Thank you, ‘blogosphere battlers’—you’re making a difference
Ordinary people are becoming online ‘soldiers for Christ’ at the frontline of the creation-evolution debate—enraging the opposition, but winning the hearts and minds of observers
Published: 13 September 2012 (GMT+10)
Among the incoming comments we received from readers of A candid admission was this absolute gem from Neil W., of Australia:

“I had a similar experience with an anti-Christian. The conversation started with him stating that ‘the science is settled’, ‘it’s a science fact’ and all the other usual soundbites they use for evolution. So over a few weeks I questioned his assumptions, refuted his ‘facts’ and simply kept asking the who, where, when, how, why questions to try and get to the absolute core of his beliefs. He eventually either through anger or frustration gave me the absolute basis for his belief and I quote as close as I can from memory:
“I have never cared about the ‘evidence’ one way or the other, I know God exists, I just refuse to bow down to anyone.”
So to sum up, I believe that most agnostics, atheists, anti-Christians are simply ‘stiffnecked’, ‘hardhearted’ and ‘willfully rebellious’ against God and Jesus because they do not ‘want’ to follow God’s laws.”
When I presented this comment as part of an address to a church congregation recently, one man, Mario, came up to me after the service to talk about that correspondent’s comment—he was very excited.
“Yes!”, said Mario, “that’s exactly how I’m finding it, too. I go onto a creation/evolution forum, and it’s not long before one or more atheists are ‘engaging’ me in argument. We go back-and-forth, back-and-forth, and they throw up all kinds of challenges and objections. But then they start attacking me personally, name-calling and the like, rather than address the issues I and other creationists raise. However, here’s the punchline. Among the many who stubbornly refuse to accept the truth, some of them get to a point where they admit that they HATE God—that’s what it’s all about. It’s not about the evidence, it’s that they hate God and don’t want to serve Him.”
Mario was very excited to hear that his experience of the atheists’ pattern of behaviour online was not unique. I asked him about the “other creationists” he’d mentioned who’d joined him in debating the atheists on that blog. He gratefully paid tribute to them.
“I confess that there were times that I was actually quite intimidated by the ‘weight of evidence’ and angry objections that the atheists would throw back at me,” said Mario. “I was new to all this. But then from out-of-the-blue came other creationist Christians, weighing in on the blog, to help me. They were great. In the face of the ‘scattergun’ attacks from the atheists, these other Christians would address the issues, one-by-one, often linking to articles on creation.com, and that’s when the atheists would ‘go to ground’. Not only did that encourage me and shore up my faith, but by watching their example I learnt a lot from them too about how to debate online effectively.”
Sounds like those online warriors-for-Christ (2 Timothy 2:3) knew how to convert a gun battle into a tennis match. Thankfully there’s a growing ‘army’ of them taking up the battle in the ‘blogosphere’. It’s not hard to find their handiwork. Wherever there’s a news item relating to origins, the public comments section soon turns into a battleground on the creation/evolution issue. On the Christian side, some of the bloggers are very adept at making short, but strategically adroit, comments.
Here’s a nice example. It was in the comments section of an online article this year from The Guardian entitled “Richard Dawkins celebrates a victory over creationists”.1 The blogger very succinctly wrote:
A good article to read about the (not creative) effects of evolution leading to genome decay is mutations-are-evolutions-end.2
We should note, too, that it’s not only the atheists-versus-creation debates where creationist Christians are battling over truth, but also in the warring over the authenticity and readability of God’s Word as straightforward history. Here’s a sample contribution to the comments section of a Herald Sun (Melbourne, Australia) blog titled “Which Genesis story should Christians believe?”3 (which had sought to throw doubt on a straightforward reading of the Bible’s historical account of origins):
People who think there are contradictions with Genesis 1 and 2 should have a read of https://creation.com/genesis-contradictions.
We hear from people submitting feedback to us that these online debates on the various internet blogs concerning origins are in fact influencing people’s lives for good. Sometimes it’s not just the information being presented that influences people positively but also the protagonists’ demeanour. Just as it was in the pre-online days when people attended events such as the infamous Ian Plimer versus Duane Gish debate in Australia in the 1980s [If this debate DVD is available then it will be visible in the right column of products within this article]. CMI–Australia associate speaker Dr Mark Brunacci (already a Christian at the time but uncertain of his views on Genesis) testifies that it was his seeing the ferocity of the non-Christian side (where Dr Plimer devoted his time entirely to ad hominem vitriol, scorn and accusations rather than engage in any meaningful scientific or theological debate) that was the decisive factor in resolving the question for himself. As Mark recalls, “truly, the Emperor had no clothes”—there appeared to Dr Brunacci (a then recent medical graduate) to be no cogent scientific, evidence-based defense of the evolutionary position.4,5
So the presence of creationist Christians on the internet is surely not just helping to strengthen their compatriots in battle such as Mario, but who-knows-how-many sideline observers of the fray, also.

