarding origins, and the only ultimate standard that can provide preconditions of intelligibility.

When non-Christian asks you to be rational, ask, "Why? If naturalism were true, laws of logic wouldn't exist because they're not part of nature, and can't be observed by senses."

If someone says, "The Bible is full of contradictions," say, "I don't accept that claim, but in your worldview, why would contradictions be wrong? What's your basis for law of non-contradiction or other laws of logic?"

The Procedure for Defending the Faith
Apologetic procedure
1. Present biblical creation worldview, and invite evolutionist to stand on it for argument's sake. Point out that everyone interprets evidence through their worldview, and biblical worldview makes sense of the evidence and preconditions of intelligibility.
2. Do internal critique of non-Christian/evolutionary worldview, using "AIP" test (show arbitrariness, inconsistency, failure to provide preconditions of intelligibility). Point out logical fallacies. Show non-Christian worldview leads to absurdity (we couldn't know anything, because there'd be no basis for laws of logic or rationality).

If person makes arbitrary claim, ask, "Why should I accept that claim?" If they say they don't need to give a reason, assert the opposite and say you don't need a reason either.

If person expresses mere opinion, ask, "Do you have a rational or scientific objection?"

Ask relativist, "Why are you debating? How can my position be wrong if truth is relative?"

Non-biblical worldviews can't account for morality, love, freedom, or justice.

Without biblical creation, there's no reason to believe in reliability of senses or memory, since they're accidental result of random mutations.

The Place of Evidence
It's inconsistent to accept coded info as indication of intelligence in space, but deny that coded info in DNA indicates intelligent design.

Expose arbitrariness and inconsistency of evolutionary worldviews, then say, "We've been talking about scientific evidence, but in which worldview is science possible? Which worldview can account for fact that universe is logical and understandable, and accounts for laws of logic and uniformity of nature required for science?"

Logical Fallacies — Part I
Operational science uses testable, repeatable experiments. Origins science doesn't; it's an attempt to understand past events by present evidence, and is easily tainted by historical bias.

Phrases such as "nature selects …" "evolution figured out …" "evolution guided …" "the evidence says …" commit fallacy of reification.

Special pleading fallacy applies double standard (e.g., "You can only use papers in secular journals, not creationist journals").

Comparing creationism to flat-earth belief is false analogy, because flat earth belief can be falsified by operational science, but creationism can't.

Miracles don't preclude science; miracles are rare, and not always a suspension of laws of nature. Science doesn't require that universe is perfectly uniform at all times.

Closing the Loopholes
Why an ultimate standard must prove itself
1. Everyone must have an ultimate standard (there is no "neutrality").
2. An ultimate standard can't be proved from another standard (since there's no greater standard, and appealing to a lesser standard is fallacious).
3. An ultimate standard can't be merely assumed (otherwise we couldn't know anything).

Saying an ultimate standard proves itself is circular, but it's unavoidable, and not necessarily fallacious, if it goes beyond a simple circle ("out of its plane") to bring in additional info. Laws of logic must use laws of logic to prove their existence. We don't say "The Bible must be God's Word because it says it is," but, "The Bible must be God's Word because it says it is and if one rejects this claim one is reduced to foolishness." Like laws of logic, Bible must be true because if it weren't, we couldn't prove anything.

Empiricism is self-defeating, because belief that all knowledge is gained by observation can't be gained by observation. Materialism is self-defeating, because laws of logic are immaterial.

All worldviews use some degree of circular reasoning, but only Christianity can do so successfully.

Whenever one believes in something not perceived by their senses (e.g., laws of logic), that's a type of faith.

Apologetics in the Bible
Only a Bible-first apologetic is faithful to Scripture. An evidence-first apologetic is ultimately irrational because evidence can only be properly interpreted in light of Scripture.

All Christian doctrines presuppose literal history of Bible. We're responsible to God for our actions because God literally created humans. Marriage is based on God literally making Eve from Adam for him. Preconditions of intelligibility are based on history recorded in Bible. We treat humans with dignity because they're literally made in God's image. Science requires uniformity of nature taught in Bible.

If Bible is ultimate standard, it must be entirely true and read in a straightforward, natural way. Otherwise we'd need a greater standard to determine which parts of the Bible are true, or tell us how to interpret verses.

Appendix B: Answering the Critics — Part I
In atheism, why should laws of logic exist, and why are they universal, abstract, and invariant?

Appendix C: Answering the Critics — Part II
"Appearance of age" is an oxymoron, because age can't be seen. Age is a question of history, not of present observation. When we say something looks a particular age, we mean it resembles similar things that have a known age. Universe was created mature (complete, functional), but this isn't same as "age."

