Wednesday, May 14, 2008

Now that my head is firmly planted in the sand

I recently have been debating NP on evolution. Or rather - Christian evolution. Which is weird because I doubt he's a Christian.

But at the end of the day, the question is: why trust God when He's so vague? Well, I believe that God is not vague, He is easily understood and He is trustworthy. Now NP is a very smart fellow, but one thing he said needs to be discussed:

"[Ken Miller's] God doesn't dwell in the gaps in our knowledge of how the world works" [HERE]

Is that what God is? The explanation of gaps of knowledge? I thought that for a long time. Now, just because I do not understand something has no bearing on it's truth or the fact that it is the truth. Whether I accept something as truth matters nothing in eternity and even less when it comes to what is actually true. What I'm trying to get at here - if I misunderstand gravity, gravity will still operate in the same manner it always has. My 'interpretation' of gravity makes no difference to gravity itself.

So if I make a mistake when I come up with an incorrect conclusion and I say "Well, God must have done it," I belittle God. The same as when the ancients looked at waves and said, "Zeus is angry today," they belittle God. My understanding of God is reduced to plug the holes in my misunderstanding of science.

But the fact is, I do misunderstand. I have to able to say that I am wrong in order to grow:

"If anyone among you thinks that he is wise in this age, let him become a fool that he may become wise" [1 Corinthians 3:18]

So when I see things like (old) distant starlight and old earth theories I just turn around and say "heck no, the bible is against it?" No I don't. I look into the theories and I see what they say and I can see that they are wrong. I can also look at things that prove the bible right. But the logic is simple: refute first, then look at other options. That is logical, why look at other options when you are not sure something is wrong?

Is my head in the sand? No it's not. At the moment I trust God more than I trust man, so I believe that God has got the answers and those answers wait for me first in the bible and then in nature. I can look at nature and be amazed at God's creation, whether I interpret it correctly or not, as long as I'm not dictating to the God who made it. Lord willing I will learn humility in science.

The fact is - I look at God first and then to science. I don't tell science what it should be, God did that. I certainly cannot use science as a tool for disproving God, since God is truth. Any truth reveals His nature. I certainly do not use God as a shield for 'protecting' me against science. He made science! Science reveals His power and glory!

Monday, May 5, 2008

Ken Miller... again

A link through a recent commenter revealed this little tidbit from Ken Miller(on intelligent design):

"...let’s suppose, you think the moon is made of granite and I think it’s made of green cheese. And we get soil samples back from the moon, and you know what? They’re not made of granite. So I say, great, that’s evidence for the green cheese theory. Well, it’s not. It’s an entirely negative argument." [SOURCE]

Now, realizing that he's using a stupid example, I would disagree with him. If there were only two options, green cheese(a designer) and granite(no designer) and we see that granite is not an option, then we have a proof for green cheese by the law of non-contradiction.

Ken has the wrong picture here. You see, we can't prove it either way. We (as in everybody) do not have the 'lunar samples.' There is a faith aspect involved, duh, it's the whole point.

Besides, I have plenty of evidence for a designer: the universe and the rules that are followed (gravity, acceleration etc). But others interpret that evidence differently and rightly so, they have a different worldview. Their worldview is either devoid of God or denying His power. But don't tell me I have no evidence, because all you do reveal your ignorance.

I hope that I'm done with Ken Miller, I do not want to bash him. He is a doctor, a position I hope to attain to someday (hopefully soon), although thankfully not in biology. I do not think he is stupid, just perhaps misguided in religion, which is fine, since theology is not his forté anyway. I don't have a problem with him being an evolutionist, my problem comes in where he tries to call himself a Christian, which so far, I have not seen. A love for Christ does not seem to emanate from his writing.

But lets end off on a good note: The sun rises, the birds sing and the world works. Praise the Lord!