And the great thing about the internet is that even aged and house-bound Christians are right there on the frontline of battle, too. I remember mentioning in a presentation that older folk are some of the most active participants in online debates re creation/evolution and afterwards an effervescent elderly lady bubbled with glee as she told me, “I’m one such cyber-warrior for Christ!” Agnes had a particular heart for the young, lamenting that they are only being taught ‘one side of the story’ these days.
“At first, they are fervently opposed to me,” she said. “And when I present them with information from your website, some are even more enraged, but others mellow. ‘I’d never heard of this’, they say. And sometimes, ‘You actually seem to be a nice person,’ they say, surprised. They’re even more surprised when they find out how old I am—a real, live ‘cyber-granny’!”
Agnes concluded, “The world wide web allows me to nurture young hearts and minds far beyond the children and youth I know in my little town. I might be increasingly decrepit physically, but from my comfy fireside I’m a missionary with an international outreach, and it’s thrilling. And for all the objections and nastiness I come across, I do indeed see some hearts and minds changed—for Christ.”
Good on you, Agnes. And Mario. And thanks, too, to all you other ‘blogosphere battlers’, you are indeed making a difference. May there be many more online ‘soldiers for Christ’ joining your ranks.
Related Articles
References
- Doward, J., Richard Dawkins celebrates a victory over creationists—Free schools that teach ‘intelligent design’ as science will lose funding, 15 January 2012. For our response see: Statham, D. and Bell, P., Dawkins gloats over boost to evolutionary dogma in schools—Another hollow victory for educational censorship, 21 January 2012. Return to text.
- The hyperlink takes readers to: Williams, A., Mutations: evolution’s engine becomes evolution’s end, Journal of Creation 22(2):60–66, 2008. Return to text.
- Bolt, A., Which Genesis story should Christians believe?, 13 March 2012. For our response, see: Cosner, L., What part of Genesis should Christians believe? All of it!—There are no contradictions in Scripture, 15 March 2012. Return to text.
- Mark Brunacci’s testimony on this can be viewed in the 30-minute documentary on the Plimer-Gish debate, Facing the Fire DVD. If this DVD is available then it will be visible in the right column of products within this article. Return to text.
- Similarly, long-time creation speaker Dr Carl Wieland has written that “it is not uncommon to hear that public creation presentations when hecklers are active generate life-changing impact in at least one person in the audience. One guy who became a medical missionary was wavering on Genesis and the Bible’s authority and had had a lot of correspondence with me on that; he came to a creation seminar I did in Melbourne many years ago, heckled by attending Skeptics members. He came up to me on that occasion with tears in his eyes, in effect repenting of all compromise, and has stayed solid ever since”. See also Bring on the hecklers? Return to text.
Readers’ comments
No atheist can claim total knowledge, therefore atheism is self–refuting, because knowing everything and being everywhere is to be like God. Since no one can prove ‘there is no God’, the question becomes irrelevant and so does atheism."
Also, by default, you CANNOT claim to be a Christian without believing in God, as Christianity is a relationship with God through Jesus Christ.
When the responders turn to vitriol, perhaps our next port of call should be to ask them something like: "Supposing there was a supreme being who created everything, what would you think of him/her/it?" If the response to that exposed a hatred of God, that might then lead to a more fruitful discussion about the origins of that hatred. I guess I'm talking about getting to the heart of the issue, now that we see what it is.
Or in the case of people who are held by a belief that their teachers/government wouldn't lie to them, we could turn the conversation to one of where responders first heard about evolution, and what they were told (and why) – again, getting to the heart of the issue.
Perhaps the effects of the absence of a father, or of a loving father, at home (as one contributor here noted as a cause for atheism) might also be addressed, although I suspect that the blogosphere might be a little too public a place for a conversation about that, but you never know…
I suppose that the quicker we can get to the root issues that people are facing, the less likely they will be to (through argument) paint themselves into a corner from which they cannot extricate themselves without losing face.
Note: I'm sure we would all agree that our aim must never be to "win the argument", but to present the Truth firmly and in love (as I believe is continually done by the CMI representatives who write here, I hasten to add).
