Atheist Universe Refuted: A Critical Review of
Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person’s Answer to
Christian Fundamentalism, by David Mills
Initially Posted: January 29, 2007
David Mills. Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person’s Answer to Christian Fundamentalism. Ulysses Press, 2006. 271 pages. $14.95 (paperback).
About the Author:
David Mills, who has been an atheist for thirty years and authored three successful books regarding science and religion, has written an apologetic book for atheism. He strives to refute some of the arguments that Christian apologists put forward. In the first chapter, Mills informs an interviewer that he studied Christian apologetics, and that he was initially impressed with them.1 However, he claims he realized that all Christian apologetic arguments “boiled down to this: ‘We know the Bible is true because it’s the Bible.’” He concluded “there was quite literally nothing in logic or science to confirm Christian dogma.”2 It would be interesting to find out which Christian apologetics sources Mills examined that led him to these conclusions, considering that the majority of Mills’ arguments and objections he presents in Atheist Universe have been answered in previous Christian apologetics sources. Some of his arguments can be refuted by non-Christian apologetics sources as well. I will utilize both depending on the given argument/objection.
Contents:
2. Origin of the Universe: Natural or Supernatural?
3. God of the Gaps: Does the Universe Show Evidence of Design?
4. The “Miracle” of Planetary Clockwork
5. The “Miracle” of Life on Earth
6. Can Genesis Be Reconciled with Modern Science?
7. “Miracles” of Christian Perception
9. Christian Fundamentalists and the “Danger” of Internet Porn
10. Was America Really Founded upon Christian Principles?
11. “Intelligent Design”: Christianity’s Newest Cult
1. Interview with an Atheist:
The first chapter consists of a combination of interviews that Mills participated in.
Mills claims that the accounts of Adam and Eve, and Noah’s flood are myths. However, I recommend that Mills read Who Was Adam? co-authored by Drs. Fazale Rana and Hugh Ross. I also recommend that Mills read The Genesis Question, by Dr. Hugh Ross. Each of these books presents arguments based on scientific discoveries that support the book of Genesis.
Mills poses a number of objections to the First Cause, or Cosmological argument for God’s existence. First, he objects that “if everything needs a cause to account for its existence,” then God needs to have a cause as well. If theists respond that God does not need a cause, then Mills argues the original premise has been nullified. Unfortunately, Mills misrepresented the current Cosmological argument. Theists do not claim that everything needs a cause. The principle of causality states only that everything that begins (or is finite) needs a cause. If something does not have a beginning, such as the infinite Christian God, then it obviously does not need a Beginner.
Second, Mills objects that if everything except God needs a cause, then the First Cause argument becomes “inconsistent and prejudicially applied,” making it illogical. However, logic indicates that if one does not posit some infinite “First Cause,” one is left with an actual infinite regress, or series, which is impossible.3
Third, Mills claims that atheists can assume the universe always existed if Christians can assume God always existed. Mills asserts that theists, and some atheists and agnostics, “mistakenly” believe the Big Bang theory proposes the universe was created out of nothing. However, astronomers and astrophysicists conclude the Big Bang theory indicates that mass-energy did “pop into existence” out of nothing. George Smoot, University of California at Berkeley astronomer and project leader for the COBE satellite, stated, “What we have found is evidence for the birth of the universe.”4 More quotes are below.
Fourth, Mills asserts that the “creationist view” of the Big Bang theory violates the law of the conservation of mass-energy. However, it does not. This law is technically termed the First Law of Thermodynamics. Another, more accurate, way to state this law of conservation is that “The amount of actual energy in the universe remains constant.” Dr. Norman Geisler explains that the First Law “…says nothing about how the energy came to be in the universe. It also has no power to theorize about whether God could bring new energy into the system if he so wished. It is a statement of observation that the energy does not just disappear, and no more has been seen popping into existence from nonexistence. The statement ‘Energy can neither be created nor destroyed’ expresses philosophical dogmatism. This is a metaphysical pronouncement not supported by observation. As far as we can observe, no new energy is coming into existence, and no actual energy is going out of existence. As such, the First Law supports neither a theistic or nontheistic worldview. It does not claim that energy is eternal, so God is unnecessary. But neither does it claim that God has endowed the system with energy at any point. It simply affirms that right now the actual amount of energy—however long it has been here—is not changing.”5
Fifth, Mills objects that the First Cause argument does not address which god is proven to exist. He writes Zeus or Allah could be the god who served as the First Cause.6 However, this objection is a red herring, because the First Cause argument is merely intended to support Theism…the belief that a god exists, and to refute atheism. Other information must be presented to determine which god was the First Cause. However, for the reader’s benefit, Dr. Hugh Ross discusses the parallels between many passages from the Bible and Big Bang cosmology here.
