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.
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
Claim This Podcastby Joe Mott
3.5(8 reviews)
284 episodes
Updated Daily
Accepts GuestsHas SponsorsLocation 🇺🇸
Podcast Overview
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.
Language
🇺🇲
Publishing Since
8/3/2020
1 verified contact email on file for 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
Pitch yourself as a guest, propose sponsorships, or reach out directly to the host.
Recent Episodes
July 20, 2026
False Ideas About Truth - Part 18 - Additional Questions About Darwinian Evolution
References: (1) Many people have been taught evolution as an UNQUESTIONABLE FACT while being UNAWARE of the numerous historical errors, frauds, exaggerations, and premature conclusions that have appeared in its defense. (2) Remember Science is performed by fallible people. A PREDETERMINED BIAS can influence scientific conclusions. Incorrect ideas sometimes remain in textbooks for decades. Scientific consensus does not guarantee the truth. (3) Darwin acknowledged that there were “a crowd of difficulties” with his theory and stated, “Some of them are SO SERIOUS that to this day I can HARDLY REFLECT on them without being in some degree STAGGERED; but, to the best of my judgment, the greater number are ONLY APPARENT, and those that ARE REAL are not, I think, FATAL to the theory.” (4) Notice one thing about Darwin’s response at the end of the above quotation: Objections to his theory are not fatal. He offers no evidence for that claim. That relegates his response to just an OPINION. Here is basic fact in my mind: Opinions DO NOT SOLVE scientific problems. (5) The consequences for man — of Darwins’ theory — were clear. Man was no longer at the center of the living world. The human was not a created Being made in the image of God. Neither was the human the product of a Divine Plan — evolution does NOT have a plan. (6) E. J. Larson, author of the 2002 book The Theory of Evolution: A History of Controversy writes on p. 58 “that Darwin did what he could to document his view that natural selection was a PLAUSIBLE MECHANISM — not necessarily the BEST mechanism, but at least a plausible one, because he needed at least SOME MECHANISM that was better than Lamarck’s theory, in order to have people buy into his theory of evolution. His mechanism was natural selection.” (7) Of course, artificial selection no more PROVES evolution than the fact that humans have built computers proves that a computer can evolve solely by natural means without intelligence. (8) Most surprisingly, Darwin RETREATED BACK to the DISCREDITED theory of evolution due to Lamarck, which postulated that biological characteristics acquired during one’s lifetime could be passed onto one’s offspring. (9) B. Houston, author of the 2012 book Natural God: Deism in the Age of Intelligent Design, wrote that for Darwin, even the term “evolve” itself evolved. In the first edition of Origin of the Species published in 1859, [Darwin] uses only forms of the word “descent” rather than “evolution.” Not until the sixth edition, published in 1872, does Darwin use the word evolution (found on p. 124 of Natural God). (10) Cambridge University professor Peter Vorzimmer wrote in an article entitled “Charles Darwin and blending inheritance” in Isis vol. 54, 1963, p. 371 that “the evolutionary writings of Charles Darwin. . . . in the latter part of his life, when CONTRASTED with the Origin of Species in 1859, indicate a considerable CHANGE in his evolutionary thought over the intervening years . . . . the overall CHANGE effected appears GREAT and the resultant view nearly ANTITHETICAL to that of the first edition of the Origin, . . . . [and] such a RADICAL CHANGE could not be looked upon merely as a MODIFICATION of an earlier view, but as an ADOPTION of a DISTINCTLY new one.” (11) In the introduction to a 1971 edition of Darwin’s book, the biologist L. Harrison Matthews observes, “The fact of evolution is the BACKBONE of biology, and biology is thus in a PECULIAR POSITION of being a science founded on an UNPROVED THEORY — is it then a SCIENCE or a FAITH? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus EXACTLY PARALLEL to belief in SPECIAL CREATION — both are CONCEPTS which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, had been able to prove.” (12) Michael Behe is the American microbiologist who introduced the concept of irreducible complexity in his book Darwin’s Black Box. He argues that some biological systems, like the eye, are IRREDUCIBLY COMPLEX — that is, they consist of multiple interacting parts, ALL OF WHICH ARE NECESSARY for the system’s PRESENT FUNCTION. According to Behe, such systems could not have arisen through the GRADUAL ACCUMULATION of small, beneficial mutations envisioned by Darwinian evolution because the system would not function until ALL THE PARTS were present. For example, all parts of a mouse trap must be present for it to work as a mouse trap. If even one part is missing, it will not work. (13) I would say there is no conceivable way to account naturally for their development. Therefore, there must be an INTELLIGENT DESIGNER. This is episode 285.
