The realization of a creator [or The Creator] is NOT apathetic knowledge. In other words, when the discovery is made that we ARE created--we ARE purposed--and there is Someone out there Who is more powerful than us, then we are forced to take some ensuing actions. Few people can realize that God exists and toss that fact off to the side without investigating it further.
Of course, all those who believe in a creator are not Christians. They don't necessarily feel any conviction to live right, or to live for the "right" God. But it really bugs me when someone says that we should focus on telling people about "the love of Jesus." In reality, someone who doesn' t believe in God is NOT going to believe in God's SON. Someone who doesn't believe in the Christian definition of sin and evil is NOT going to see "a need for a Savior." Someone Who doesn't believe in a Creator Who created the entire universe will not believe in a Creator Who "created" a book filled with His words [The Bible].
Here's a few examples of works by atheists: Jesus is Imaginary; Was Jesus Gay?; Before Jesus [there was Krishna].
The simple fact is this: You can believe in a creator without believing in Jesus [being a Christian], but you can't believe in Jesus [be a Christian] without believing in the Creator.
We should note both parts of this statement:
First of all, yes, you can believe in a creator without being a Christian. That's obvious. Here's a super-short list of non-Christian belief systems that make room for a Creator, noting that MOST religions have an inherent god:
Deism
Agnosticism (doesn't know if there's a God)
Mormonism
Jehovah's Witnesses
Catholicism
Islam
Judeism
...........
In fact, before recent times (the last 300 or 400 years, let's say), it was majoritatively conceded that God, Who created, existed. But we know that much evil has always been in the world: it hasn't just been recently--since a creator was rejected--that immorality has surfaced. People have been willing to ignore the existence of a Creator (rather than deny one) or create a god of their own to be the universe's creator (rather than deny one completely).
Even today, some statistics show that anywhere from sixty to ninety percent of people (especially in America) believe in God. But, when you look at modern facts of life such as abortion, Evolution, prayer out of schools, Ten Commandments out of schools and courthouses, the push for homosexual rights, and restrictions attempting to be put on military chaplains, it can be clearly recognized that most believers in God are not Christians--or at least true ones.
That's where some people and organizations criticize Intelligent Design. Answers in Genesis, for one, which is dedicated "to upholding the Scriptures from the very first verse," doesn't like Intelligent Design for several reasons: 1.) Intelligent Design doesn't point to any particular god as Creator; 2.) Intelligent Design doesn't use or defend the Bible, but rather "discovers" God naturally; and 3.) There are some problems that Intelligent Design can't solve.
Answers in Genesis is correct on all accounts. But there are a few reasons why Christians should not abandon the Intelligent Design Movement, in my opinion.
First off, Christians should support Intelligent Design for the sake of the schools and schoolchildren. Though it's difficult, I admit that the God of the Bible should not (or at least never will be) taught in the science class--or else, yes, in the sake of American religious diversity and equality, every other god-theory would also have to be taught--unless, of course, such a vast majoritative percentage of the American population became Christian that Christianity could be taught in schools without incident . Answers in Genesis, in all likelihood, will never get into the public schools' curriculums. Their efforts are centered on getting the truth directly into the hands, minds, and hearts of students so that they can defy secular falsehoods and theories which are taught as fact. That's a noble and worthwhile endeavor, and I fully support it.
Intelligent Design, on the other hand, no matter what some atheist wants to tell you, IS as unbiased as can be expected--in other words, it is no more biased than the atheistic Theory of Evolution. Its theories, like "Irreducible Complexity," are often much more intelligent and logical than anything Evolution puts forth. Intelligent Design CAN and SHOULD get into the schools, if nothing else, than as an alternate to the Theory of Evolution. Though it's not a guarantee that children will come to Christ because of Intelligent Design, Intelligent Design is certainly a step forward from the science of atheism/secular humanism: Evolution.
Secondly, Christians should support Intelligent Design because it personifies Romans 1:20. Although the Christian has God revealed to him/her through God's Holy Word, anyone can have God revealed to them as Creator through His glorious, magnificent, complex, beautiful, designed creation. Restating what I've said before, no one can become a Christian before first believing in Christ, Who is part of the creating Trinity Godhead (John 1:1). Therefore, we can come to the conclusion that, no, Intelligent Design is not enough, but, it's a start--one of many creationist starts, but a leading, powerful, and effective one that should not be thrown away.
