Defending and Commending the Faith With Dr. Joe L. Mott, inviting the atheist, agnostic and skeptic to examine for themselves the evidence for the Christian faith

About Defending and Commending the Faith With Dr. Joe L. Mott, inviting the atheist, agnostic and skeptic to examine for themselves the evidence for the Christian faith

Dr. Joe Mott earned his PhD at LSU, and was a distinguished math professor at Florida State University for 38 years years, helping to write 3 math textbooks, and authoring over 30 research articles in math.

Publisher

Joe Mott

Category

education · religion & spirituality

Language

en

Explicit

No

First episode

3 Aug 2020

Latest episode

5 Oct 2026

Latest episodes

295 episodes in the feed.

1. 

   5 Oct 2026

   False Ideas About Truth - Part 29 - Reasons Against Evolution

   References: (1) In the last 2 centuries challenges to the Christian worldview have increased in both intensity and sophistication. The skeptic’s criticism of Scripture, atheism touts that its worldview is the only scientific option, and socialism’s relentless push for political power have created a beachhead in the war of ideas. (2) This verse John 17:17 is interesting because Jesus did not use an adjective alethinos or alethes for “true,” which we might have expected Jesus to say, “Your word is true.” Rather, Jesus uses the noun aletheia (truth), to say that God’s word is not simply “true,” but it is truth itself. (3) Wayne Grudem says in his book Bible Doctrine, p. 41, “The difference is SIGNIFICANT, for this statement encourages us to think of the Bible not simply as being ‘true’ in the sense that it conforms to SOME HIGHER STANDARD OF TRUTH, but rather to think of the Bible as itself is the FINAL STANDARD of truth. . . . Thus, we are to think of the Bible as. . . . the REFERENCE POINT by which every other claim to truthfulness is to be MEASURED. Those assertions that conform with Scripture are ‘true’ while those that do not conform with Scripture are not true.” (4) “Pluralism is one aspect of an entire contemporary view of the world called postmodernism. Postmodernism would not simply hold that we can never find absolute truth; it would say that there is NO SUCH THING as absolute truth. All attempts to claim truth for one idea or another are just the result of our own background, culture, biases, and personal agendas (especially our desire for power). Such a view of the world is of course DIRECTLY OPPOSED to a biblical view, which sees the Bible as truth that has been given to us from God.” (5) This war of ideas has been raging for centuries, and has now reached a near eruption. C. S. Lewis, the great Christian apologist around the time of the WWII, recognized what is at stake in the battle of ideas when he declared, “To be ignorant and simple now — not to be able to meet the enemies ON THEIR OWN GROUND — would be to throw down our WEAPONS, and to BETRAY our . . . . brethren who have under God, NO DEFENCE . . . . against the INTELLECTUAL ATTACKS of the heathen. Good philosophy must exist, if for no other reason, because BAD PHILOSOPHY needs to be ANSWERED.” (6) Today there are 2 competing philosophies on the issue of the question of ORIGINS including the origin of LIFE and the origin of MORALITY. One is the theory of evolution, which says that all human beings are merely an ACCIDENT, evolved from a slimy ALGAE in the PRIMORDIAL SOUP. The other view is Gen. 1:1, which informs us, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” So the challenge is between either evolution or creation. (7) Evolution is one of those bad philosophies that needs to be answered. Evolution can be disputed by several lines of evidence, including a fossil record indicating NO CHANGE OVER TIME, and confirmation that MUTATIONS CANNOT ACCUMULATE. (8) Darwinism claims that the SMALL CHANGES seen in ADAPTATION can ACCUMULATE and lead to LARGE CHANGES over eons of time. In macroevolution, one kind of organism (such as a reptile) supposedly can become another kind of organism (such as a bird), requiring entirely new FEATURES, new body TYPES, and an entirely new DNA. But there is NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE for macroevolution. (9) Darwinian theory SPECULATES that species will PROGRESS, transitional links will be FOUND, so that new species will DEVELOP. That’s the evolutionist’s HOPE, but I will show when we discuss the book Darwin’s Bluff by Robert Shedinger that it has all turned out to be a PIPE DREAM because Darwin could not produce the evidence that he claimed he would eventually produce. (10) The information I share now was informed by an article from Earth’s Epic Tales, the book Fast Facts on False Teachings by Ron Carlson and Ed Decker, and other facts I have already discussed. a) We already know that spontaneous generation was refuted by Luis Pasteur et al. That is one tenet of Darwinian evolution that is refuted. b) Several fossil observations display a contradiction between gradualism and punctuated equilibrium, the Cambrian Explosion, and Michael Behe’s concept irreducible complexity. c) Lack of transitional links are missing from the fossil record. d) Some critics argue that Darwin's theory CONTRADICTS the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which states that natural systems tend to DEGENERATE DOWNWARD over time rather than EVOLVE UPWARD into more complex forms. They claim that this law suggests that life should become LESS DIVERSE and SPECIALIZED instead of MORE SO, making it difficult for evolutionary processes to explain the complexity observed in living organisms today. e) Some biological systems are too complex to have evolved by natural selection. Intelligent design proponents argue that certain biological systems, such as the EYE or BLOOD CLOTTING MECHANISM could not have evolved by natural selection. f) The former philosophy professor at UCLA Dallas Willard, says, “Evolution, whether cosmic or biological, CANNOT be a theory of ORIGINS. The operation of evolution PRESUPPOSES certain ENTITIES with specific BEHAVIORS and an ENVIRONMENT that operates on the entities in a prescribed manner. The entities, behaviors, and environment did not come about by evolution.” g) Teleological argument: Critics argue that the APPARENT DESIGN or PURPOSEFULNESS observed in living organisms suggests an INTELLIGENT DESIGNER rather than a random, natural process like DARWINIAN EVOLUTION by natural selection. They claim that this raises questions about the SUFFICIENCY of Darwin's theory to account for the COMPLEXITY and ORDER seen in nature. This is episode 296.