Sixth, Mills asserts that new discoveries in quantum theory, and Stephen Hawking, along with his colleagues, have “demonstrated matter can and does arise quite spontaneously from the vacuum fluctuation energy of ‘empty’ space.” 7 “Demonstrated” is an extremely strong word to use in this instance. Philosopher of science Robert Deltete writes: “There is no basis in ordinary quantum theory for the claim that the universe itself is uncaused, much less for the claim that it sprang into being uncaused from literally nothing.” 8 Christian apologists have already responded to this objection. 9 I will provide two examples below. First, Dr. William Lane Craig writes:
“(1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause seems obviously true—at the least, more so than its denial. Yet a number of atheists, in order to avoid the argument’s conclusion, have denied the first premise. Sometimes it is said that sub-atomic physics furnishes an exception to premise (1), since on the sub-atomic level events are said to be uncaused. In the same way, certain theories of cosmic origins are interpreted as showing that the whole universe could have sprung into being out of the sub-atomic vacuum. Thus the universe is said to be the proverbial ‘free lunch.’
This objection, however, is based on misunderstandings. In the first place, not all scientists agree that sub-atomic events are uncaused. 10 Many physicists today are quite dissatisfied with this view (the so-called Copenhagen Interpretation) of sub-atomic physics and are exploring deterministic theories like those of David Bohm. 11 Thus, sub-atomic physics is not a proven exception to premise (1). Second, even on the traditional, indeterministic interpretation, particles do not come into being out of nothing. They arise as spontaneous fluctuations of the energy contained in the sub-atomic vacuum; they do not come from nothing. 12 Third, the same point can be made about theories of the origin of the universe out of a primordial vacuum. 13 Popular magazine articles touting such theories as getting ‘something from nothing’ simply do not understand that the vacuum is not nothing, but is a sea of fluctuating energy endowed with a rich structure and subject to physical laws.” 14
Second, Dr. Craig elaborated elsewhere:
“The quantum vacuum is not what most people envision when they think of a vacuum—that is, absolutely nothing. On the contrary, it’s a sea of fluctuating energy, an arena of violent activity that has a rich physical structure and can be described by physical laws. These (sub-atomic) particles are thought to originate by fluctuations of the energy in the vacuum.
So it’s not an example of something coming into being out of nothing, or something coming into being without a cause. The quantum vacuum and the energy locked up in the vacuum are the cause of these particles. And then we have to ask, well, what is the origin of the whole quantum vacuum itself? Where does it come from?...You’ve simply pushed back the issue of creation. Now you’ve got to account for how this very active ocean of fluctuating energy came into being. Do you understand what I’m saying? If the quantum physical laws operate within the domain described by quantum physics, you can’t legitimately use quantum physics to explain the origin of that domain itself. You need something transcendent that’s beyond that domain in order to explain how the entire domain came into being. Suddenly, we’re back to the origins question.” 15
Mills then mentions “natural evil,” such as hurricanes, floods, tornadoes, lightning, etc. He references “natural evil” to counter the idea God exists due to the beauty found in nature. Go here and here for Christian responses to “natural evil.” Interestingly, Mills writes that there is some beauty in nature , but he does not attempt to account for its origin.
Mills also informs the interviewer that he thinks Jesus was not an admirable figure, because Jesus taught that Hell existed, and Jesus wasted his “alleged supernatural powers on frivolous nonsense.” 16 However, Mills does not explain what his standard is for concluding Jesus’ teaching regarding Hell is “thoroughly disgusting.” Mills also ignores accounts of Jesus’ healings of many people, delivering people from demons, and providing people with a way to escape Hell.