[Jean Pierre · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was a very edifying book for me. As a Christian, I do take seriously 1 Peter 3:15; I always want to be ready and able to give a reasoned defense of my faith. Not so that I can appear "philosophical" or "enlightened", but so that I can honor God and witness to people. This book introduces the reader to presuppositional apologetics. Everyone has a worldview, from atheists to Christians. Evidence is interpreted through a person's worldview. You can show an atheist and a Christian the same set of evidences and they will interpret it differently because of their worldview. Even if the evidence seems to debunk their position, they will almost always employ a rescuing device that will keep him commited to his worldview. Presuppositional apologetics goes past the evidence and gets to the root of the problem, the non-believer's worldview. A worldview that is true and consistent should provide us with was the author calls "The Preconditions of Intelligibility", basicially meaning the foundation by which all knowledge can be known. The Bible provides us with these preconditions whereas the atheistic/empiricist/materialistic worldview doesn't. In order for their worldview to make sense, they must borrow from the Christian's worldview. The goal of presuppositional apologetics is to show the unbeliever that his position, when standing on its own, cannot account for the preconditions of intelligibility and thus has no reason to even begin to believe what he believes. Essentially, the apologist, using this method, is to show the unbeliever that his worldview is irrational, illogical, and arbitrary. Dr. Lisle does a great job of explaining to the reader the presuppositional method and how to apply it in everyday discussion with non-believers. This book is a must read for all Christians.

[George Mayes · Rating 5 out of 5]

A very helpful presuppositional apologetics book with plenty of practical illustrations (including two appendices full of real letters from evolutionists, with responses from Lisle). A great place to start for anyone wanting to learn more about how to defend Christianity.

[Fabrício Zamboni · Rating 5 out of 5]

Se eu visse esse título em uma prateleira, certamente eu julgaria se tratar de um livro sensacionalista, “criacionista apaixonado”, que, para defender o Gênesis literal, se valeria de tudo, até alguns cálculos errados e provas arqueológicas falsas, do tipo “acharam o dedo de Adão” (a gente vê muito disso por aí).

No entanto, o autor é Jason Lisle, um cientista vantiliano de primeira. O livro resolve o problema das origens entrando no cerne da questão: as pressuposições.

[Frank Peters · Rating 2 out of 5]

After being given a number of books on young earth creationism by a friend, I thought it important to read through each one of them. This book was number two. Based on the first few pages, I was optimistic about the book as the author claims that the book is designed for a wide audience. Unfortunately, this is not the case; the book is overly demeaning about any contrary viewpoint without having a full understanding about what those other viewpoints believe (or perhaps choosing to ignore what they believe). The first four chapters were especially poor, and if I had stopped reading after these chapters would have given the book one star. The logic in these chapters seemed way off base. It seemed almost irrational. Then Lisle started to go back to basics, and carefully define what he was trying to say. Thus, the remainder of the book was actually quite good in terms of being logical and self-consistent. This latter part of the book seemed to be a classic modernist style Christian apologetic (reminded me of Norman Geisler). Depressingly, rather than arguing for theism or even Christianity, Lisle takes the classic apologetic techniques to argue for his narrow young earth position. In spite of the seeming irrationality of the first four chapters, he did construct a self-consistent logical fortress that he uses to accuse any other view of irrationality. Then he holds to his definitions unwaveringly through the remainder of the book. The only problem with his logical fortress is that others will not agree with the fundamental premises of his logic.

I have three main difficulties with the book that I would like to address. First, I am worried that he has made an idol of the bible. He holds it as his ultimate basis from which all logic and argument must take place. I would have thought that God should be the ultimate source, rather than the bible. But, this is a small complaint compared to the next two.

Second, Lisle claims that uniformity can only be explained through a young earth interpretation of the bible (if he said it was through a Christian world view, I would have been much happier). He suggests that uniformity is irrational from an atheistic world view, and after being challenged by a polite atheist even claims that this must be true even for atheists who do not insist on strict materialism. Here I cannot agree with him (and for the first time in my life am arguing for an atheist position, because they have been treated unfairly). A portion of atheists believe that universals (logic, math, etc.) are inherently part of the multiverse. Lisle mocks this view unfairly, suggesting that logic might be different between here and Jupiter, showing he does not understand the atheist view. Furthermore while he is correct that the atheist view cannot say where uniformity cannot be explained, that does not mean that it is not rational. In fact, there are numerous scientific studies whose purpose is to test what an atheist scientist will refer to as the uniformity hypothesis. Thus, from the perspective of an atheist scientist, uniformity is not explained at all, but rather accepted based on scientific evidence. And, as the polite atheist said, the ultimate standard of the atheist is the multiverse itself.

Finally, Lisle claims that other Christian positions on origins are irrational because they do not believe in the bible. He strengthens this otherwise absurd claim by defining “believing in the bible” as believing in the interpretation of Genesis that he advocates, which he claims is the simple historic reading of the text. But then he denies that when one takes a simple historic reading of Genesis there is disagreement between the various creation accounts. Instead he states that the different accounts agree when interpreted properly. This smells of Gnosticism: a secret knowledge that only his group knows! In fact, Lisle uses a double standard: his in group is permitted to use a method of interpretation that is not the simple reading of the text, but no one else is allowed to interpret the text with any other methodology.

Thus in summary, the book creates a logical framework by which a young earth creation position cannot be assailed. The problem with the framework is that not all of the premises being his logical construction will be accepted by Christians, and certainly not by agnostics or atheists. As a result, this book will be comforting to anyone who already accepts a young earth position, but will be seen as needlessly divisive or even irrational or by those who do not.

[Chandler Tuckerman · Rating 4 out of 5]

I'll spoil the story for you: Lisle doesn't provide a lengthy list of evidences for creation. He provides a logical metaphysical argument for creation. This is known as the presuppositional apologetic. I really enjoyed this book and greatly appreciated the appendix at the end, putting to work the content of the chapters in responses to atheists.

