The debate over the topic of
origins has been going on for centuries.
When it comes to who we are and where we
have come from, people have strong opinions.
But opinions without facts
are useless from a scientific viewpoint.
Furthermore, there is a serious problem when
we attempt to apply scientific principles to
events that occurred in the unobservable
past. No one was there to make first hand
observation. How, therefore, can we ever
know the truth about origins?
Such is the nature of the
creation-evolution debate. Evolutionists
insist their view is purely scientific and
that those who oppose this naturalistic
mechanistic explanation are religious
fundamentalists who “just believe” no matter
what facts are presented. Those who believe
in creation can sometimes be equally as
opinionated and even sarcastic, sometimes
uttering some very uncomplimentary comments.
We should always remember,
when it comes to discussing origins, there
are limitations. Although both evolutionists
and creationists claim they can prove their
views, substantiating what has occurred in
the unobservable past is not in the realm of
science.
Design by Chance?
Intelligent design is a term
that is common these days, especially among
those who are involved in the
creation-evolution debate. Creationists
claim design we see in living creatures is
the product of an Intelligent Designer.
Evolutionists say design does not require a
designer and is merely the product of
chance.
Perhaps it is time that you
spend a few moments thinking about the
complexity of life. How could non-living
matter be assembled and organized to become
living creatures by chance? Is life the
product of natural processes or is there an
Intelligent Designer?
Before Darwin’s theory of evolution was popularized,
William Paley proposed the “watch requires a
watchmaker” argument in support of the creation
view. However, Darwinists have always claimed that
Paley’s idea lacked “scientific credibility”. For
example, the following statement by Richard Dawkins
from his book The Blind Watchmaker makes this
point:
Paley’s argument is made with passionate sincerity
and is informed by the best biological scholarship
of the day, but it is wrong, gloriously and utterly
wrong. The analogy between telescope and eye,
between watch and living organism, is false. All
appearances to the contrary, the only watchmaker in
nature is the blind forces of physics, albeit
deployed in a very special way. A true watchmaker
has foresight: he designs his cogs and springs, and
plans their interconnections, with a future purpose
in his mind’s eye. Natural selection, the blind
unconscious process which Darwin discovered, and
which we now know is the explanation for the
existence and apparently purposeful form of all
life, has no purpose in mind.
[1]
It
should be noted that Richard Dawkins is Britain’s
most outspoken promoter of Darwinian evolution. He
heads up the Department of Public Understanding of
Science based in Oxford, England. It is his goal to
educate the British people to the idea that
evolution is science and creation is religion.
John
Reader, another promoter of evolution, in the
conclusion of his book The Rise of Life: The
First 3.5 Billion Years, recognizes each one of
us has a choice whether or not we believe in a
Designer. He, however, wholeheartedly rejects the
creation view. As he stated:
The
simplest explanation attributes life on Earth to the
work of some supernatural force which has ordered
that things be so. This explanation has the
unquestioned merit of encompassing everything; there
is nothing that the invocation of a supernatural
force cannot explain. No question remains if God was
behind it all – belief in the omnipotent God is all
that is required.
[2]
So
there it is. As Reader says, while believing in God
is simple, it is simply wrong. But what if he is
wrong? What if there is a God who created?
I
like what the apostle Paul stated in Romans chapter
one – the evidence that God has created is so
obvious from the things that He has made, we are
without excuse if we reject that evidence.
Professing to wise, we become fools. From a biblical
perspective, it is the evolutionist who is the
foolish one for not seeing that design requires a
Designer.
When
it comes to determining the truth about origins,
let’s stick with the facts. The conclusion you come
to regarding why you exist is very important.
