Thursday, March 5, 2009

David on "Iron Sharpens Iron"


I'll be on the "Iron Sharpens Iron" radio program today at 3:00 P.M. (Eastern Standard Time). Tune in for a fun conversation on Islam. Click here to go to the site. The link for live streaming is on the right.

The MP3 of yesterday's program can be accessed here. We talked about differences between Christian and Muslim apologetics. The major differences are:

(1) Muslims must be inconsistent in apologetics, while Christians are free to be consistent.

(2) The standard Muslim arguments for Islam are circular, while the core Christian arguments are logically sound.

(3) Islam, at the end of the day, is groundless. There's no argument that provides a foundation for the religion. Christianity, on the other hand, has a foundation.


Radical Moderate said...

Dr Wood, I went to the link to download the interview, and when I click on "MP3 Availiable Here" I get 404 Error page can not be found. Same thing happens when I try to download it.

Unknown said...

Asking Wood to talk about Islam is like asking a Nazi to talk about Judaism. Then again, Evangelists are no less propagandist, especially the ones with a violent past.

ubiquitouserendipity said...

ibn, you shouldn't be allowed aloud 'round here. just because i have a terribly violent past doesn't mean that Jesus didn't die specifically for me. that is a difference between Christians and mohammedans: we Christians are born-again, changed, forgiven; mohammedans are lost in the darkness of hatred (self-centered fear being the chief activator of all character flaws [sin nature])for all others but those of like beliefs (even within your own societies you have sects killing off sects [i guess belief in allah ain't all that great for some heh??? he he]). mohammedans seem obsessed with sex, with the objectification of women to the status of animals, and more importantly with the objectification of little girls to the status of sexual receptacles. the perversity embodied in mohammed, and aspired to by true believers, would make the skin on an armadillo crawl.

so for as violent as has been my past, thus can be said for the peace that comes from being forgiven, and cleansed. i'm free of my past, and proud to say that as a former proud aztec warrior (in my imaginings), who lived to the words of emiliano zapata; "i would rather die on my feet than live on my knees..." i've been humbled, and gently so, by the all encompassing love of Jesus Christ, and the peace of letting myself rest in His work of grace. now i can proudly say that i bow before Jesus my King, my G d.

thus can i cry a little tear when one of my grandkids sings in a play, or skins their knee. and thus can i safely say that your post is a good example of what to expect from someone who believes in a pagan god of some non-descript 7th century desert wandering savagely inhuman mentally ill pedophile. the darkness reeks from your short little post. may His Light shine in your heart some day.

serendipitously yours

Michelle Qureshi said...


When we talk about Islam, we don't talk about some doctored up, unhistorical, peaceful version of Islam. We talk about the Islam that Muhammad gave to his people. If we are wrong in what we say, point out how we are wrong. Otherwise your comments seem more like complaining than anything else.

Looking forward to more substantial refutations and comments,

Anthony Rogers said...


What are you doing over here pestering David?

You are supposed to be getting together with Zaatari and mustering up a response to my article.

If you don't want to do it with Zaatari, and I completely understand it if you don't, then you still have some work to do. Chop chop.

Anthony Rogers said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

I would not even respond to ibn if I were you.

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

I have to say though that a Nazi talking about Judaism is a close analogy to the Qur'an defining the Trinity, so much for divine authorship.

Anthony Rogers said...

Ibn popped up on my blog right after David linked to it.

He has been trying to rescue Zaatari's case that the Trinity equals polytheism.

Ibn's claim to fame resides in trying to give a philosophical cast to Zaatari's (aborted)argument.

He's not doing very well.

I don't know anything about him beyond this.

Fernando said...

First: onlie now I could listenn to professor Wood tal: I was delighted! God job indeed! All the things thate shoulde habe been said were saide... thanks!!! May God keep is love in you!!!

Second: Doctor Nabeel said to Ibn: «Looking forward to more substantial refutations and comments»... well, that's like asking a new skript for the movie "Mission: Impossible 4"

Never the less... ounce again: glade to see you black here Ibn...

El-Cid said...

Semper said: " still have some work to do. Chop chop."

You wouldn't by any chance be refering to "Chop-Chop Square" in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia would you?