2. 

   28 Sept 2026

   False Ideas About Truth - Part 28 - Muncaster’s 3 Key Questions

   References: (1) When Darwin published On the Origin of Species in 1859, evolutionists combined the system of Carole Linnaeus developed in 1735 of classifying organisms based on the idea that common body structures belong in the same category. Humans have elbows as do apes, chickens, dogs, and bats — so Lennaeus placed them all in the same category. Darwin APPLIED Linnaeus’s classification, but MODIFIED it to support his own thesis that the species with organisms with similar body plans have the same COMMON ANCESTOR. (2) Muncaster continues, “Since evolution is based on Darwin’s concept of NATURAL SELECTION, it’s not surprising that evolutionists now use such similarities — even such ANTIQUATED ONES as those proposed 300 years ago by Linnaeus — as EVIDENCE for evolution today. But does this MAKE SENSE? It’s actually CIRCULAR REASONING — we assume that commonality of body parts means common ancestors, because of [Linnaeus’] classification system that takes as its basis commonality of body parts.” I don’t see the circularity here, but I do believe it is CONFUSED THINKING. (3) “Just because bats, chickens, dogs, [apes,] and men all have elbows, does that imply that they all come from the same ancestor? Isn’t it MORE LIKELY that a Designer DECIDED, that ‘elbows work’? Might not such a Designer decided to apply them to several types of mechanisms? For instance, human design engineer might say something like, ‘Let’s apply wheels to roller skates, bicycles, and cars — that system works for those things.’ Sometimes we try to make SIMPLE THINGS too complex.” (4) Muncaster suggests 3 KEY QUESTIONS about Darwin’s evolutionary tree and the geological column: (a) Is there any scientific basis for the neo-Darwinian tree of life? Or is it simply ARBITRARY? (b) Does the fossil record SUPPORT the TREE OF LIFE? Does it start with a few very primitive organisms from which others gradually appear over time? (c)Is the geologic column a TRUSTWORTHY GAUGE of time to begin with? (5) Muncaster begins to answer his 3 questions: (a) Is the tree of Life Scientific? Although the tree of life enjoyed much support for many years, recent knowledge from molecular biology and the analysis of species has CALLED INTO QUESTION the idea that evolution followed the path shown by it. (Muncaster wrote his book Dismantling Evolution in 2003. In that book he said, “However, textbooks have not yet caught up with this.” In my own experience, it is likely to still be true today.) Muncaster says, “Based on the above remarks, one would EXPECT the neo-Darwinist Mayr to REFUTE THE IDEA OF EVOLUTIONARY TREE OF LIFE.” However, in 1991, Mayr boldly stated, “There is probably no biologist left today who would QUESTION that all organisms now found on the earth have descended from a single origin of life.” Muncaster reports that in the years since Mayr made this statement, the support for it has been SHATTERED. He addresses the molecular problems in depth in 2 chapters of his book, “The Complexity of Living Cells” and “Chirality: There’s No Solution in Sight.” Due to limited time, I will not address these 2 chapters at this time. (b) The second question is whether or not the fossil record supports the concept of the evolutionary tree of life. Even in Darwin’s day, fossil evidence had been REVEALED that the Cambrian Explosion of life showing that a vast introduction of life included a broad variety of many FULLY FORMED phyla and classes of animals. Darwin was troubled by this revelation. He observed in his 1859 book Origin of Species: “IF numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life ALL AT ONCE, the fact would be FATAL to the theory of descent with slow modification through natural