I've always found the presuppositional approach compelling, but only insofar as concluding that atheism cannot be true. Lisle argues further that the Bible MUST be true. This is harder to do (again, than just arguing for general theism). I would have liked for there to be a more robust explanation of why the Bible must be true over against any other religious texts. He definitely addresses is, but it wasn't very in depth. That analysis, however, was probably out of the scope of this book.

Overall would recommend to friends and anyone looking to make sense of the world!

[Jimmy · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book was very helpful in terms of learning Presuppositional Apologetics. The author Jason Lisle is an astrophysicist who have over the years written and taught a lot on Christian apologetics and creation. He has done the church a great service writing this book. How good is this book? Before when people ask me for a recommended book on Presuppositional apologetics I recommended Greg Bahnsen’s book Always Ready. I still recommend Greg Bahnsen’s work but now I feel I want to recommend this book by Dr. Lisle first since the author has done a good job breaking it down as simple and organized as possible.
This book consists of ten chapters and three appendices. After a foreword by Ken Ham from Answers in Genesis and an introduction by the author chapter one looks at the nature of evidence while chapter two discusses resolving the origin debate. Chapter three gives illustrations of the ultimate proof, chapter four on reasoning with the critics and chapter five on the procedure of defending the faith. The book presents us Presuppositional apologetics as taught by Cornelius Van Til and Greg Bahnsen. I appreciated the author using Scripture and sound theology to shape one’s apologetic methodology. Sometimes people think Presuppositional apologetics is against evidence in of itself but that is not true. Chapter six is helpful since it talks about the place of evidence in Christian apologetics. Chapters seven and eight looks at logical fallacies and chapter nine “closes the loopholes” with putting it altogether while chapter ten looks at apologetics in the Bible. After a brief conclusion the book has three appendices with the first one on hermeneutics of how to read the Bible and the final two appendixes are examples of how to answer the critics.
I really enjoyed how Dr. Lisle laid out the book. I also thought the illustration was very helpful throughout the book especially during moments when it helps makes things more concrete since some of principles discussed can be quite abstract. The content of the book is solid and the author lays things out in an organized and clear manner. Having the examples of responses in the appendices was very helpful for readers to see it in action.
As a constructive criticism I wonder if chapter ten on “Apologetics in the Bible” might have been better as the first chapter in the book instead of towards the end. Also I wished the book had discussion questions for the end of each chapter; but you can find a discussion guide on the blog Veritas Domain.
Overall a good book and one that I used for discipling guys in apologetics with my church. I recommend it and I have also brought this book for others to learn about the subject of Presuppositional apologetics and how to refute things at the level of worldviews. I give this a 5 out of 5.

[Peter · Rating 1 out of 5]

There seemed to be a certain trend with "The Ultimate Proof of Creation." Dr. Lisle was able to make some broad generalization that almost anyone could agree with, and then ended up destroying his hypothesis by using flawed logic, or just plain-old incorrect information. He certainly had some good points throughout the book, but the overall promised effect of "resolving the origins debate" was certainly never accomplished unless the reader turns a blind eye to the constant stream of mistakes.

Jason Lisle's introduces the idea, fairly quickly, about how our 'worldviews' shape how we interpret information. I had the opportunity to read this book within the frame-work of a group study, which allowed me to experience first hand a very pertinent case study of competing 'worldviews'. He certainly has a point, and I suppose it's somewhat human to want beliefs to be truth, but how far are we willing to go to keep a set of beliefs our reality? How much are we willing to ignore, or how many far-fetched premises are we willing to adopt?

Dr. Lisle starts off the book on the wrong foot, by completely butchering the description of the field of Information Science, and how it applies to DNA. In the first section he offers two "theorems" of Information Science, and luckily, since I work in an academic setting, I was able to talk to a specialist: an Information Science University professor. He dismissed both as being unfounded and untrue, since any process that we regard as random isn't strictly so, and monitoring it can actually help us glean statistical information about the process itself. Dr. Lisle also asserts that "mutations have never been observed to add brand-new information" which is also untrue, especially considering his definition of information as "containing ... an intended purpose". He goes on to describe the concept of 'irreducible complexity' and gives an example that is almost laughable: 'hearts, kidneys and lungs ... without one the others could not survive." Has he never heard of fish?

He also butchers the idea of radio-active dating, supposedly taking advantage of the readers ignorance of the other forms of dating (not just other atoms besides carbon, but also methods such as tree ring dating). He also claims that comets pose a problem for a 'worldview' that recognizes a universe being much older than 100,000 years. But why? Where do comets come from? Can new comets not be "born"? Almost every week a read an article about scientists discovering new planets; why can't some of these planets break apart, or collide with slowly descending natural satellites? Dr. Lisle claims that these are 'rescuing devices" and I suppose in the strictest sense they are, but they are so highly probable given the vastness of our universe (both temporally and spatially) that it hardly seems much of a rescue.

Dr. Lisle also seems to have a problem with not being able to "know the truth" as in knowing something with complete certainty. But, unfortunately for him, that's what science is: a constantly changing entity as we learn more about our world and adapt our views to fit our observations. Scientists who pretend that what we know is certain beyond any and all doubt are falling victim to the same egotistic flaw that Dr. Lisle has displayed in writing this book.