P.S. I have been reminded here about a comment I heard from a well-known Melbourne ABC radio presenter (who unsurprisingly claims to be an atheist), who said that he wouldn't want to believe in a god who would let happen the things we see going on in the world around us (rape, child abuse, and so on), when he had the power to stop it. This seems to exemplify the person who has decided that since God isn't nice (in his view), He doesn't exist. Strange logic from an ex-lawyer!
The first graduate told me that "I am not going to let the facts stand in the way of what I believe" and the second just kept repeating "I am a geneticist/scientist - I cannot believe that you're arguing with me" (I wasn't but he didn't want to check out this scientific measurement).
It was the first time I had encountered intellectual people who were very far removed from behaving intellectually. As an ex lawyer ( but now a full time Pastor), I had expected a reasoned debate. Silly me!
Thanks for this encouraging message. I find another mental road block that you will face is that people just can't believe that their schools, and thus ultimately their government, have been lying to them their entire lives. This is a very tight chain that binds the hearts of unbelievers. They may not admit it, but it is a very hurtful thing to know your whole life has been a lie and thus a waste. This makes people very angry and magnifies a sense of abandonment from the world, the only foundation many people know.
I have been a believer since I was a teenager, but it took me well into my 30's to finally deal with the fact that my government would lie to me. This was akin to my parents lying to me. This, of course, is a violation of God's order and one of the deepest and most subtle moral wrongs out there. It is also a very scary prospect for many people to face and for many of them, they would rather cling to a lie than to go it alone because many believe they are alone. Especially if they then turn to the churches and find the same lies!
If we, as Christians, can show people that they are not alone, I think it will help more to have the courage to make the break. I think this is where the warm hug and kindness of Christianity has to come in. If people know that they can be in close contact with us and know that we are there for them as a sounding board, it will help many more of them to make the break from the betrayal that they then discover to be all around them.
That is why it is imperative for us not to be hostile on these boards but to be a loving and kind witness. Huge pillars and foundations are falling down for these people and they don't need to come to the church doors for a sound thrashing, but for a refuge and for someone to bind their newly discovered psychological wounds made fresh by the Truth that the world is their enemy and not their friend.
Why do the wicked renounce God?
He has said in his heart, "You will not require an account." Psalm 10:13
"But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust." Matthew 5:44-45
The truth is as you have observed, they really do believe deep down but are just rebelling and going into competition with God. If they hate God then it stands to reason they hate those who put him infinitely above them as the ultimate authority and that also that we can't be deceived with their false religion.
Creationism, science and peer review
'It's not science'
Three questions
Responses to creationist comments are mostly extremely aggressive and disheartening, patronizing and insulting. I always try to stay positive and respectful, and have even been called "sweet, but we know how you creationists work, sounding sweet and being evil".
I have been contemplating stopping to read these on-line chats and stopping responding to them. It is upsetting to me and the most upsetting is that these people hate God so much that they even say that "if God will stand in front of me today, I will refuse to worship Him anyway".
But, I have also come to realize that no one can be convinced by arguments or with the mind. So now I try to stop before responding with my mind and think first what the Spirit says: Should I say something or not, and what should it be?
I have even started to wonder if Young earth creationism is a false religion (which will increase in the end times), but again, when I read your articles, I am encouraged again since you are always only defending the in-errancy of the Bible and always quoting the Bible, so how can that be false?
Thank you for your hard work!
My first real exposure to Biblical creation came via Margo Kingston's blog in the Sydney Morning Herald in 2005. I missed the formal debate itself, but watched with great interest (and soon joy) from the cyber sidelines as Dr. Sarfati and Dr. Walker and others had the vanquished skeptics again on-the-hop during a follow-up thread. Alex Ritchie, in particular, as I recall, was still smarting from losing the formal debate and it was quite amusing watching him scurry from here to there tripping over himself -- I was in my late twenties at the time and had never witnessed anything like it; a small handful of Christian apologists parrying and skewering anything, any obstacle, that got in the way of the truth.
And I think it's true of the Internet that while the direct opponents of your arguments may at times not appear to be conceding an inch, and indeed it may feel as though you're interacting with a brick wall, it's the many more silent "lurkers" and witnesses that may have their eyes opened and views changed. I remember at the time I was clinging to some of Dr Hugh Ross' work. Within a few weeks I'd consumed dozens of hours of CMI material, and, if I may say so, I've never looked back -- a far more coherent, robust and energized faith has resulted. Thank you CMI!
For readers who don't know about the debate, click here to see a short summary/gateway article with onward links to further reading about it, including a link to a pdf of the debate itself, which is also available from our web store as the booklet Skeptics vs Creationists: a formal debate.