Thirdly, Christians should support Intelligent Design because, like in the schools, Intelligent Design can reach places where more devout biblical creationism cannot. In many intellectual circles and colleges and the like, Intelligent Design is considered and accepted before any other creation theory. Is it watered down? Yes. But perhaps the best thing for Christians to do is build up people's "tolerance" to "God-talk." Intelligent Design now, Answers in Genesis later? Maybe. It's already happening in individuals' lives; perhaps it can become commonplace on a massive scale.
Fourthly, Christians should support Intelligent Design so that Christianity won't become a "kingdom divided against itself" in yet another area. I heard one statistic the other day that said--worldwide--that there are NINE THOUSAND CHRISTIAN DENOMINATIONS. That in and of itself "waters down" Christianity's influence. A pie cut into nine thousand pieces does not feed and satisfy nine thousand people--it starves nine thousand. All agree that there's a Creator--however they might deviate from Scripture. But it seems that all do not agree about the way to PROVE a Creator. Though I would disagree with some ways to prove God (for instance, I would not support the "flipped a coin and it landed on heads, therefore God" method), I think the differences held between some Christians who oppose Intelligent Design and those who support it are too small, trivial, and/or reconcilable to terminate the progress which the movement has already made and is currently making.
Epilogue: Witnessing
Ultimately, the origins debate--from the Christian perspective--is all about salvation. What's the point of proving that we are created if the people who realize this don't get saved? They are lost all the same.
When witnessing to an atheist, Christians can do one of two things. If a person has already been prepared by the Holy Spirit, they can cut straight to the person's heart [conscience]; however, if the person is a staunch and hard-hearted atheist who answers every sincere attempt with "I don't believe in God, I don't believe in the Bible, I don't believe in Jesus, I don't believe in evil or 'sin,'" then first you must show that person the logic and inevitably of a Creator, since an atheist has blinded himself and scarred his conscience for the sake of denying a Creator.
~Kingdom Advancer
14 comments:
Just a note here:
When writing an article like this, it can become really confusing when to capitalize "creator" and when not to, and when to capitalize "God" and when not to. (See, did I even do that last sentence right? ;)) Anyway, just wanted to put that disclaimer here in case you see a mistake that I didn't catch.
The thing about intelligent design is that it is a philosophical theory. It belongs in philosophy classroom not the science one. In fact the first records of this argument used in intelligent design, the teleological argument (argues for the existence of god based on perceived evidence of order, purpose, design and/or direction in nature), is in Plato’s work. Furthermore the scientific theory of evolution does not rule out existence of a god. Actually there isn’t any scientific theory in any scientific field that rules out the existence of god. Science only tries to explain the natural world and it will never be able to make any sort of statements about god. People sometimes tend to take scientific theories and philosophy them. Just like Newton’s Third Law of motion, “for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.” This theory just describes physical interaction it has nothing to do with human interactions but some people like to use it as a philosophy for their human interaction. Also just like the scientific theory of evolution. It has nothing to do with the existence of god or not. It only describes the evolution of animal due to natural phenomena ie. mutation, habitat adaptation, etc. The theory says nothing about god. It can very well be god’s master plan to have things evolve in that manner or there might not be a god to over see evolution. Whatever the answer is, it is out the realm of evolution to answer or science for that matter. If you support intelligent design then support it for what it is, a philosophical argument for the existence of an intelligent creator. If you support/don’t support the scientific theory of evolution then support/don’t support it for what it is not for what some people try to philosophy about it.
As for Intelligent Design not being science: theories in Intelligent Design such as "irreducible complexity" are scientific, mathematical, and logical theories. Whatever "philosophies," as you say, which they come up are probably just logical conclusions, with which scientists often come up.
As for "Evolution not denying the existence of god": Two things:
1.) Well, to be honest, I believe in evolution!!! MICRO-EVOLUTION. So, in that way, I believe that God designed natural processes (you know, like genetic potential and gene pools, etc.) to give us all of our types and breeds of dogs, different skin colors of people, and different beaks of finches, just to name a few examples.