selection.” Well, that is exactly what has happened. Many paleontologists are NOW CONVINCED that the major groups of animals REALLY DID APPEAR ABRUPTLY in the Cambrian Explosion. The fossil evidence is SO STRONG, and the EVENT SO DRAMATIC, that the Cambrian Explosion has now become known as “biology’s big bang.” (c) Can we trust the geologic column as a gauge of time? The concept of the geologic column is mostly OBSERVATION. Though it is found in many textbooks, the interesting thing is that there really is NO SINGLE OBSERVABLE GEOLOGICAL COLUMN. (6) Since Darwin recognized the problems in substantiating his theory of evolution from the fossil record, so he tried a different tack. He hypothesized that evidence of EMBRYONIC SIMILARITIES would support his claims. Darwin and his followers believed that the basic life forms which existed in our past multi-million years of evolution are REPEATED IN HUMAN EMBRYOS during the first few months between conception and birth. In other words, as the human embryo develops, it passes through most of the major past evolutionary STAGES from which it was believed to have evolved. And almost by miracle the German biologist Ernst Haeckel (1834-1919) gave drawings that seemed to show similarities between embryos of various species. From the drawings, CONCLUSIONS were made that supported Darwinian evolution. (7) Since Darwin recognized the problems in substantiating his theory of evolution from the fossil record, so he tried a different tack. He hypothesized that evidence of EMBRYONIC SIMILARITIES would support his claims. Darwin and his followers believed that the basic life forms which existed in our past multi-million years of evolution are REPEATED IN HUMAN EMBRYOS during the first few months between conception and birth. In other words, as the human embryo develops, it passes through most of the major past evolutionary STAGES from which it was believed to have evolved. And almost by miracle the German biologist Ernst Haeckel (1834-1919) gave drawings that seemed to show similarities between embryos of various species. From the drawings, CONCLUSIONS were made that supported Darwinian evolution. (8) Since Darwin recognized the problems in substantiating his theory of evolution from the fossil record, so he tried a different tack. He hypothesized that evidence of EMBRYONIC SIMILARITIES would support his claims. Darwin and his followers believed that the basic life forms which existed in our past multi-million years of evolution are REPEATED IN HUMAN EMBRYOS during the first few months between conception and birth. In other words, as the human embryo develops, it passes through most of the major past evolutionary STAGES from which it was believed to have evolved. And almost by miracle the German biologist Ernst Haeckel (1834-1919) gave drawings that seemed to show similarities between embryos of various species. From the drawings, CONCLUSIONS were made that supported Darwinian evolution. (9) This theory — also commonly known by what Haeckel’s called “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.” This NOTION later became known simply as RECAPITULATION or THE BIOGENIC LAW. Let me state the law in different words: individual development repeats evolutionary descent, which means the development of the individual repeats the evolution of the RACE. The biogenic law was cited as one of the MAJOR PROOFS of Darwinian evolution for over a century. But as I have previously said these drawings and conclusions were shown to be FRAUDULENT. Mid-20th century discoveries in embryology and re-evaluation of the evidence showed that Haeckel’s theory was completely without foundation, and is now discarded by embryologists. Don’t you think that is appropriate to discard a theory when it is a fraud? This is episode 295.

3. 