I suppose I could go on and on (I haven't even left chapter 1!) but I'll leave it for another day. One final thought: the illustrations in his book are terrible and almost every single one is a perfect example of the one of the logical fallacies Dr. Lisle spends so much time describing in chapters 7 and 8; All of the characters who believe in natural selection are drawn uglier or with stupid expressions on their faces, whereas the biblical-literalists who believe in a world less than a 1,000 years old are drawn with attractive, peaceful faces, and more pleasant features. It's like looking at a cigarette advertisement.


Below is what I had written when I was about halfway through.

**************
I still have a few chapters to go, but so far Dr. Lisle has been extremely disappointing. Almost systematically he starts with a well-intentioned hypothesis and then uses some horribly flawed example or irrational "logic" to back it up.

I'll refrain from giving him a rating until I've fully finished the book, but as of right now I would say that anyone who is expecting a satisfactory "Proof of Creation" should try looking elsewhere.

[Debbie · Rating 5 out of 5]

"The Ultimate Proof of Creation" used the Bible as the ultimate standard, quoted Scripture, and used logic, so of course I liked it. The book mainly focused on using logic as the foundation in our discussions with unbelievers and even gave a two-chapter course in logic.

If this sounds intimidating, I'd encourage you to give it a try anyway though it might take some time to absorb all of the information. Dr. Jason Lisle gave plenty of practical examples of how to apply the lessons. The appendix was also full of real-life e-mails he's received and he walked the reader through how you could respond using the information in the book.

He also applied logic to some creationist arguments to show which ones were valid and to demonstrate how to create a sound argument for the Bible and for the Christianity. Though the book gave the ultimate proof, not everyone will be automatically persuaded by it (since some people are convinced by bad arguments and others won't be convinced by good arguments), so don't expect that. But it will help with anyone not already dead-set again Christianity.

I'd highly recommend this book to all Christians. The author stated that the book could also be read by non-Christians, but I'd recommend using the arguments in the book rather than handing the book them. Though "irrational" may be the correct logic terminology, most people reject the argument before they've had a chance to think it over when their not-clearly-thought-out position is proven logically unsound or invalid and promptly declared an irrational belief as Dr. Lisle sometimes did.

[Dragonrider · Rating 5 out of 5]

I learned a lot from this book. I am a Young Earth Creationist and it goes to show that Lisle knows what he is talking about.

If I take one thing from this book it is to never compromise on your beliefs.

[David · Rating 5 out of 5]

This should ought to be called, "An Introduction to Presuppositional, Worldview, and Epistemological Apologetics: The Transcendental Argument for God."

I assume that the publishers and marketers like the (semi-hokey) title more. It sells a little better I assume.

Either way, this is a fantastic book that talks about the nature of science, morality, logic, and knowledge, while demonstrating the worldview provided by the Bible is the one worldview that can correctly prove and bear the weight of scrutiny. For those who feel overwhelmed when questions of Science, the Existence of God, the Age of the Earth, etc., come up, this book is worth the read. On the whole, it deals with some in-depth thinking in an accessible way. Think of this as an entry way into Van Til.

[Humphrey Kutosi · Rating 5 out of 5]

A weapon every Christian Apologist should have in their arsenal!

[Rick Shrader]

Dr. Jason Lisle is researcher on staff at Ken Ham’s Answers in Genesis, who writes the forward to the book. It is printed by Master Books, Green Forest, AR, 2009 and is in its sixth printing in 2015. This is more of a book on logic, reasoning, and debating than on creation itself. Lisle goes through ten chapters from proposing his “ultimate proof” of creation from the basis for reasoning at all, to evidences, logical fallacies, apologetics, and examples he used in actual debates with critics. Interestingly, Lisle is much more a presuppositionalist than an evidentialist, and is attempting to base evidences for creation on the presupposition that the Bible must be accepted before we can understand anything anyway. In the first three chapters he proposes what he calls “preconditions of intelligibility.” These are those things that all human beings take for granted when making any kind of argument. Lisle regularly emphasizes basic laws of logic, uniformity in nature, human memory, and morality as examples of those things we naturally assume when arguing anything. He then moves on to the “AIP” test for challenging any argument: Arbitrariness, Inconsistency, and Preconditions of Intelligibility, showing that most false arguments violate one of these three presuppositions. Lisle also has an interesting application of Proverbs 26:4-5, “Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.” We cannot agree to the unbeliever’s thesis (or we will be like him), but we can, for sake of argument, assume his thesis in order to show its fallacies (to confront him about his error).

Combining a few statements made within a few pages, will give a taste of Lisle’s case for presuppositionalism. “The Bible not only provides criteria for itself, but does so for all other facts. It gives us a foundation (the biblical God) for rational reasoning (including the laws of logic), science, morality, reliability of our senses and memory, and so on. . . The Bible passes its own criteria for truth (it is consistent, non-arbitrary, etc.) and provides criteria for everything else. . . The Christian worldview is the only one that is actually able to authorize itself—to pass its own criteria while simultaneously providing criteria for everything else. . . Notice that even the standards by which all worldviews are judged are actually biblical standards. . . The ultimate proof of creation is not that people must profess the Bible—or even read the Bible to be rational. The argument is that the Bible must be true in order for rationality to be possible. Only the biblical worldview can make sense of rationality, morality, and science. And the biblical worldview has always been true, even before the Bible that articulates this view was inscribed” (pp. 158-160).

