Thursday, January 12, 2006
Why I am a Creationist (In a Nutshell)
So, why should one believe Genesis chapter one? I guess that there is a whole debate over that ongoing at least in American society. Evolutionists have several problems with the vision they articulate. They have problems with the philosophy behind the science and with the science itself. If you would like to see about the science issues, I like these two websites http://www.answersingenesis.org and http://www.icr.org. I would like to address some of the other problems.
Answering the question "What happened in the beginning?" cannot be done by scientific means because that requires impartial observers, of which there were none. Evolutionists bombard us with the terms "fact" and "science." They misuse them brutally. The fact is that no mere man was there to observe. It has been in response to this problem that evolutionists have gone so far as to deny any beginning at all (in other words, they think that things have always been). They know that the acknowledgment of a beginning requires God to make a beginning. Furthermore, they, in their bias against Christianity deny any explanations that are based in the Bible. I am biased, but I acknowledge this up front. These scientists claim that by neutral study, they make conclusions, but this is not true. So then, from the start they are being at best dishonest with themselves and at worst dishonest with us. This is the first problem.
A second problem comes from the lack of evidence as well. The biblical record states that all living things were created by God, and He gave them life. The evolutionary record states that life emerged as a result of the conditions on the earth at a given time in history. No scientist has ever recorded the emergence of living things from nonliving things. Much has been made of the gathering of amino acids in hot and turbulent conditions, but those amino acids never became anything more. This record of zero calls into question the validity of the idea that under naturalistic conditions life can emerge. However, if life came supernaturally, then it will never be replicated under natural circumstances. This agrees more with the biblical record. However, the scientists have searched to recreate life to prove that it did happen. They have failed over and over again. They insist that it must be true, though because they refuse to accept the biblical record at the start.
A third problem comes from a lack of evidence as well. In order for the standard of evolution to be true, one kind of living thing must be able to change into another of a different kind. This has not happened. No recorded experiments have successfully bred a new species. Some fossils show that species have disappeared. No fossil record is clear enough to show whether one species changed into another. At any rate, significant genetic change has been insignificant and the consequences have been more bad than good. It is clear on one thing: evolution is problematic.
Why then would evolutionists hold to evolution with such scant evidence? Why do they accuse Christians of being uninformed and contrary to science? They do the same if not worse. It is because behind their theory is a desire to eradicate God. However, I find that they are as guilty as Christians of interposing a presuppositional faith on the world around them. This explains why two people can look at the same sky and say both "behold the power of God" and "behold the power of nature."
The fact is that I touched on my final point in the second paragraph. Biblical thinking at its basis is based on the affirmation of God's existence. From this we can prove all theology, science, politics, history, etc. Evolutionary thinking is based on the denial of God's existence. From this they can prove all things. What do these two views have in common? They are centered on God's existence. So that even in the end, the pagan mind cannot despite all of his efforts, and despite all of the walls he may build in his mind, push God out of his thinking. That is because the fact of God's existence is so plain that those who deny it are deceiving themselves. Because of this, we can proceed through the historical record of the Bible with confidence that we are not deceiving ourselves and trust it to be true.
Answering the question "What happened in the beginning?" cannot be done by scientific means because that requires impartial observers, of which there were none. Evolutionists bombard us with the terms "fact" and "science." They misuse them brutally. The fact is that no mere man was there to observe. It has been in response to this problem that evolutionists have gone so far as to deny any beginning at all (in other words, they think that things have always been). They know that the acknowledgment of a beginning requires God to make a beginning. Furthermore, they, in their bias against Christianity deny any explanations that are based in the Bible. I am biased, but I acknowledge this up front. These scientists claim that by neutral study, they make conclusions, but this is not true. So then, from the start they are being at best dishonest with themselves and at worst dishonest with us. This is the first problem.
A second problem comes from the lack of evidence as well. The biblical record states that all living things were created by God, and He gave them life. The evolutionary record states that life emerged as a result of the conditions on the earth at a given time in history. No scientist has ever recorded the emergence of living things from nonliving things. Much has been made of the gathering of amino acids in hot and turbulent conditions, but those amino acids never became anything more. This record of zero calls into question the validity of the idea that under naturalistic conditions life can emerge. However, if life came supernaturally, then it will never be replicated under natural circumstances. This agrees more with the biblical record. However, the scientists have searched to recreate life to prove that it did happen. They have failed over and over again. They insist that it must be true, though because they refuse to accept the biblical record at the start.
A third problem comes from a lack of evidence as well. In order for the standard of evolution to be true, one kind of living thing must be able to change into another of a different kind. This has not happened. No recorded experiments have successfully bred a new species. Some fossils show that species have disappeared. No fossil record is clear enough to show whether one species changed into another. At any rate, significant genetic change has been insignificant and the consequences have been more bad than good. It is clear on one thing: evolution is problematic.
Why then would evolutionists hold to evolution with such scant evidence? Why do they accuse Christians of being uninformed and contrary to science? They do the same if not worse. It is because behind their theory is a desire to eradicate God. However, I find that they are as guilty as Christians of interposing a presuppositional faith on the world around them. This explains why two people can look at the same sky and say both "behold the power of God" and "behold the power of nature."
The fact is that I touched on my final point in the second paragraph. Biblical thinking at its basis is based on the affirmation of God's existence. From this we can prove all theology, science, politics, history, etc. Evolutionary thinking is based on the denial of God's existence. From this they can prove all things. What do these two views have in common? They are centered on God's existence. So that even in the end, the pagan mind cannot despite all of his efforts, and despite all of the walls he may build in his mind, push God out of his thinking. That is because the fact of God's existence is so plain that those who deny it are deceiving themselves. Because of this, we can proceed through the historical record of the Bible with confidence that we are not deceiving ourselves and trust it to be true.