2.) However, saying that macro-evolution does not deny the existence of God is simply beating around the bush. Evolution denies the NECESSITY of God. Not to mention that most evolutionists are atheists or agnostics. Also, the Christian who believes in macro-evolution is generally deciding to listen to mostly atheistic scientists rather than the inspired Word of God. Thirdly, similar to my second point, the person who believes God used macro-evolution must believe that God used a horrific, cruel, bloody method of designing humans, animals, and the rest of the universe,filled with failures and death. On the other hand, the Bible says that God created the universe and all its inhabitants and "saw that it was good." God did not cause death; man did.
Fourthly, the person who believes that God created the process of macro-evolution is literally saying that 'God DESIGNED a CHANCE process.'
The one thing I can agree with you on is that scientific method cannot prove God or disprove Him, because we cannot go back in time and re-enact the beginning over and over again in a controlled environment to observe God create the universe or the "big" do the "bang" (or any other evolutionary theory). However, as evolutionists try to observe the world around them and ATTEMPT to show the probability of their god-less theories, Intelligent Design advocates observe nature's complexity and DO show the logical probability of a designer.
You both are correct that science cannot ever prove or disprove God. That's not within the realm of science.
Macroevolution only seems to deny the necessity of God. The truth is, even if it were true, it would not deny the necessity of God.
The anonymous comment pointed out that if we're not going to believe in evolution, it should be because of science, not philosophy. You can disbelieve evolution because of science, or because of your belief in the Bible, but don't disbelieve it because of philosophical assumptions that you think relate to God. Also, an important distinction - Belief in God does not contradict evolution, but belief in the Bible does, or at least it seems that way.
I don't believe in macroevolution for many reasons, most of which are scientific. I didn't approach the subject from the perspective of "I don't want this to be true, so I'm going to search for evidence that it's false," as many people do. Rather, I just went at it objectively, and after getting past public school indoctrination, I was overwhelmed by the evidence against macroevolution. Darwin thought, reasonably, that if small changes occur over small periods of time, then large changes could occur over millions of years. He was clearly wrong, because our DNA only allows for a certain amount of adaptation. In Darwin's time, this was not known, but now it is, and it's amazing to see how the media all but brainwashes people into believing the false hypothesis of evolution. Of course, the scientific info. gets a lot more complicated than I've mentioned here, but I don't have time to go into all the details.
This is important - when arguing with atheists and agnostics about the existence of God, it is fruitless to talk about evolution. God can exist even with macroevolution, and macroevolution does not in any way take away the necessity of God, as you said. First prove God, then prove the Bible. The Bible makes no sense without God. Evolution debates can wait, since they have nothing to do with the existence of God.
A few additions to your list of non-Christian religions that realize that there is only one god.
Sihkism
Zoroastrianism
There was also an Egyptian Pharaoh who realized there must be exactly one god, no more, no less, but he mistakenly assumed that this god was an object in nature - the sun - instead of Spirit. This is not surprising, considering he didn't know what the sun was, but of course, many other religions realized that God had to be more than something in the material world, even before they understood what the sun was.
"The truth is, even if it were true, it would not deny the necessity of God." --Austin
1.) But isn't that what most evolutionists are trying to say? "Look! Evolution! We don't need God! And even if there is a god, then it's probably not the God of the Bible!"
2.) When you look at Evolution as a completely random process that somehow became successful (if it were true, of course), starting with a Big Bang involving chemicals that have existed eternally, compacted in an infinitely small package...you have to admit that although Evolution doesn't make the claim that God could not have controlled Evolution, it does make the claim that God WOULDN'T HAVE HAD TO CONTROL OR DESIGN EVOLUTION. Therefore, God would not be a necessity.
"Also, an important distinction - Belief in God does not contradict evolution, but belief in the Bible does..." --Austin
I meant to say that, but I'm not sure I did as clearly as you. Maybe this: "Also, the Christian who believes in macro-evolution is generally deciding to listen to mostly atheistic scientists rather than the inspired Word of God."