July 13, 2026
False Ideas About Truth - Part 17 - More Questions About Darwinian Evolution
References: (1) Question 8. Does the Cambrian Explosion prove Darwin’s theory of evolution? (2) Darwin predicted that in the fossil record we would find EVIDENCE that life would begin SIMPLY and would progress into BIG DIFFERENCES. But the Cambrian Explosion refutes that prediction and thus DOES NOT SUPPORT DARWIN’s THEORY of evolution. (3) Question 9. Was there a gradual transition from an ape to human? (4) Despite the illustrations in textbooks showing a march of beings in an ascending row that displays a gradual transition from a small chimpanzee to a regular sized ape to an even larger transition figure and eventually to a human, no evidence is offered to support that illustration because it is NOT THERE. Virtually every “missing link” or “find” has turned out to be APE-LIKE and NON HUMAN, not a transition kind of an ape-man. In fact, some so-called “finds” were deliberate HOAXES. (5) Charles Darwin was worried that the fossil record did not show what his theory predicted. In the 6th edition of The Origin of Species he wrote: “Why is not EVERY GEOLOGICAL FORMATION which can be urged and EVERY STRATUM full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this is the most obvious and serious OBJECTION which can be urged against the theory.” (6) This means that Darwin’s theory is REFUTED. In EVERY OTHER SCIENTIFIC DOMAIN — in mathematics, physics, chemistry, astronomy, computer science, and perhaps in geology, meteorology, oceanography, and even in philosophy — if such a counterexample is displayed against their theory, then the theory would be abandoned. But not so in Darwinian theory. THAT is NOT SCIENCE; that’s burying your head in the sand and keeping your mind closed. The mind is like a parachute; it only works when it is open. (7) However, if different kinds had been created SEPARATELY, the fossil record should show creatures appearing ABRUPTLY AND FULLY FORMED. That is what the Cambridge Explosion shows. Shouldn’t the general public and the scientific community be open to the possibility of creation? (8) Richard Leakey, in his time the world’s foremost paleoanthropologist, said, “If pressed about man’s ANCESTRY, I would have to UNEQUIVOCALLY SAY that all we have is a HUGE QUESTION MARK. . . . If, further pressed, I would have to state that there is MORE EVIDENCE to suggest an ABRUPT ARRIVAL of man rather than a GRADUAL PROCESS of evolving.” (9) The renowned Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould wrote in the book Evolution Now: A Century After Darwin edited by John Maynard Smith, p. 140: “The ABSENCE of fossil evidence for INTERMEDIATE STAGES between major transitions in organic design, indeed in our INABILITY, even in our IMAGINATION, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a PERSISTENT AND NAGGING PROBLEM for gradualistic accounts of evolution.” (10) You might recall that Gould is the one who said, “Evolution is a fact, fact, fact.” It seems to me that he should have considered the fossil record before making that comment. If he had, then he should have said, “ Evolution is dubious, dubious, dubious.” This is episode 284.