Mills also tells the interviewer that he doubts the man Jesus even existed. Despite Mills’ skepticism, most historians have concluded Jesus existed. Further, New Testament scholars have arrived at a number of consensuses regarding what can be known about Jesus. Go here to see some examples. These scholars arrive at their conclusions through various criteria including, but not limited to, multiple attestation and the principle of embarrassment.
Mills also makes several factual errors in this section. Although Mills calls Josephus a secular source, historians generally classify Flavius Josephus as a Jewish source for Jesus’ life. First, Mills asserts “not one of these secular writers was born until decades after Jesus’ alleged crucifixion.” 17 However, Josephus was born in 37 C.E. —a mere four to seven years after Jesus’ crucifixion. 18
Second, Mills includes Justin Martyr among the list of secular historical references to Jesus. 19 Justin Martyr was actually a second century C.E. Christian apologist. Mills also notes that no non-Christian contemporary writer mentions Jesus, or his miracles. However, if he considers contemporary attestation to be a requirement for historicity, Mills will have to throw out much of ancient history. For example, consider the date of documentation for the ancient Jewish prophet, Honi the Circle Drawer: “Even Josephus was writing over one hundred years after Honi’s day, and the Mishna is dated over one hundred years later than Josephus. This should be contrasted to the mere forty or so years between Jesus’ life and the composition of the earliest Gospel, Mark.” 20 As historian Michael Grant wrote: “But above all, if we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus’ existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned.” 21
Mills also questions the historicity of Herod’s slaughter of the children in Bethlehem in response to the question of Jesus’ existence. This event is irrelevant to the actual existence of Jesus. However, Dr. John McRay makes several points in response to this apparent problem. First, he mentions Bethlehem’s small population size indicates there would have been a relatively small number of babies. Second, he reminds the reader that Herod the Great was ruthless; Herod killed members of his own family along with anyone he thought was plotting against him. So, murdering the babies in Bethlehem would fit with his known character. 22
Mills also apparently thinks that the only methods Christian apologists use to argue for the resurrection rest on the assumption that “99 percent of the Bible is true.” However, this is false. For example, Dr. Gary Habermas uses a “minimal facts” approach to argue for the Resurrection’s historicity. This approach does NOT assume the Bible is inspired or completely true. It merely views the New Testament documents as ancient sources, and uses data acknowledged by the majority of all New Testament scholars—atheist, agnostic, Christian, etc. It also does not rely on the gospel resurrection accounts. Go here to see an example of how this method is used.
Mills also presents his explanation for how religious ritualism and worship “probably evolved.” According to Mills, early humans did not understand natural phenomena, so they invented “superhuman gods” to explain these phenomena. However, he cites no anthropological data to support his assertions. Further, some anthropological evidence counters Mills’ assertions. For example, Pascal Boyer writes the following in his book Religion Explained:
“Explanations of religion are scenarios…In a good story one thing leads to another with such obvious logic that we may forget to check that each episode really occurred as described. So a good scenario may put us on the right track but also leave us stuck in a rut, oblivious to an easier or more interesting path that was just a few steps aside…The most familiar scenario assumes that humans in general have certain general intellectual concerns. People want to understand events and processes—that is, to explain, predict and perhaps control them…Here are some variations on this theme:
People created religion to explain puzzling natural phenomena…What is wrong with these accounts? There are several problems with them. We say that the origin of religious concepts is the urge to provide certain general aspects of human experience with a satisfactory explanation. How anthropologists have shown that (i) explaining such general facts is not equally pressing in all cultures and that (ii) the explanations provided by religion are not at all like ordinary explanations.” 23
Also, the late British scholar Andrew Lang and anthropologist Wilhelm Schmidt laid the foundation for examining a concept known as “original monotheism.” Schmidt argued that some of the world’s oldest societies, such as certain Australian aborigines, African pygmies, Philippine tribes and some Native American tribes in Central California, worshipped a ‘Supreme God’ or a ‘Sky God.’ Most of these cultures viewed the ‘Sky God’ as being the only god. These cultures also perceived God as a father, creator, everlasting one, all-knowing one, the all-good one, and the all-powerful one. Even more recent religions possessing many gods, contain references to a Supreme Being, and the Supreme Being’s characteristics are almost identical in many religions. These characteristics strongly correspond to those of the God of the Bible. 24
The interviewer also asks Mills how atheists define morality. Mills says he prefers to use the words “considerate” or “inconsiderate” rather than “right” or “wrong.” 25 He avoids activities that he thinks “needlessly impinge” on someone else’s rights. However, Mills does not specify the source of those rights.
