by John UpChurch on January 11, 2008

Is presuppositional apologetics as effective in witnessing as providing more scientific analysis? What is the proper balance?

I used to be able to come to your website to obtain scientific information, but I find it is not so easily navigable these days.

I have many atheist friends who hate Christians, and I do not find your position defensible to them, although they would respond to clear scientific analysis.

I think you weaken your cause when you base your technique on the inerrancy of scripture. Because I know Jesus Christ, I don't disagree with you on the Bible.

I would like to respectfully request that you return to your more scientific format, which seemed to have an influence on the scientific world.

—M.D., U.S.A.

I used to be able to come to your website to obtain scientific information, but I find it is not so easily navigable these days.

Thank you for contacting AiG and for letting us know your concerns about the website. If you are having difficulty finding the information you’re looking for, we certainly ask that you let us know how we can improve the website or what areas specifically are causing you difficulty. We, the webteam, want to make the website as intuitive and accessible as possible. Although we have limited resources, we do read and evaluate the comments that we receive. In fact, we are currently revamping the Get Answers section of our site based on feedback we’ve received, and you can expect a brand-new version later this year that is much easier to navigate.

I have many atheist friends who hate Christians, and I do not find your position defensible to them, although they would respond to clear scientific analysis.

But can scientific analysis alone save them? I spent much of my life as an agnostic on the good days and an atheist on the bad. I, like your friends, was certain that I did not need a god of any kind to exist—though I was secretly terrified that there might be some sort of after-life accountability. Many times I lambasted those who depended upon the “false comfort” of religion and felt my superiority over them—any religion would do, since I saw no difference in any of them. I studied them like a child studies an ant under the burning beams of a magnifying glass. I had analytical truth; they only had belief.


For much of that time, I was tossed around with the winds of prevailing thought, swept along by the most “important” discoveries of the day. I threw in my lot with whatever big bang model was the most popular (when I wanted to be an astronomer), kept up on the Out-of-Africa debate (when I wanted to discover the secrets of human origins), and dabbled with Post-modern gender studies (when I wanted to be a literary critic). If it were trendy or new or exciting, I would latch on without a second thought.

Continue reading.