Yeah. I’m going off course from my thoughts on prayer here, but hey, it’s my blog so my choice. I decided to do this after listening to some debates today on creation/evolution. I was just amazed at what I was hearing on the side of the evolutionists. It seemed my main critique had been quite accurate.
The debates I heard had William Provine vs. Phil Johnson and Jonathan Wells vs. Michael Shermer. Keep in mind that I am not a scientist please. I do not deal with the scientific evidence that much. I deal with the philosophical underpinnings. The scientists can debate the other all they want.
It appeared that the only way to believe was to assume only naturalistic theories. They would repeatedly say “Well what method do you see God using?” It would be fiat creationism generally, but that doesn’t count since it’s not naturalistic. In other words, any counter theory on origins must be naturalistic before it can be accepted. That’s the point though. Naturalism can’t explain it.
I was particularly fascinated when the topic of morality came up and someone asked a question to Provine. Provine replied that whatever your background is, keep it up. The questioner said “My background is murder and rape, and it was that because I believed that life was meaningless and had no value.” Ouch. It’s very hard to refute an argument like that.
Someone came up though and asked what thiesm has contributed since methodological naturalism has put a man on the moon, cured diseases, etc., and that it seemed to him that the worst events in history had been done by those who were strong believers in religion.
Now I found this a very odd statement to make. First off, in naturalism, there is no objective basis for determining that an action is evil or good. You have to borrow from theism in order to do that. My point felt further established when Provine complained about the intolerance of Christianity. By what standard is this being condemned?
I would also say that naturalism has not given such things to us and Christianity has not done the worst evils in the world. People who have been naturalists and Christians have done such acts. I do believe though that one can lead to a conclusion more logically than another. Look at it this way.
In naturalism, man is a cosmic accident with no value bestowed on him from outside. In Christianity, man is a divine creation and bears the image of God and is someone whom Jesus Christ loves and died for. Which one of these best results in my seeing my neighbor as someone of value? Which one of these best results in living out the life of love?
However, I can think of the great benefits theism in that sense has brought us. I believe if we thought of the things that matter most to us, they wouldn’t be brought by science. Which do I enjoy more? Do I enjoy my computer, or do I enjoy more the people that I meet through it and the bond of friendship? Do I enjoy books more, or do I enjoy the knowledge I find within books?
The most valuable things in my life are the things that I do not detect with my senses. They are love and friendship and hope and joy. I would much rather have happiness in Christ than all the riches in the world. These are the things that science cannot bring me. Science is a good no doubt as the material world is good and science studies that, but my greatest happiness comes from theism.
I lastly recall hearing the line in the Shermer debate of “If things here need a designer, well doesn’t the designer?” This throws a naturalistic view on God though and makes God part of the creation in that he consists of “parts.” One doctrine of God is his simplicity. It does not mean he is easy to understand. It means that he is complete and has no parts. You could say he is “Simply holy” for instance, in that he is completely holy.
Material things are put together. Immaterial things are not. God is immaterial and thus, God is not designed. Now if they want to say that things need a designer, then we can say that we need a designer. If they want to say not all things need a designer, then we can say God does not need one.
Overall though, the most stunning aspect is the aspect of morality. It seems that these words of right and wrong and ought and good and evil keep popping up. Always watch for those friends. Always. I’d even say an intellectual virtue is given that implies that you ought to be honest with the evidence. Now I agree, but what is the basis in naturalism?
My conclusion? I can still rest easy tonight as a creationist.