The interviewer asked: “But doesn’t the fact that everyone agrees, for example, that murder is ‘wrong’ indicate that we all share a common conscience guided by one God?” Mills responds by saying he hears this C.S. Lewis—inspired reasoning from Christians, but he does not deem it to be true. He argues Lewis’ argument is “entirely definitional rather than substantive.” 26 He says murder, by definition, is an unjustified killing. He also says that everyone agrees an unjustified killing is wrong. However, he points out that people differ in terms of how to define an unjustified killing (i.e. abortion, the death penalty, euthanasia, etc.). Therefore, he concludes, humans share no “common conscience.”
“Moral Law” is the traditional apologetic phrase for this topic. Dr. Geisler explains: “Moreover, the fact that there are difficult problems in morality doesn’t disprove the existence of objective moral laws any more than difficult problems in science disprove the existence of objective natural laws. Scientists don’t deny that an objective world exists when they encounter a difficult problem in the natural world (i.e., when they have trouble knowing the answer). And we shouldn’t deny that morality exists just because we have trouble knowing the answer in a few difficult situations.
There are easy and hard problems in morality just as there are in science. Answering a simple scientific problem such as, ‘Why do objects fall to the ground?’ proves that at least one natural law or force exists (i.e., gravity). Likewise, truthfully answering a simple moral question such as ‘Is murder justified?’ proves that at least one law of morality exists (i.e. don’t murder). If just one moral obligation exists (such as don’t murder, or don’t rape, or don’t torture babies), then the Moral Law exists.” 27
Dr. Geisler also writes: “Relativists often point to the controversial nature of abortion to demonstrate that morality is relative. Some think abortion is acceptable while others think its murder. But just because there are different opinions about abortion doesn’t mean morality is relative.
In fact, instead of providing an example of relative moral values, the entire abortion controversy exists because each side defends what they think is an absolute moral value—protecting life and allowing liberty (i.e., allowing a woman to ‘control her own body’). The controversy is over which value applies (or takes precedence) in the issue of abortion.” 28
Christian philosopher and apologist Kenneth Samples writes: “The fact that people disagree over an issue doesn’t mean that there isn’t an objectively true or correct position on that issue (for example, people used to vigorously disagree about whether the universe had a beginning or not). Ethical differences may result from the difficult application of moral values rather than from real differences in core values. Christian thinker C.S. Lewis has argued persuasively that general agreement on moral issues has existed among various historical civilizations and cultures.” 29
Mills goes on to say that there is “often grave injustice in this world.” 30 However, on what basis does he conclude a killing is unjustified? How does he, as an atheist, define injustice? Does injustice truly exist considering injustice is immaterial? His worldview assumes that only the natural, physical aspects of the universe exist. Therefore, how does he determine “injustice” even exists? If he concedes injustice exists, then the opposite of injustice, justice, must exist. Mills must account for where the justice originates. Later, Mills writes: “Undeniably, some communist nations, such as Stalinist Russia and Maoist China, have been guilty of horrible human rights abuses.” 31 Two questions need to be asked: “Where does Mills think humans acquire their rights?” And “What standard does Mills use to judge Stalinist Russia and Maoist China to be ‘guilty’?”
