Replica edition News Obituaries Sports 2019 Best of Siloam Springs Opinion Business Religion Football play of the week Special Sections Photos Contact Us Email Updates
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT

I've been driving cars for over 55 years, but that doesn't make me an auto mechanic. I've been using computers for 30 years, but that doesn't make me a computer programmer. In like manner, a person who has a Ph.D. behind his or her name and works in a scientific laboratory doesn't necessarily know much about creation, the origination of the cosmos, or of life.

But please listen: just because I'm a dedicated Christian doesn't mean I know everything about creation or of the origination of life, either. If we are honest, we admit that we all base our lives on faith to some degree.

While I openly admit that my knowledge is limited, others who oppose my views get upset or frustrated if I declare their knowledge to be limited or based on faulty premises.

Let's look at a few ideas logically and scientifically. To start, faith is required to believe in what has not been proven. For example, I had faith that the chair would support me. I sat on it to test my theory. It is holding me, so faith is no longer required. Let's continue.

In September of 2000, Alan Dershowitz, an agnostic, debated Alan Keys, a Roman Catholic. In defending his main thesis that "what is right cannot be known," Dershowitz said, "We know what evil is. We have seen it." He mentioned events such as the holocaust and the crusades. He then raised his voice and emphatically declared, "I don't know what's right. I only know what's wrong!" (From the book, I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist, by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek; page 179.)

But Dershowitz was definitely and defiantly wrong.

We cannot know what is incorrect or wrong unless we have a standard of what is correct to judge it against. To know what's wrong, we must know what is right. Therefore, since we know it is evil to murder, we instinctively understand the intrinsic value of life. Since we know that lying is wrong, we instinctively understand the moral value of truth. The principle of right and wrong is imbedded in everyone's conscience.

How about the concept of truth? Some people emphatically declare that since everything is relative, there is no absolute truth. But is that statement correct? Is it absolutely true that there are no absolute truths? Think before you answer.

Some people affirm that Biblical Creation is not true, but then claim that the mythical and unprovable Big Bang created the well-organized cosmos with logical and scientific precision with no intellect or mind to guide anything. That's absurd! I don't care how it's explained, it is scientifically and physically impossible for matter to self-generate out of nothingness. The Big Bang hypothesis is science fiction, and is a way to get away from the concept that God created the heavens and the earth.

I've never received an intelligent answer to my question: If evolution were true, how did rock particles turn into living organisms?

By the way, have you ever looked at a one-celled amoeba using a microscope? I have. Those critters are just as complex as the human anatomy. And if you ever stop and think about it, there's no intelligent rationale as to how amoebas evolved into other life-forms. In reality, evolution is not scientific. It's a hypothesis, we call it a theory, and teach it as fact. But that's not science. At best, it is science fiction based on faith.

We in the scientific arena understand that nothing (neither material nor energetic substance) can be created out of nothing. Matter can be neither created nor destroyed. Yet matter -- stars, planets, gas -- does exist.

To believe billions of galaxies came into existence due to an explosion of absolutely nothing takes more faith than to believe our Creator -- God -- spoke the cosmos into being.

In order for people (agnostics, atheists, higher critics, skeptics, non-believers) to persuade me that Biblical Creation is wrong, they should give me a viable alternative. But they can't. Their arguments break down due to physical impossibilities, built-in inconsistencies of logic, ignoring obvious truth, and lack of substantiation. That's why many who believed in (had faith in) evolution have gravitated toward the Intelligent Design concept. But they still have a problem: if there's no God, who is the intelligent designer?

Understanding that ALL concepts of creation are intrinsically religious, the only logical approach is Genesis 1:1, "In the beginning, God...."

God is the designer of it all.

-- Gene Linzey is a speaker, author and mentor. Send comments and questions to [email protected] Visit his website at www.genelinzey.com. The opinions expressed are those of the author.

Religion on 01/08/2020

Print Headline: Who's the Designer?

Sponsor Content

Comments

COMMENTS - It looks like you're using Internet Explorer, which isn't compatible with our commenting system. You can join the discussion by using another browser, like Firefox or Google Chrome.
It looks like you're using Microsoft Edge. Our commenting system is more compatible with Firefox and Google Chrome.
ADVERTISEMENT