The book is worth the time and money. It will give a different and interesting angle on the support for creation.

see more book reviews on my web site

[Lucy · Rating 2 out of 5]

I was impressed with some of Lisle's talks I saw, so that is why I read this book.

The target audience is the Christian who wants to debate young earth creationism with evolutionist atheist/agnostic type people. Which makes sense, as these are the kind of people who are usually the ones wanting to claim Christianity is unscientific etc.

Since the book is going for an "ultimate proof", it primarily deals with the transcendental argument for God (TAG). This book outlines and explains this argument in a really accessible way. It is a brilliant resource.

Everything is clearly and simply stated, with many examples, and some repetition (but not too much) to help you remember. The author is a great communicator, as you would expect given his background.

Now, is this book any good as an apologetic against people who, while professing Christian beliefs, also profess belief in old earth creationism (and possibly evolution)?

I was curious how he was going to argue for it.

He does this: when he takes his presuppositions about God, he takes the entire bible as truth (plus his own "straightforward" interpretation - so no day age yom, St. Augustine is once again in trouble for his interpretation etc).

This doesn't work. Two things:

1. I think TAG route is not the most persuasive way to go, as someone who used to be in the old earth camp. We are all Christians, I think it is most persuasive to do a wider study of the bible. So not just looking at Genesis 1, but things like the fall, animal death, the flood, genealogies, etc. there are many things which go against old earth together more strongly than just focusing on the start of Genesis 1, which is not as obviously interpreted.

2. Let us take a page from this book, so to speak, and put it into practice. I don't think you can just assume the bible as truth, as a protestant. Sorry, I don't grant you that, as an eastern orthodox. I have a good reason to take the bible as truth, it has been handed to me by the church, which is the pillar and foundation of the truth.

The church, which guarded Christian beliefs, whether by word of mouth or letter, before there was any bible. The church, which determined what books would be in the bible. The church, which correctly interprets the bible, and judges matters of contention in its councils. The church, whose practices and doctrine are consistent with the historical evidence. The church, whose teachings have not changed over time. Guided into all truth by the Holy Spirit, never overcome by the gates of hell, and with the teaching and authority of the apostles.

I think it is clear by history and the many different sects, that the bible doesn't interpret itself. And if you are protestant, it is up for debate how you interpret it. There is no reason for other protestants to accept your particular interpretation under a protestant paradigm no matter how straightforward you think it is.

If you think the whole church fell into error (not a biblical belief by the way) and the correct teaching was lost and needs to be deduced... Then why would you trust the bible? It could be corrupted too just like the church. Why are we trusting the Holy Spirit to preserve the bible, but not the church (as was promised)?

How do you decide what actually constitutes the bible canon? Which canon is it? Which version? Sepataguint and Masoretic have significantly different timelines. And you did throw some books out of the bible - where is the apocrypha? Luther even wanted to throw out James too. Why take the whole thing, why not pick and choose, as was done with church tradition?

I could go on and on here, but that is enough to give the idea. You can't actually use TAG as a protestant because if you scratch the surface, you don't have a good reason to believe in biblical inerrancy in your paradigm.

...

Now. I know I said I would stop there, but I kind of lost interest with the book for a month and only finished the last couple of chapters now. I have a few more criticisms:

This book goes on and on about how evidence doesn't interpret itself but then blithely assumes the bible interprets itself. It talks about the issue of pretended neutrality when interpreting evidence, but then somehow this isn't an issue for the bible even though there is a lot of difference in how a protestant and an eastern orthodox person interpret the bible. Or even between different protestant groups.

There is this unfounded prevailing assumption that you can just straightforwardly interpret the bible. It talks about rational debate being "impossible" without people speaking in a natural, straightforward way. And it talks about the clear parts of the bible helping to interpret the unclear (this just sounds like cherry picking verses which support one's view and twisting the others to fit, which is what every heretic ever has done).

In fact a lot of debates run into difficulties because of definitions, equivocations, and word concept fallacy. The author should look at history. Why did the church councils happen if it's so clear? Why did they come up with the creed if it's so clear? And this isn't even on young earth creationism but core things like the divinity of Christ or the Holy Spirit. It's not so simple.

The book says that the proper way to interpret the bible is only reading the bible in a natural, straightforward way. While this is ONE of the ways the bible should be read, it is not the only way it should be read. And you would be missing out on a lot of the richness in the bible if you did not also read it other ways. For example, Jesus and Paul interpret the bible in a typological way, Jonah in the belly of the fish is a type of Jesus in the tomb, Paul refers to aspects of the Exodus and baptism in a typological way. Not just prophecies but actual historical events should be viewed in a typological way, in addition to considering them as historical events. You will have an even more elevated view of the bible if you read it this way too.

I had a look through the appendices and there is one letter where he defends his assumption taking the whole bible as true. He says that you need to have an ultimate standard so there is going to be circularity somewhere. And he says there is double standard where they take for granted that he wrote the website article, but they are questioning that the Holy Spirit inspired all the bible.