On your next two paragraphs:
There is a boatload worth of reasons I don't believe in macro-evolution:
1.) Science
2.) Logic
3.) Common Sense
4.) The Holy Spirit
5.) My relationship with God
"I didn't approach the subject from the perspective of "I don't want this to be true, so I'm going to search for evidence that it's false," as many people do."--Austin
I think there might be a misconception here:although you may be right about some, some approach macro-evolution knowing what IS true--that God created. Those, like me, who believe the Bible as the inspired Word of God, generally make the conclusion that God created in six days, without death, failure, or evolution involved. Salvation of Christ, a relationship with God, and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit leads a person to a certainty similar to the peace a Christian has: it "passes all understanding."
"This is important - when arguing with atheists and agnostics about the existence of God, it is fruitless to talk about evolution. God can exist even with macroevolution, and macroevolution does not in any way take away the necessity of God, as you said. First prove God, then prove the Bible. The Bible makes no sense without God. Evolution debates can wait, since they have nothing to do with the existence of God. "--Austin
I disagree. I'm sure you've heard of "irreducible complexity" and you pointed out that Evolution is insanely false and implausible. So, if you can prove that to an atheist or agnostic, you've not only proven to them that God exists, but you've already started to narrow down HOW God created or WHICH God "is" God.
If you are trying to get somebody to admit that God "might" exist, by all means, don't talk about Evolution. Go over to Beepbeep's blog and she'll admit to you that "God might have created, but the big spaghetti and meatball monster might have created too." As I said, what's the point of proving that we were created or might have been created if our arguments don't lead to the Bible?
The fact is, conceding the possibility of macro-evolution in the face of scientific evidence, logic, and Christianity's beliefs, is already a defeat. You can't prove the Bible's six days, no evolution account if you don't disprove Evolution while you're at it. You can't prove with certainty God's existence if you admit that God might've used Evolution, which theorizes that no god is necessary.
"A few additions to your list of non-Christian religions that realize that there is only one god."--Austin
Thanks. I wasn't really trying to create a comprehensive list, but I appreciate it.
The list probably goes on for ages, if you included all obscure, obsolete, and unpopular religions.
Now, I know Austin knows that I want him to comment, but I also wanted to thank anonymous for commenting. Sometimes I come across as harsh or bitter when I'm commenting, but I don't mean to.
Same Anonymous Guy from above
The theory of irreducible complexity as far as its scientific content is its description of a system that does not function if one of its parts is removed. Now making the jump that this gives proof of an intelligent designer is out of the realm of science, this is simply a philosophical argument for the existence of a creator. This is exactly what people do with the scientific theory of evolution. They make a jump and claim that the scientific theory of evolution gives proof that there is no god or that it gives proof that you don’t need a god where in fact it doesn’t give proof for neither. It is just people’s philosophical argument for the atheist point of view. And just because a lot of scientist who support the scientific theory of evolution may be atheist (I don’t know if that’s true but for the sake of argument let say it is) this does not some how make the scientific theory of evolution a theory about the existence of god.
Again I will like to point out that the scientific theory of evolution says absolutely nothing on god. It does not deny the necessity of god or support the necessity of god, it is simply out of its realm. The scientific theory of evolution is just a description of physical phenomena and that’s where it ends. If you want to use evolution to support your own convictions about the existence / nonexistence or necessity of god then that is no longer in the realm of science, its philosophy. This is why Intelligent Design and the philosophy that people make from the theory of evolution should be taught in the philosophy classroom never in the science classroom. Something like irreducible complexity can be taught in the science classroom but only as far as its descriptions of physical properties of certain systems nothing more.
Now for evolutionist (as far as their philosophies) and the Intelligent Design advocate goes, they both ATTEMPT to prove their philosophies based on their own logical arguments. This is why no one will ever win this debate. They wont ever be able to SHOW who is right since when it comes down to it, its just philosophy they are arguing not science.
"The truth is, even if it were true, it would not deny the necessity of God." --Austin
1.) But isn't that what most evolutionists are trying to say? "Look! Evolution! We don't need God! And even if there is a god, then it's probably not the God of the Bible!"