Dr. Geisler quotes C.S. Lewis in relation to this issue: “[As an atheist] my argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?” 32
Dr. Geisler continues: “Lewis, like you and me, can only detect injustice because there’s an unchanging standard of justice written on our hearts. Indeed, you can’t know what is evil unless you know what is good. And you can’t know what is good unless there is an unchanging standard of good outside yourself. Without that objective standard, any objection to evil is nothing but your personal opinion.” 33
Thus, Mills has not logically concluded C.S. Lewis’ argument “exists only by wordplay.” 34
Mills asserts that consciousness can be reduced down to sense organs and the human brain. He argues that when the brain dies, consciousness ceases. However, the nature of consciousness has a history of being a very complex issue—many books have been written about this topic. Some near-death-experience research results pose a powerful challenge to Mills’ view. Go here for more information.
Endnotes:
1. David Mills, Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person’s Answer to Christian Fundamentalism (Berkeley, CA: Ulysses Press, 2006), 57-58.
2. David Mills, Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person’s Answer to Christian Fundamentalism (Berkeley, CA: Ulysses Press, 2006), 58.
3. See Dr. Norman Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1999), 366.
4. The Associated Press, “U.S. Scientists Find a ‘Holy Grail’: Ripples at Edge of the Universe,” International Herald Tribune (London), 24 April 1992, page 1, cited in Dr. Hugh Ross, The Creator and the Cosmos. Third Expanded Edition (NAVPRESS, 2001), 31.
5. Dr. Norman Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1999), 724.
6. David Mills, Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person’s Answer to Christian Fundamentalism (Berkeley, CA: Ulysses Press, 2006), 31.
7. David Mills, Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person’s Answer to Christian Fundamentalism (Berkeley, CA: Ulysses Press, 2006), 31.
8. Robert Deltete, Critical notice of Theism, Atheism, and Big Bang Cosmology, by William Lane Craig and Quentin Smith, Zygon 30 (1995): 656.
9. See Norman L. Geisler and Frank Turek, I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist, (Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Books, 2004), 87-88; Norman Geisler and Peter Bocchino, Unshakable Foundations: Contemporary Answers to Crucial Questions about the Christian Faith (Minneapolis, Minnesota: Bethany House, 2001), 76-77; Hugh Ross, The Creator and the Cosmos. Third Expanded Edition (NAVPRESS, 2001), 127-136.
10. William Lane Craig and Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, God? A Debate Between a Christian and an Atheist (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004), 6.
11. See James T. Cushing, Arthur Fine, and Sheldon Goldstein, Bohmian Mechanics and Quantum Theory: An Appraisal in Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science 184 (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1996).
12. See John Barrow and Frank Tipler, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986), 441.
13. See Bernulf Kanitscheider, “Does Physical Cosmology Transcend the Limits of Naturalistic Reasoning?” in Studies on Mario Bunge’s “Treatise,” ed. P. Weingartner and G. J. W. Dorn (Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1990), 346-347.
14. William Lane Craig and Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, God? A Debate Between a Christian and an Atheist (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004), 6.
15. William Lane Craig in Lee Strobel, The Case for a Creator: A Journalist Investigates Scientific Evidence That Points Toward God (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2004), 101.
16. David Mills, Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person’s Answer to Christian Fundamentalism (Berkeley, CA: Ulysses Press, 2006), 35.
17. David Mills, Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person’s Answer to Christian Fundamentalism (Berkeley, CA: Ulysses Press, 2006), 35.
18. John Dominic Crossan, The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant (New York: HarperSanFrancisco, 1992), 92.
19. David Mills, Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person’s Answer to Christian Fundamentalism (Berkeley, CA: Ulysses Press, 2006), 35.
20. Ben Witherington III, The Jesus Quest, 111.
21. Michael Grant, Jesus: An Historian’s Review of the Gospels (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1977), 199-200.
22. Lee Strobel, The Case for Christ: A Journalist’s Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1998), 104-105.
23. Pascal Boyer, Religion Explained: The Evolutionary Origins of Religious Thought (New York: Basic Books, 2001), 10, 11, 12, 13.
24. See Winfried Corduan’s A Tapestry of Faiths: The Common Threads Between Christianity & World Religions (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002), 38-40.
25. David Mills, Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person’s Answer to Christian Fundamentalism (Berkeley, CA: Ulysses Press, 2006), 53.