   21 Sept 2026

   False Ideas About Truth - Part 27 - Criticisms of Darwin’s Conclusions

   References: (1) Allow me to refer to what Tom DeRosa said in his book Evolution’s Fatal Fruit.  “The stunning diversity of plants and animals that Darwin observed on his voyage [on the Beagle] made him ask the question: Why are there so many types of turtles, lizards, birds, insects, etc., to be observed across the world? And why do these kinds of animals and plants all SEEM to be perfectly ADAPTED to their geographic environment? As he toured the Galápagos Islands, he struggled to understand why these islands had such UNIQUE creatures, which nonetheless ROUGHLY correspond to animals observed on the continent. He discovered in South America the fossils of GIANT EXTINCT ANIMALS, such as an 18-foot-tall SLOTH and a 5-foot-long ARMADILLO. These exciting finds led to more questions about why the  body plan of these extinct animals so closely corresponded, except for size, to their contemporary COUNTERPARTS.” (2) “The conclusion Darwin came to from all this was that change is taking place through time, which is [the simplest definition] of evolution. ‘It was evident,” Darwin wrote in his Autography, ‘that such facts as these, as well as many others, could ONLY BE EXPLAINED on the supposition that species GRADULLY MODIFIED; and the subject HAUNTED ME.” (3) Then DeRosa makes his own comments: “These modifications that “haunted” Darwin can be BEST EXPLAINED, not as evolution, but as VARIATION within the sloth or armadillo kind. Could the huge size of these fossils be due to GIGANTISM? The tallest man in medical history measured 8 feet 11 inches, while the smallest tribe of pygmies, from Zaire, Africa, can be as small as 4 feet 1 inch. Despite the size range, both are STILL HUMAN.” (4) What about the modifications in the plumage or beak size of birds? Is this evolution? How would we KNOW? If we do not know how to define a SPECIES, how can we know when enough change takes place to constitute “transmutation,” which is Darwin’s term for evolution from one species into another.” That is, what Darwin means is MACROevolution. It is certainly a change WITHIN A SPECIES so it is MICROevolution. My question becomes: Is a species the same as what Genesis calls a kind? (5) The point of controversy is whether modifications may be SO EXTENSIVE that microevolution leaps beyond the SPECIES BOUNDARY and at some point becomes MACROevolution. But here is the fly in the buttermilk, since “species” is NOT DEFINED, it is IMPOSSIBLE to say when the SPECIES BARRIER IS BROKEN. This VAGUE DEFINITION makes it possible to say that small changes or large changes can be said to produce a new “species.” But how can that conclusion be CERTAIN? (6) DeRosa points out: “These “facts” include Darwin’s MISTAKEN ASSUMPTIONS that later had to be CHANGED. So, how RELIABLE are Darwin’s assertions that are based on inferences that can’t be tested? On what BASIS can he assert that his “facts” will bring to light to that “mystery of mysteries” — the origin of species? (7) Niles Eldredge claims that finches beak changes are one of the MOST COMPELLING ARGUMENTS that led Darwin to his theory of evolution. Really? There is no evidence whatsoever that finches changed to another species. They still remained FINCHES. In fact, the finches DO NOT SUPPORT EVOLUTION at all, but are great examples of variation WITHIN a kind. DeRosa reports that the Princeton zoologist Carl Wieland reported in Creation magazine vol. 14 (3): pp. 22-23 that after years of study the Galapagos finch population DID CHANGE WITH ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS. During drought years, finches with larger, deeper beaks grew in number. This was because the traditional finch food supply of smaller seeds was soon depleted, which favored finches with beaks built to succeed when the food supply changed. But what happens when the rain returns? Does beak size change again? The answer is yes. What Darwin observed was an INCOMPLETE PICTURE. It was not possible for Darwin to get an ACCURATE ASSESSMENT of how finch beaks varied based on just ONE VISIT. (8) Professor Louis Bounoure of biology at the University of Strasbourg, author of the 1957 book “Determinism and Finality,” declared, “Evolution is a FAIRY TALE for grown-ups. This theory has HELPED NOTHING in the progress of science. It is USELESS.” He also said: “Evolutionism would appear as theory WITHOUT VALUE.” (9) Ray Comfort, a New Zealand evangelical minister living in America, author of several books, television host, and the founder of The Way of the Master remarked in his book “Scientific Facts in the Bible, “We are continually told that evolution is SCIENTIFIC, that it is a PROVEN FACT, and that the Bible is merely a COLLECTION OF MYTHS. However, strange though it may sound, it is EVOLUTION that is a collection of myths and the Bible is a proven fact.” (10) Ray Comfort said, “Evolution is INTELLECTUAL SUICIDE. It is an EMBARASSMENT.” (11) The theory of punctuated equilibrium by Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldridge incorporates the Cambrian Explosion that suggests periods of RAPID CHANGE followed by long periods of STASSIS or stability. In my mind that REFUTES  gradualism. The microbiologist from Lehigh University Michael Behe determined that his concept of irreducible complexity of organisms clearly refutes gradualism. This is episode 294.

Reach and audience

Public platform figures. Ratings count people who left a rating, not total listeners.

Apple Podcasts (US)

3.3 / 5

7 ratings

Spotify

5.0 / 5

1 ratings