Also, to touch on the way that atheists, once broken down, admit that they just plain don't like God, I say this: It all comes down to accountability. They do not want to have to be held accountable for their actions. It's interesting to note that there is a trend that says people who are atheists or who have a dim view of God or Christianity also had a very poor relationship with their father or didn't have a father at all.
But that's an example of the lion's den, most people aren't educated scientists but most of the people I were debating had some form of education, and they were the worst most proud, arrogant and stiffnecked people I have ever encountered in my life.
The good news is that they greatly helped me to realize the truth of faith because they were such a great example of hypocrisy and pride. They have played a foundational role in building my faith. They also forced me learn and use my mind which I had never done before. I became a kind of bizarre intellectual machine in order to reach them, but the highest wisdom was not heeded, even though God changed my mind and gave me tremendous powers of reason. I think ultimately, the Lord was doing it to work on me, even though it was very painful at the time.
"When I use the word "IDiot" I fully intend to bash the IDiots for their stupid ideas. … The idea is to plant in the public's mind the notion that these creationists are crazies and kooks, not respectable scientists with a different, but scientifically valid, opinion. We tried treating them politely for several decades [I hadn't noticed—Philip R] and what did it get us? It got us leaders and politicians in many countries who think it's perfectly respectable to believe that evolution is false."
Phil Plait, a sceptic, talking about other sceptics, has noted that "Instead of relying on the merits of the arguments, which is what critical thinking is really all about—what evidence-based reasoning is all about, it seems that vitriol and venom are on the rise."
In contrast, one of the most vitriolic anti-creationists around had this to say about creationists in his review of the anti-creationist book "Among the Creationists: Dispatches from the Anti-Evolutionist Front Line":
"…there’s something that comes through loud and clear, that I’ve also experienced: [the creationists are] all so damned nice. They haven’t got a leg to stand on with the nonsense they’re talking about, but they try to make up for it with friendliness and manners …"
It was really a pleasure reading this article of yours :) Although the "other side" hardly gets a chance in our public education systems, it is a good thing that power has limits (as that wise man Sowell once pointed out), and that every creationist blogger cannot be censored, even if they wanted to do so. And so Christians are starting to have answers again against the pseudo-intellectual attacks against Christianity, thanks largely also to the tireless efforts of CMI :)
One word of caution though: As someone who has seen some of these debates, I must say that the protagonists and antagonists are not always well-informed. This is sadly also sometimes true of the creationist side (and I am not necessarily referring to the arguments mentioned on the Don't Use-page, though sometimes these are encountered too). That is why creationist internet apologists should also keep up with quality creation information, and I am very relieved that CMI's material is of a very good standard (also scientifically), and available with the click of a button! :D
With the new wave of Christian cyber apologists emerging, I am very excited when a colleague of yours announced recently that a new apologetics book by CMI is being (re)published! Seldom do internet debates around creation not involve other questions about the Bible and Christianity, as non-believers will often resort to any last efforts in order to dismantle their opponents.
May God keep on blessing this ministry which is making rigorous internet apologetics possible.
E.v.N
For the benefit of other readers who don't yet know, the colleague of mine who E.v.N. mentioned is Dr Jonathan Sarfati, who has recently worked with original author Dr Steve Kumar to revamp his Christianity for Skeptics. (The original edition won an 'Angel Award' for excellence in media, which is a major reason why the new Christianity for Skeptics [Updated and Expanded] version has been produced.)
So he's not an atheist then?
When one looks at how many outspoken atheists truly hate God, it raises the question as to how many (i.e. how few) atheists there really are?! Leading 'atheist' Christopher Hitchens (1949-2011) had it right when he referred to himself as a 'misotheist' (God-hater).
I really think this is one of the most powerful outreach opportunities we have today; as the atheists and secularists are closing off their minds and admitting they are afraid to debate, comments sections give Christians an open floor to engage that debate and put out important (usually censored) information where anyone can find it.
Often it seems to have completely taken the atheists by surprise, even though they have been aggressively using the same platform themselves. And yes, the most important thing we can do is to exhibit Christlike love to all, and clearly show the contrast between the peace and joy we have in Jesus and the misery, hatred, and vitriol that living without him produces. To make it clear that what we oppose is the false philosophies that have led the lost astray, rather than the lost themselves.
Imagine how fast the gospel might spread now and start another Awakening if every Christian took at least some time out of their week to humbly, lovingly shine Christ's light and knowledge of creation to the lost via these opportunities! It's good to know, which I didn't, that many older Christians are doing this already. ^_^
Comments are automatically closed 14 days after publication.