660.827.4833

NECESSITY OF GOD IN CREATION – PART 3

0 comments

Let’s talk science….

The last couple of weeks, we have been approaching the conversation from a philosophical view point. Today we are going to shift gears slightly and look at the science, specifically evolutionary biology. As we have discussed, Darwin’s science was based upon a new philosophy – naturalism. This philosophical system rejects all divine beings and the miraculous, believing the world needs to be viewed from a natural cause and effect integration. Thus, when Darwin adopted naturalism as a philosophy, his science was brought into a position where it must conform. In simple terms, if you reject God at the beginning point, then your process of discovery must exclude him – one never ends up actually examining the possibility of God, for He is excluded from the beginning.

Upon this basis, evolutionary biology was developed and stands on the following seven assumptions (as taken from L. Russ Bush’s book, the Advancement: Keeping the Faith in an Evolutionary Age):

  1. That physical similarity among living beings is an indication of a historical biological linkage.
  2. Modern vertebrates and invertebrates had a series of common ancestors.
  3. Metazoan life spontaneously arose from protozoans.
  4. All life on earth is genetically related and thus arose from a common ancestor.
  5. Nonliving matter spontaneously gave rise to living matter.
  6. Spontaneous biogenesis occurred only once.
  7. The process by which all multicelled life forms developed from one another and originally from single-celled life forms was one of spontaneous random mutation and natural selection.

 

It is easy to see the flow of thought. God does not exist (a given presupposition), therefore one must explain the world by natural means. The only way to explain origin is that the world must have been drastically different once upon a time and have operated under different rules (for example, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics must not always have been true). The reason we do not see “nothing spontaneously erupt into something” is simple – the world was different. It is of no concern that one cannot approve these positions, for one need not. IT IS THE ONLY POSSIBLE SOLUTION BECAUSE GOD IS TAKEN OFF THE TABLE OF DISCUSSION. Nonliving matter once gave rise to living matter because it had the “potential” to do so, but it does not today because the world is different. Animals made biological leaps from one species to another – even though we cannot prove this or recreate it – because they had the “potential” to do so, but it does not do so today because the world is different. Single celled organisms once became multicellular because they had the “potential” to do so, but they do not today because the world is different.

If the Christian comes and challenges these claims, the response is “What is your solution?” When one begins with the premise that God created the world, the scientist says, “you cannot begin with Him, you must explain the world through natural cause and effect.” When the Christian points out the lunacy of the biological evolutionary theory, the scientist says, “Ah…but the world is different today than it once was. Once upon a time these things did happen, even though they cannot today…” – It would be almost funny if the ramifications were not so serious.

For our purposes today, let’s conclude on three points:

  1. The rejection of God at the onset is faulty. While one cannot bring God “into the courtroom,” so to speak, there is much evidence in His favor. For example, think about the intelligence of the world we live in, how could it have been created without an intelligent design? Or think about the universal religious experience around the world – in every culture there is the history of a belief in the divine. From where did this belief arise? (Though the evolutionists might say, “From nothing”…and that would fit their model.) – The Christian does not reject science at all. We embrace it!!! The church in many ways helped science thrive in the 17th and 18th century, paving the road for science and technology in the future. But we reject the premise of the absence of God. GOD DOES EXIST AND IS KNOWABLE, SUPREMELY IN THE INCARNATION OF JESUS CHRIST.
  2. Science does not help the naturalist’s position – as to date there are:
    1. No transitional fossil records – fossil records showing the transition of single celled life to multicellular, no vertebrae to vertebrae, one species to another species, etc.
    2. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is repeatedly violated in their position.
    3. There is no explanation for origin – where the first energy arrived from.
    4. No explanation for how identical genetic coding systems could have arrived in living organisms, all independent of one another.
    5. No repeatable studies – which are required by the Scientific Method.
  3. Biological evolution really hinges on one fact (which the Christian confirms) that there is similarity in all life. This single reality is the evidence for evolution. – However, if the Christian is right and One Intelligent Designer created all life, then wouldn’t it only be natural for all of life to be similar? If anything, this evidence gives support for the theistic position, not the other way around.

Biological evolutionary theory does not pass the smell test. Their exclusion of God is not done so on a scientific basis, but rather a philosophical one. The church and conscientious Christian are not against science, we are great supporters of science! We only ask that the evidence be examined with a truly open mind. If one must begin with the premise that God is excluded, then there is only one way the road can lead down. On the other hand, if God is not excluded from the creative process, it leaves open some interesting and objective truths to be understood.

GOD MUST BE NECESSARY FOR CREATION, NO OTHER SYSTEM CAN EXPLAIN ORIGIN IN HIS ABSENCE.