26. David Mills, Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person’s Answer to Christian Fundamentalism (Berkeley, CA: Ulysses Press, 2006), 55.
27. Norman L. Geisler and Frank Turek, I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist, (Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Books, 2004), 184-185.
28. Norman L. Geisler and Frank Turek, I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist, (Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Books, 2004), 185.
29. Kenneth Richard Samples, Without a Doubt: Answering the 20 Toughest Faith Questions (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 2004), 233.
30. David Mills, Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person’s Answer to Christian Fundamentalism (Berkeley, CA: Ulysses Press, 2006), 55.
31. David Mills, Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person’s Answer to Christian Fundamentalism (Berkeley, CA: Ulysses Press, 2006), 63.
32. Norman L. Geisler and Frank Turek, I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist, (Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Books, 2004), 176-177.
33. Norman L. Geisler and Frank Turek, I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist, (Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Books, 2004), 177.
34. David Mills, Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person’s Answer to Christian Fundamentalism (Berkeley, CA: Ulysses Press, 2006), 55.
Suggested Further Reading Material:
1. Blanchard, John. Does God Believe in Atheists? Auburn, MA: Evangelical Press, 2000.
2. Bocchino, Peter and Norman Geisler. Unshakable Foundations: Contemporary Answers to Crucial Questions about the Christian Faith. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Bethany House, 2001.
3. Corduan, Winfried. A Tapestry of Faiths: The Common Threads Between Christianity & World Religions. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002.
4. Craig, William Lane and Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, God? A Debate Between a Christian and an Atheist. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004.
5. Geisler, Norman. Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1999.
6. Geisler, Norman L. and Frank Turek. I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist. Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Books, A Division of Good News Publishers, 2004.
7. Geisler, Norman L. Miracles and the Modern Mind: A Defense of Biblical Miracles. Eugene, Oregon: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 1992.
8. Geisler, Norman L. Signs and Wonders. Eugene, Oregon: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 1988.
9. Gonzalez, Guillermo and Jay W. Richards.The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos is Designed for Discovery. Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing, Inc., 2004.
10. Habermas, Gary R. and Michael R. Licona. The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 2004.
11. Habermas, Gary R. The Risen Jesus & Future Hope. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2003.
12. Hart, Benjamin. Faith & Freedom: The Christian Roots of American Liberty. San Bernardino, CA: Here’s Life Publishers, Inc., 1988.
13. Heeren, Fred. Show Me God: What the Message from Space Is Telling Us About God. Revised Edition. Wheeling Illinois: Day Star Publications, 1997.
14. Hoyle, Fred. The Intelligent Universe. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1983.
15. Lewis, C.S. Mere Christianity. New York: Macmillan, 1952.
16. Limbaugh, David. Persecution: How Liberals Are Waging War Against Christianity. Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing, Inc., 2003.
17. Moreland, J. P. Scaling the Secular City: A Defense of Christianity. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1987.
18. Rana, Fazale and Hugh Ross. Who Was Adam?: A Creation Model Approach to the Origin of Man. Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 2005.
19. Ross, Hugh. Creation as Science: A Testable Model Approach to End the Creation/Evolution Wars. Colorado Springs, CO: NAVPRESS, 2006.
20. Ross, Hugh. The Creator and the Cosmos. Third Expanded Edition. Colorado Springs, CO: NAVPRESS, 2001.
21. Ross, Hugh. The Genesis Question: Scientific Advancements and the Accuracy of Genesis. Second Expanded Edition. Colorado Springs, CO: NAVPRESS, 1998, 2001.
22. Samples, Kenneth Richard. Without a Doubt: Answering the 20 Toughest Faith Questions. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 2004.
23. Spetner, Lee. Not By Chance! Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution. New York: The Judaica Press, Inc., 1997, 1998.
24. Strobel, Lee. The Case for Christ: A Journalist’s Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1998.
25. Witherington III, Ben. The Jesus Quest: The Third Search for the Jew of Nazareth. New Expanded Edition. Downer's Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1997.
26. Witherington III, Ben. What Have They Done With Jesus? Beyond Strange Theories and Bad History—Why We Can Trust the Bible. New York: HarperSanFrancisco, 2006.