The first argument is correct but the problem is that he has chosen the wrong standard. The church, not the bible, is the pillar and foundation of the truth. Jesus didn't write a bible, he appointed people and sent the Holy Spirit to them. The Holy Spirit did not just guide the authors of the bible but the church, and continues to guide it. Not every teaching is contained in the bible and the bible says to pass on oral teachings. For example, what should be in our liturgy and how we should worship.

Second argument is weak. The author really needs to look into the history of the canon. How there were various different canons floating around. Why did books go into the canon (they were being used in liturgy). Questions over authorship e.g. some people questioning Revelation. Obviously there is a period of time where the new testament didn't exist. Obviously we have beliefs we need to take for granted which are not part of the bible, such as authorship.

His approach of just taking the bible doesn't work. It's grounded on unexplored and unexamined protestant world view and presuppositions. And in fact is inconsistent and arbitrary - Protestantism picks and chooses to take some traditions and bible books (no deuterocanon) and not others from the church. It comes up with its own traditions. What's corrupted, what's not? What do you keep, what do you throw out? If the church everywhere fell into error and was lost, does that not contradict the bible? Who sent and gave authority to the reformers?

This is a 5 star book with a big blind spot so I'm giving it a lower rating due to this, but I mostly think it's great.

[Joe · Rating 5 out of 5]

Close the case on evolution. Dr. Lisle adds another nail in the coffin, using the method adapted by the late Dr. Greg Bahnsen who executed the Van-Tillian method, against all thoughts that don't rely on a biblical creator. He builds and irrefutable case that any knowledge, morality, logic, or intelligibility must borrow from the Christian God to argue it's point. Building a foundation on the source of all suppositions, worldviews, he shows how you can think through the concepts and apply them appropriately in everyday language. Throughly enjoyed it, and recommend the book highly to middle-schoolers and up!

[Rodger Carty · Rating 5 out of 5]

Awesome book, I read it at just the right time for me (God is so good!) Good introduction into debating fallacies. I highly recommend this book for anyone who is or wants to be active in the creation vs. evolution controversy. I also highly recommend it for every Christian teenager, especially if they are going to be attending college or university. If you're really into debating the creation vs. evolution controversy there is a second book, Discerning Truth, also by Dr. Jason Lisle, which explores fallacies in even more detail.

[Eddie · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a very important book for the thinkers out there (which should be all of us—which is the very point of the book!) In short, it's a challenge to all who profess *anything* at all to be honest—honest enough to follow a professed belief to it's inevitable conclusion, and at the same time realize what ultimately must be required to even make that argument (or any argument). If there's no other proof that morality is absolute, it stands that rationality on the part of human beings requires some honesty!

[Waylon · Rating 5 out of 5]

Awesome in exposing how all worldview's act as a filter of interpreting evidences and thereby just reinforcing ones previous presumptions, even if those evidences favor opposing views. Exposes a thorough list of the most common illogical tactics or failed reasoning when discussing issues. And most importantly provides the ultimate proof. That is a thorough breakdown of the transcedental argument for God. Which in a nutshell states that "without God you cannot prove anything!" Very awesome book I highly recommend as a great addition and a must for an apologetics library.

[Daniel Beaudoin · Rating 4 out of 5]

Excellent Book!

The book was very well written, and the topic is extremely relevant. As a street missionary, I deal with these Tylenol questions constantly, and the answers Dr. Lisle work well in responding to many people. I'm still going to need to work on expanding some responses, and dumbing down others (since the rational arguments given are sadly beyond many people, if they do not include more concrete examples), but in principle they are irrefutable. I highly recommend this book.

Dan B.

[Kendra Ardnek · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very well done. Sure some of the concepts made my head swim a little, but I usually knew what he was talking about.

[Tess · Rating 5 out of 5]

Man, I stretched my brain. For those who plan to read this, be prepared to take it slow.
Unless, of course, you've got a doctorate in astrophysics like this guy.

[Felipe Sabino · Rating 5 out of 5]

Com certeza o melhor livro que já li sobre o assunto.

[Rodney Harvill · Rating 4 out of 5]

In this book, Dr. Lisle, an astrophysicist who was working for Answers in Genesis when he wrote the book, presents arguments in support of special creation and strategies for defending special creation. The title sounds excessively ambitious, almost like a magic bullet to allow one to win the game with a slam dunk. It is not. If you are a creationist who needs to put wins on the board to boost your ego or self-image, this book is not for you. If, on the other hand, you are a creationist who sees the creation-evolution debate as a direct challenge to the integrity of the authority of inspired scripture, as I do, it can help you.

Since the book is defending the creation account in Genesis, it is no surprise that it appeals to scripture in setting up defensive strategies. Consider 1 Peter 3:15. In my studies on apologetics, I have seen the command in this verse to always be “ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you.” There is a problem, though. That is not the command. The command is “sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts.” The readiness to give a defense is part of how that is done. If Christ is not Lord in the heart of the apologist, then who is? Probably the ego of the person giving a defense; such a one probably does not obey the rest of the verse, “with gentleness and reverence.” In other words, a gentle and reverent defense is an integral part of sanctifying Christ in your heart. In the book, Dr. Lisle insists on obeying the entire verse, not just the middle.

Another passage given prominence in the book is Proverbs 26:3-4.

Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you will also be like him.
Answer a fool as his folly deserves that he not be wise in his own eyes.

This passage is the bedrock of the strategy discussed in the book. Before I go any further, I need to make a point about the word “fool.” It is biblical language, not a pejorative. Dr. Lisle does not treat it as a pejorative, and neither will I. There are several applications that Dr. Lisle draws from these verses, and I will focus on one. Creation vs. evolution is not a battle of scientific evidence; rather it is a battle of worldviews. The typical proponent of evolution has a naturalistic worldview and thinks in terms of methodological naturalism, and the typical creationist has a theistic worldview. We are looking at the same scientific evidence, but our worldviews are driving different interpretations of that data. Defending special creation using evidence alone will get a creationist nowhere. The worldview of the proponent of evolution will cause him to interpret our evidence for recent creation in a way that supports his worldview. The only hope of getting him to see things differently is to get him out of the methodological naturalism box, and that requires starting with worldview considerations. Scientific evidence has an important supporting role, but it is not the star of the show; that role is reserved for worldview considerations.

In all of this, Dr. Lisle insists on being respectful because all people, including proponents of evolution, are created in the image of God, with inherent value and worthiness of respect. One way he demonstrates this respect in the book is his treatment of what he calls a rescuing device. Sometimes a person is confronted with evidence that challenges his worldview, and to save it, he comes up with a hypothetical construct, a rescuing device. Consider comets. They have a life span of about 100,000 years. If the solar system is billions of years old, how can there be comets today? The astronomer Jan Oort hypothesized that there is a region of icy masses surrounding our solar system that functions as a source of new comets to replace the ones that have perished due to solar wind. There is no observational evidence for it, but if the solar system is billions of years old, how else can there be comets today. Dr. Lisle doesn’t beat proponents of billions of years over the head with this construct. Rather, he acknowledges that creationists also use rescuing devices. For example, we have a starlight travel problem, and Dr. Lisle does not hesitate to admit it. There are various hypotheses to resolve it, but none have been proved. He refuses to hold proponents of evolution and billions of years to a higher standard than he holds himself.

My favorite part of the book is two appendices where Dr. Lisle has included various e-mails to which he had to respond while at Answers in Genesis. He includes an analysis of the questions and challenges in each e-mail and then provides his response. He always remained respectful but demonstrated that gentleness does not preclude firmness and calling out bad logic and inconsistencies. These responses are a joy to read.

[C.A. Gray · Rating 5 out of 5]

I discovered Dr Lisle in a YouTube video in which he expounded on the concept of the Mandelbrot set, and connected it and other fractals to actual forms in nature, concluding that God thinks in mathematical terms. I'd actually researched the concept of fractal images appearing in nature myself about a year earlier (though not Mandelbrot specifically) and had been preoccupied with what it could mean, though I never really came to a conclusion other than "fingerprints of God." Dr Lisle's explanation was much more satisfying and conclusive, I felt. Ever since then I've been watching his videos and reading his books. This is the first of his books I've finished, and I picked it up because he said in one of his videos that if you get only one, it should be this one (and the title certainly implies the same.)

Lisle makes the very good point that a creationist and an evolutionist can each look at the same scientific facts and draw a different conclusion, because each begins with a vastly different worldview. Thus, their interpretation of evidence necessarily must differ... and because of that, you'll (probably) never convince anyone to change their minds with evidence alone. That was certainly my experience back when I used to engage in apologetics debates! Instead, he argues, you must address the worldview itself. I'm with him on this, but I believe it's likely quite problematic, as it took him an entire book to get across the concept that, for instance, the very existence of the laws of logic, math, scientific method, reliability of our senses, morality, and any other abstract concept necessitates the existence of God (as such concepts can't possibly exist in a world that is purely materialistic. Where did they come from, if not from a superior mind that imbued all intelligent life as well as the universe itself with such concepts? Why else would we, or the world around us, obey any laws at all?) I've wondered all of this without really wondering about it in so many words, I guess, because to ask the question seemed to me like the toddler who continually asks, "But why?" ad nauseum. At some point you have to just accept certain things as true and move on. And yet, the toddler has struck on something inherent about the nature of reality... adults have just grown out of the habit of asking the question. We've gotten used to it. Indeed, Lisle says that most evolutionists will respond by begging the question, with, "that's just how things are." But, of course, as any toddler knows, that's not really an answer.

Where he loses me is with the argument that only a young earth creationist actually has reason for his presuppositions as listed above. I can see (and I think CS Lewis made a similar point in "Mere Christianity," though limited to morality alone) that the existence of abstract concepts necessitates a God. He argues that these presuppositions necessitate not only the Christian God, because there are scriptures upon which a Christian can base these concepts which God has revealed to us (specifically, those that state that God's nature never changes, that He upholds all things with His most powerful word, and many others). One can suppose that another holy book might make similar claims and thus also serve as a reasonable pretext for them as well, but Lisle claims that none do, and I'll have to take his word for that because I don't study comparative religions enough to say. He further claims that only a young earth Christian has a logical foundation for his presuppositions, because Genesis is quite clear that the earth was made in six days, and if we take Genesis as allegorical, what else in scripture must we throw out? I do see this too, honestly--I agree that we can't pick and choose what we like in scripture, and if we do, we're left with a shaky foundation indeed. I do believe it's quite possible to be a sincere believer who loves God and who likewise believes in an old earth, the Big Bang, and evolution as a means of creation--but he's not arguing that it's not possible for these two things to coexist in a given individual, only that they are logically inconsistent. So I guess I do agree, now that I write this out.

