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!


Tyrell Haag said...


I Read the post before this one and this one (though a tad scantily). To be honest, there is an interesting mixture that occurs in these debates between Philosophy and Science. Honestly from a philosophical perspective science can by principle never explain e few things:
1. First cause
2. Uniformity of nature
3. This world as opposed to another world (why this one?)
and a few more.

Now sure there is a slight point in the previosu post, its called the 'only game in town fallacy', since there is not explanation for this, save what you made up, yours is right. That correct we can not do that, however, there are alternatives to God, God is not assumed as existing in gaps, but He is the being in any possible universe that would be absolutly nessecary.

grantie and cheese? I am glad you nailed that as a stupid illustration. if we looked at the moon and did some studies and said look, this is either x,y,z from our analysis, and we realize that x and y are silly, and there are no plausible explanations besides, furthermore, there is good reason to believe z (eg, occurance of revealation within history) we are compelled by good reason to hold it.

Hope I made sense and was friend not foe ;)

Quintin said...

Thanks dude, definitely friend!