I am writing tonight with a heavy heart, as I was doing some research for my lesson plan on evolution and creation for my teaching application – I found some downright disturbing facts. Actually, as much as they were on attacks on God they cried out to me as the ranting of bitter and cynical atheists. In fact, I find it somewhat comical that this is how they base their “lack of evidence” theory 1) “If God were to exist, then there would be good objective evidence for his existence.” 2) “There is no good objective evidence for his existence.” 3) “Therefore, probably God doesn’t exist.” (exert from : GOD- The Failed Hypothesis By Victor J. Stenger, 22)
Another one of my favorite quotes from this guys book: “The assertions that science does not study the supernatural and that supernatural hypotheses are untestable are factually incorrect.” (exert from : GOD- The Failed Hypothesis By Victor J. Stenger, 28)
My commentary on this: First he asks, if God were to exist there would be evidence, and then he says without fact or proof that ”probably” God doesn’t exist due to lack of evidence. However, he then goes on to say a few pages to the right that science does not study or test the supernatural how then can he say with certainty that the existence of God is “factually incorrect”????? Does any of this bother anyone else? I mean seriously, this man is suppose to be a prominent scientist or in other words an intellectual thinker and this is what he comes up with. Well, I am at least somewhat entertained by his apparent lack of common sense.
Here is another one from a prominent atheist/ scientist Richard Dawkins: “Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of even, perhaps because of lack of evidence … faith, being belief that isn’t based on evidence, is the principle vice of any religion.” (Is Science a Religion? Richard Dawkins, 57)
Dawkins has forgotten that the evolutionary fossil records are far from complete. If we were to base things on fact- evolution could not withstand as truth due to the amount of holes that are present in this theory. I guess he is also saying that his belief in evolution is not based on faith as well? HAHAHA (good one!)
“There are good reasons to believe in God, including the existence of mathematical principles and order in creation. They are positive reasons based on knowledge rather than default assumptions based on temporary lack of knowledge.” ( The Language of God, Francis S. Collins, 93)
“Science is the only reliable way to understand the natural world and its tools when properly utilized can generate profound insights into the material existence. But science is powerless to answer such questions as “why did the universe come into existence?” “what is the meaning of human existence?” or what happens after we die?”. One of the strongest motivations of humankind is to seek answers to profound questions. We need to bring all the power of both the scientific and spiritual perspectives to bear and understanding about what is seen and unseen.” (The Language of God, Francis S. Collins, 93)
Another point I liked reading this weekend: “Agape or selfless altruism, presents a major challenge for the evolutionist. It is quite firmly a scandal to reductionist reasoning. It cannot be accounted for by the drive of an individual’s selfish genes to perpetuate themselves. Quite the contrary: it may lead humans to make sacrifices that lead to great personal suffering, injury or death, without any evidence of benefit. (The Language of God, Francis S. Collins, 27)
I think the implication of evolution is clear; it is the human attempt to say with certainty that this is how and why the world formed and how we as humans came to be. It is the attempt to say with seemingly good reason that because we can’t see God and don’t have “proof of Him” that he can’t exist. On the other hand, they are over looking the obvious fact that they don’t have all the answers themselves. It appears that in an attempt to find these answers they are reaching for anything that will seemingly explain all of these complicated questions and even the faintest absurdity will be considered as fact. In the process, a lot of these scientists / atheists are mad at God and see him as being a nonsensical entity. They blame God for all the worlds’ problems however can I lovingly remind everyone that it is humans that have caused this on their own. If you honestly think about it - a lot of human suffering is brought about by what we do to one another. It is humankind, not God that has invented knives, arrows, guns, bombs just to name a few. We should not blame God for the consequences of these instruments being misused. Also, we cannot criticize God because He gave us a free will to do as we please. He would not have been a loving God if He had made us His slaves – rather He wanted to have a relationship and fellowship with us. Therefore, we cannot blame God when we choose to use our free will in a destructive manner against our fellow man in any context. I am sure there are many more hardships that humans have created for themselves that God gets blamed for on a daily basis. It is incredibly sad that people turn their backs on God: who created them for a purpose. They would rather sell themselves short by not believing they have purpose and reducing themselves to being merely an animal with instincts. This is the very basis of evolution: if it feels good do it and what is best for you. It is a very heathenistic view of the world which will leave one thirsting for something more.
In my opinion, being a creationist means that you believe that the bible and true science are in full harmony with each other and that there is no need to “check your brain at the door” when entering a church. I could go into more details about how science and the bible coincide but that would make this post entirely too long! Perhaps, I will write that in the future. ;O)
I will leave this post with is a story written by William Paley in 1802.
In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone and were asked how the stone came to be there. I might possibly answer that for anything I knew to the contrary it had lain there forever. Nor would it perhaps be very easy to show the absurdity of this answer. But suppose I had found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place; I should hardly think of the answer I had given before, that for anything I knew the watch might have been there …. The watch must have had a maker: that there must have existed at some point in time, and some place or other artificer who formed it for a purpose which we find it to actually answer; who comprehended its construction and designed it’s use. Every indication of contrivance, every manifestation of design, which existed in the watch, exists in the works of nature, with the difference on the side of nature, of being greater or more, and that in a degree which exceeds all computation.”
What are the points being made in this complex writing?
1) The watch is complex
2) the watch had an intelligent designer
3) life is complex
4) life has to have an intelligent designer
“The elegance behinds life’s complexity is indeed reason for awe and for belief in God.” Francis Collins – Head of the Human Genome Project
No comments:
Post a Comment