2.) When you look at Evolution as a completely random process that somehow became successful (if it were true, of course), starting with a Big Bang involving chemicals that have existed eternally, compacted in an infinitely small package...you have to admit that although Evolution doesn't make the claim that God could not have controlled Evolution, it does make the claim that God WOULDN'T HAVE HAD TO CONTROL OR DESIGN EVOLUTION. Therefore, God would not be a necessity.
If evolutionists are trying to say this, they do so illogically. Even the "infinitly small" package of matter could never have changed if not for physical laws that had to be created by someone. Also, where did this matter come from?
Is it really any more possible that an extremely small piece of matter "just appeared" than that Mount Everest "just appeared"? Which is the law - matter cannot be created or destroyed, or big matter cannot be created or destroyed?
Even if something came out of nothing, someone had to make it so. Whatever was always there, that's God. Some say that what was always there doesn't control the universe now, but there are problems with this argument. For one thing, the universe has to be governed by something - laws of physics didn't make themselves. And whatever guides the universe had to be more than a man, not less. If the origin of the universe is infinitely small, then it doesn't exist, and therefore the universe doesn't exist, but clearly it does. The only other option is for the origin to be infinitly above it's creation. Some people who are not atheists believe in an impersonal life-force without a mind that created and controls, yet doesn't have mind - it's just a "force" - but the Creator can't be less than the creation. God must have a mind - He must be beyond human. I haven't put this into words very well (how can you really describe GOD with WORD? OH WAIT, only He can do that! John 1:1), but it is more obvious to me than anything else in the world. To me, it is the most empirical evidence ever possible. God must exist! I wish I could explain it. Maybe I can explain better later, for any readers you may have who are searching.
RE: Anonymous
I think there may be an misunderstanding here. If you want to throw both the Theory of Evolution and Intelligent Design out of the science classroom, that's fine. But you can't just throw out the philosophies they create, because, to be honest, I don't think Theories of Macro-Evolution are scientific. They are theories that are unbacked. Here's a few tidbits:
1.) If the Theory of Evolution was correct, there should be fossils of missing links of all shapes, sizes, and kinds all over the place. Intermediary fossils should even--you could argue--be more prevalent than fossils of species we know. We should even be seeing some live animals in intermediary stages. Evolutionists claim to find "missing links" about one at a time, and with a little time to research, they are eventually discredited.
2.)The Theory of Macro-Evolution defies other scientific principles: the Second Law of Thermodynamics; genetic potential and limitations; something doesn't come from nothing (see Austin's comment); etc.
3.)The Theory of Macro-Evolution defies probability and logic: ninety-nine steps down for every one step up doesn't make upward progress(most evolutionists agree that most mutations are harmfull); the elements involved to make earth suitable for life; the complexity of plants, animals, and humans; etc.
The list probably goes on, but I can't think of any more right now.
The fact is, the Theory of Macro-Evolution is NOT good science. Therefore, if you want to advocate taking macro-evolution completely out of the science class, then fine. But I'll be surprised if you got the school systems to go along with that.
RE: Austin.
Whoa! Whoa! Whoa! ;) You don't have to make a case against god-less macro-evolution to me. I was just trying to put into words atheistic evolutionists' argument.
"If evolutionists are trying to say this, they do so illogically. Even the "infinitly small" package of matter could never have changed if not for physical laws that had to be created by someone. Also, where did this matter come from?"--Austin
I've tried to say that to atheists many times before, especially your last sentence. However, you know what I've found? Evolutionists and atheists don't want to be tied down to any particular theory--especially the Big Bang Theory as Intelligent Design, Answers in Genesis, and others shred that theory to pieces. But, in reality, some don't want to be tied to even ALL OF THE THEORIES COMBINED. I think some really claim that well, "Maybe we just haven't found out what actually happened yet." So they'll stand by horrid theories hoping that some better theory will surface.
And I think that's what most Christians don't really realize about the Theory of Evolution: it's not trying to explain our origins--it's trying to explain AWAY our origins--without God, in particular the God of the Bible, thereby undermining the Bible, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, etc.. I'm sure people will want to jump all over me for saying this, but macro-evolution's "in the beginning" theories don't start with a God (specifically the One True God) creating the process of Evolution, unless it's some theory designed by a theistic evolutionist trying to mix the two elements together--what I see is like mixing oil with water.