My favorite part of the book was definitely the segment where he goes into logical fallacies and formal logic. I never got to take a course on that in school and wish I had. I see that he has a book on this, designed to be a course. I took copious notes on this one, but I may well pick that one up.

Man, I wish I could watch this guy debate someone...

[Patricia Cherry · Rating 3 out of 5]

Belief. Faith. Knowledge?.

I read this book out of curiosity. I was brought up in a Christian Fundamentalist home. And I was taught that only the Bible was right! in all things. And if I questioned anything, it was turned back on me and I was told it was a Faith issue and to get my self back on track.

Now as I approach eighty years old, I have lived my life in two halves. One as a Christian, which was full of what was right and wrong. More wrongs than rights because my life was miserable. I was never good enough.

The second half of my life I have found God. In truth, and in my heart. Although reading and research served their purpose, in the end God has become more real to me because I was open minded to what other beliefs said. Consequently I have peace and am reassured that I will not be going to a lost eternity.

I hesitate to say that I’m happier than I ever was living under the shadow of an angry God who will punish me if I don’t get things right. But I know that these Christians will argue that to be happy is not the reason to doubt the Bible or be anything but a Christian.

This book (as with all fundamental Christian’s) claim that only the Bible and Christianity is right. But I know different.

My point is that Creationists basis for their beliefs is that the Bible is the word of God. And therefore it is like the air we breathe and there can be no argument.

And so it comes back to the faith issue again doesn’t it?

I find it tragic that Christianity is so separatist in their teachings. They put everyone on earth into two boxes. Saved or unsaved. Believers or unbelievers. And with the point of view in this book; Evolutionists or Creationists. Leaving no room for enquiry.

God bless you the author. I hope that you can honestly feel the love of God without just going by what you believe. I Know it for sure. I am loved by God.

[William Craig · Rating 5 out of 5]

The first book every Christian should read on apologetics and a top resource for atheist to consider when looking to refute Christianity

I was skeptical at first when I started reading the book but his logic is sound when understood properly and is very powerful. This is the foundational apologetics study for the Christian worldview. If you can master the subjects will not have any problem defending the Christian worldview. I think this is the real argument that atheist and Christians should really focus on the ultimate truth, That atheism is true and therefore evolution is built on that framework or that Christianity is true and creationist build on that framework. This is the foundation question, that if you can defend atheism or Christianity based on the more reasonable and logical answers and show the problems with your other worldview, then why wouldn’t we except the answer.

I do believe, like Jason states, if you have a belief and it’s important to you you need to understand why you believe.

To me this book should be first book that a Christian should read when trying to learn how to defend your faith, and it should be on the atheist to read list if they want to really understand how to defeat the Christian world view.

[Ned · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is excellent. Although it refers specifically to proof of creation, the book is actually a defense of the entire Biblical worldview (which I do take to be synonymous with young earth creationism, though some may not.) Dr. Lisle employs the transcendental argument throughout, with many examples and explanations. This is one of several books I have read in the last year or two that mentions Dr. Greg Bahnsen, who is a master of the use of the transcendental argument in debate, and of whom Dr. Lisle is evidently a disciple. There is a famous debate with Dr. Bahnsen vs. Dr. Stein, who is an atheist, available on Youtube that I only recently became aware of and watched myself. Dr. Bahnsen shows how powerful the transcendental argument is for apologists able to master it and stick to their guns, since holding your opponents' feet to the fire on this is absolutely essential, as unbelievers will always try to change the subject. They will not understand the argument at first, but with consistency in engagement, some will finally get it. The Ultimate Proof of Creation is a fine example of using the transcendental argument to good effect.

[Spencer Rice · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great book, more focused on the presuppositional approach to apologetics than specifics about the Genesis account. But if you understand the premise, that critics or skeptics will always have a logical or rational ‘rescuing device’ when presented with facts that they haven’t considered, then you’ll understand why this approach is necessary.

If you bought this under the impression that it would go into specifics of the Genesis account, the meanings of the words used, etc. then you will probably be disappointed. This approach argues that the Genesis account, understood plainly, is a necessary condition for the world that we live in, and that can be demonstrated by critiquing contrary worldviews on their own terms.

If you are looking for an intro to presuppositional apologetics, this is a great place to start. Dr. Lisle is sharp as a whip but has done something that most people of his intellectual ability have lost the ability to do, explain what he knows in terms that the uninitiated can understand.

[Arne Erickson · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is the second book I have read by Jason Lisle. I enjoy his writing because it is clear and logical. I am a retired government school teacher and have become aware that America's education system is failing our students because it is teaching them what to think rather than how to think. Logic and philosophy are foundational to learning and because students aren't given a logical worldview basis to interpret evidence from all sorts of illogical conclusions are being reached. This book will help you think clearer and have an iron-clad defense for the Christian faith, because without that worldview basis nothing else makes sense of the world. C.S. Lewis said it beautifully, "I believe in Christianity as I believe in the sunrise, not only because I see it but by it I see everything else."