Oh, wait....the religion of "peace" wouldn't be mutilating people by chopping them up. No. Islam doesn't command Muslims to do that.

David Wood said...


I agree that Ibn isn't worth responding to. He's decided to take the path that Osama Abdallah has taken.

However, I did post some thoughts on Ibn in the comments section of the previous post (after he tried FOUR TIMES to post an absurd theory involving my dad molesting me; these guys have some sick minds).

David Wood said...

Semper said: "You are supposed to be getting together with Zaatari and mustering up a response to my article."

That's interesting. Sami claims to have repented of his insults. Yet he is teaming up with Ibn, who can't post a comment without tossing in personal attacks.

Anthony Rogers said...

David et. al.,

Sorry for the confusion. Ibn never said he was going to team up with Zaatari. It was my suggestion to him since he thinks he has a way of rescuing Zaatari's aborted attack on the Trinity.

David Wood said...


That clears things up a bit. We won't take Ibn's insults as a reflection on any other Muslims then, until we see evidence that other Muslims support him.

Anonymous said...

Ah, new debates!

Anonymous said...

While I think it was a great show, I was a little disappointed when "Evolution is not a fact" came up. I would say it is but I still agree that this is not a cotradiction.

I think 2 excellent presentations on this can be watched here:

David Wood said...

I'd say it depends on what you mean by "evolution." If you mean "modification due to variation and natural selection," then of course it's a fact, and I know of no Christians who challenge this.

But if you mean the big picture of neo-Darwinian evolution (common descent of all organisms, repeated information-increasing beneficial mutations, etc.), then this certainly isn't a fact.

With that said, neo-Darwinian evolution is a good example of what I'm talking about, since most scientists would disagree with the most straightforward interpretation of the Genesis account. If I were making an Argument from Scientific Accuracy, then, after offering examples of scientifically accurate statements, I would either have to show (1) that the Genesis account lines up with the broad picture of evolutionary theory (by reinterpreting Genesis), (2) that the Darwinian picture is incorrect (and that the Genesis account is solid with no reinterpretation), or (3) that the instances of scientific accuracy in the Bible so completely overshadow any conflicts between science and Scripture that the argument stands in spite of difficulties. There would be no other way for such an argument to be successful.

As things stand, Muslims argue for the Qur'an based on scientific accuracy, despite the fact that (1) the Qur'an is filled with scientific inaccuracies (some of which cannot be rescued by any amount of reinterpretation), and (2) Muslims have no solid examples of scientifically accurate statements that weren't known prior to Muhammad's time. Since this is the case, the Muslim argument fails horribly. And yet this is the most popular argument for Islam in the world!

Anonymous said...

I would go as far as arguing that common descent is a proven fact and the literal interpretation of Genesis is incorrect, but that is really completely irrelevant here.

However, I think your 3 options give a good picture of what apologists could do.

I think (2) is the only option for someone who wants to use the argument from scientific accuracy.
(1) and (3) are simply begging the question. But since you can't really do (2), you can't use that argument.

David Wood said...

Can't show that the Darwinian picture is incorrect? How much have you studied this issue, Matthew? I'm a former atheist; my wife is a former agnostic. We were both biology majors in college (I was a double major in biology and philosophy; she was a triple major in biology, psychology, and philosophy). This was a secular school. I did my senior seminar on Intelligent Design. She did hers on the lack of vestigial organs. We both believe (contrary to our previous beliefs) that there are massive problems with Darwinism. Our advisor was the head of the graduate program in biology, and he completely rejects Darwinism (as do an increasing number of other scientists).

To say that (2) simply can't be refuted is a bit presumptuous, my friend.

Anonymous said...

Depends how you define "Darwinism".
All I said was that common descent is true, but that remains irrelevant.
Even if common descent was false, it does not follow that Genesis is completely correct. There is more than 1 creation-story.

This is completely off-topic, evolution is even related to the problem of evil.

It might seem absurd, but if I recall correctly, for life to evolve, you need carbon dioxide that is released into the atmosphere and for that you need moving continents, which also result in earthquakes, so allowing earthquakes is a higher good.

Anthony Rogers said...

"There is more than 1 creation-story."

I know, and I am sure looking forward to the second one. :)

Michelle Qureshi said...


What's the argument against vestigial organs? I'd be interested to hear that.