"Is it really any more possible that an extremely small piece of matter "just appeared" than that Mount Everest "just appeared"? Which is the law - matter cannot be created or destroyed, or big matter cannot be created or destroyed?"--Austin
Great point and illustration. And the thing with evolutionists is that they seem to think along the lines of what you might have heard your mom say once upon a time: "Don't despise small beginnings." But the idea of "Amoeba-to-Adam" and such is irrational on a number of levels--including being in defiance of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, irreducible complexity, genetic potential and limitations, simple mathematics and probability, ad nauseam.
I appreciate you trying to put God into words. Although some people don't like Scripture references as proof, often my best way to explain things is Scripture, and the Bible says that we're made in God's image. Therefore, I think, rather than saying that God is "more than human," it's easier to say that we're "less than God." C.S. Lewis, in Mere Christianity, sees it like we're statues of God, or portraits of God.
God is still inconceivable. In fact, we know that seeing His face would make us die--except, of course, the people who saw Jesus, but Jesus became a human, remember, and Isaiah, I believe it is, tells us that His appearance wasn't worthy of "writing home about." So obviously, His glory was shrouded, and then was partially revealed on the Mount of Transfiguration and after the Resurrection. What a wondrous thought that someday we'll be able to look right into His face and He'll wipe away our every tear and we'll live with Him forever!!!
When you're thinking about what God's like, I also think of a couple other passages off the top of my head. First, the one that says "God's ways are higher than man's ways." Well, if they're higher, then how could we even think about them? We can't. They're "over our heads." That's the definition of "higher." We can know that they're higher, but we can't understand them. That makes His mental ability and activity virtually (if not literally) imcomprehensible, although He does lay down His plan and thoughts in His Word.
I also think of Job 38-39. Anyone who reads that and is not put in his place has a hard heart. One thing I take out of these chapters: just because we can't completely understand God doesn't give us the right to curse or deny Him.
Disclaimer here: those were just off the top of my head. I don't want to sell God short--He certainly can't be defined in a few paragraphs--He can't be completely defined by all the books of the world!
Another things hard to grasp about God is His eternal nature and existence and things like the fact that He CREATED PHYSICAL LAWS AND TIME AND SPACE--AS IN, HE DOESN'T NEED THEM TO EXIST.
Just thought I'd throw those in there.
I've seen "theory of evolution" several times here. If we're talking only about what some call microevolution, then that's fine. But if we're talking about macroevolution, which I think we are, then it is not a theory, strictly speaking. It is a hypothesis. When a hypothesis is tested and confirmed by many controlled experiments and found to be consistently true, it becomes a theory. Microevolution has done this, but macroevolution has not come anywhere remotely close - quite the oppostite, actually. Even theories aren't perfect though, since they must be proven universally true to be considered a law.
RE: Austin
I agree. Creationists should not and do not deny micro-evolution. There's no reason to deny it. Micro-evolution has been both observed and explained to a certain extent. It is openly considered true and factual, and it can easily be explained in an argument for the existence of God.
I think I agree with your assessment of hypothesis and theory, but when I say Theory of Evolution, I state it--for one reason--to avoid confusion or unnecessary hang-ups by referring to it as a "hypothesis" or a "fantasizing conjugation of the atheistic and naturalistic mind" or anything else. I also use it--not so much as the official scientific term--but rather almost tongue-in-cheek: it's NOT a law; it's NOT a fact; it's NOT exclusively accepted. When I say "Theory of Evolution" I do mean macro-evolution and I mean it in the same way that I would refer to theories of Martians or the moon being made of cheese: sure they're intriguing, but there's no evidence to back them up--in fact, there is a lot of evidence AGAINST such theories. Just like macro-evolution.
I guess nowadays we use "theory" a lot to refer to unconfirmed ideas, but it really means a confirmed idea - one that has been confirmed consistently throughout multiple experiments. Maybe the meaning of theory will change over the years if we keep using it the way we do. Or maybe I should say it will evolve! ha ha
RE: Austin
Ha, ha! But would that be micro-evolution or would it be macro-evolution, becoming an entirely new definition?
Post a Comment