July 6, 2026
False Ideas About Truth - Part 16 - Questions and Answers About Darwinian Evolution
References: (1) An important topic in any discussion of Darwinian evolution is the major problem of blunders, frauds, and forgeries made by evolutionists. How can anyone consider Darwinian evolution to be TRUE if it is characterized by frauds? Would you purchase an insurance policy if the company has a record of frauds? No, but many people accept Darwinian evolution despite its connection with frauds and forgeries. (2) Question 4: Does the Miller-Urey experiment prove that LIFE can be built by natural process? (3) No, the conclusions drawn from the Miller-Urey experiment are no longer considered RELEVANT by the scientific community. In fact, the experiment has been CRITICIZED FOR UNREALISTIC ASSUMPTIONS about early earth atmospherical conditions, methodological FLAWS, and LIMITED APPLICABILITY to the actual origin of life. When it comes to the Miller-Urey experiment things continue to go WRONG and its significance for the origin-of-life question is now perceived as an INVALID EXPERIMENT and IRRELEVANT in terms of justifying the origin of life. The scientific CONSENSUS VIEW of early earth’s atmospheric constituents has CHANGED since the 1950s. (4) Question 5: Do all scientists accept Darwin’s theory of evolution at the cellular level? (5) At present, the scientific mainstream accepts evolutionary mechanisms as the BEST-SUPPORTED EXPLANATION for the diversity and complexity of life, while recognizing that IMPORTANT QUESTIONS — especially concerning the origin of life and the detailed evolutionary history of some molecular systems — REMAIN ACTIVE AREAS of investigation. The disagreement is therefore not over whether cells are extraordinarily complex (they are), but over whether known evolutionary mechanisms are SUFFICIENT TO EXPLAIN how that complexity arose. (6) Question 6. Do the changes in finch beaks, or the changes due to selective breeding, prove Darwin’s theory of evolution? (7) Finch beaks changing is only microevolution which all agree is true. Selective breeding is not “environmental natural factors” as required by Darwin’s theory. Darwin’s theory includes macroevolution where species lead to new species. This has never been observed. (8) Question 7. Does the fossil record support Darwin’s theory of evolution? (9) No, Darwin predicted that IF his theory were correct, there should be evidence that simple life forms gradually developed into more and more complex organisms. Paleontologists generally state that the fossil record does NOT SUPPORT Darwin’s theory in 2 major ways: (a) Animal types tend to appear SUDDENLY (as in the Cambrian Explosion) not gradually, as Darwin predicted. Therefore, each animal type is missing its link to its former ancestor. (b) Animals tend to remain UNCHANGED throughout their time on earth (NOT SLOWLY DEVELOPING into new forms as Darwin predicted). This is episode 283.
284 total episodes available
Deep-dive analytics for 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
Frequently asked questions
Have a different question and can't find the answer you're looking for? Reach out to our support team by sending us an email and we'll get back to you as soon as we can.
- What is 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?
- How often does this podcast release new episodes?
This podcast updates daily.
- Where can I listen to this podcast?
This podcast is available on 9 platforms including Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and more. You can also use the RSS feed directly.
- Does this podcast accept guests?
Information about guest appearances is not available.
Legal Disclaimer
Pod Engine is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or officially connected with any of the podcasts displayed on this platform. We operate independently as a podcast discovery and analytics service.
All podcast artwork, thumbnails, and content displayed on this page are the property of their respective owners and are protected by applicable copyright laws. This includes, but is not limited to, podcast cover art, episode artwork, show descriptions, episode titles, transcripts, audio snippets, and any other content originating from the podcast creators or their licensors.
We display this content under fair use principles and/or implied license for the purpose of podcast discovery, information, and commentary. We make no claim of ownership over any podcast content, artwork, or related materials shown on this platform. All trademarks, service marks, and trade names are the property of their respective owners.
While we strive to ensure all content usage is properly authorized, if you are a rights holder and believe your content is being used inappropriately or without proper authorization, please contact us immediately at hey@podengine.ai for prompt review and appropriate action, which may include content removal or proper attribution.
By accessing and using this platform, you acknowledge and agree to respect all applicable copyright laws and intellectual property rights of content owners. Any unauthorized reproduction, distribution, or commercial use of the content displayed on this platform is strictly prohibited.