Minimalist Arguments: Creation 101
Number One: The Supernatural
October 4, 2016
I’ve been accused of being long-winded on these arguments against Evolution and for Creation, so let’s be brief: What is the ultimate Evolutionist argument against Creation? All of the arguments boil down to this:
- There is no supernatural;
- We’re here:
- Therefore, we must have evolved.
Life must have come from non-life – at least once. Actually, unless that first living thing, with no food or free oxygen, also was able to reproduce itself, life would have quickly ended on earth. There must have been MILLIONS of individual instances where life came from non-life – somehow. But, we have serious problems with that:
- That’s called spontaneous generation, and it was debunked by many scientists, but especially in experiments by Redi (in the 1600’s); Spallanzani (in the 1700’s) and Pasteur in the 1800’s. The great scientist, Louis Pasteur knew of Darwin’s work – and he rejected it.
- Life can only come from life. There’s a reason they call that the LAW of biogenesis – because it is a consistent pattern we see in nature. In fact, at this point, no one can even SPECULATE on how life can come from non-life – all the attempts to do it have failed… all the models haven’t worked. We were told, 20, 30 years ago by now that, “We’re almost there! Within 5 years we’ll be able to explain where life came from!” I’m still waiting… any good ideas out there?
- Pangenesis: Some scientists, like the late Francis Crick, and even modern atheist Richard Dawkins, have gotten so frustrated with trying to figure out how life came from non-life that they have bought into the idea (it’s not a theory; how could it be tested?) that aliens seeded the earth with life… or something to that effect. My answer is: REALLY? You would accept THAT fairy tale, but not the straight-forward narrative in Genesis 1? And – it really doesn’t solve anything; it just pushes back the “Life from non-life” incident to another planet (can we imagine a planet that has BETTER conditions for life than Earth does?).
- What if the first statement of the syllogism isn’t true? In logic, propositional statements are assumed to be true. But science CAN’T prove that there is no supernatural! By definition, if the supernatural exists, science has no means to test it. Science is a relatively narrow way of determining relative truth. It’s true: at the heart of science is the concept that it is restricted to the natural world and that there is no such thing as a “fact”. All scientific methodology can do is give us relative truth – probabilities, not certainties. That doesn’t mean that absolute truth doesn’t exist – it does. But science doesn’t take us there. And, if we depend only on ourselves, all of our knowledge is flawed because WE are flawed. If the first statement is NOT true (and science cannot answer “yes” or “no” to it), then there are other possibilities as to how life got here.
- Unless you’re a solipsist (a person who believes that they are the only one who exists), the second statement is true. But it doesn’t lead to the conclusion if the first statement may or may not be true. “We’re here’ is true enough, but science cannot answer the question of how we got here. And if there is a supernatural, then 6-day “recent” Creation is certainly possible. We can’t do any scientific experiments to prove THAT either. God does not owe the atheistic college professor who holds out a piece of chalk, demanding that the Creator stop it from hitting the floor when he drops it, anything. The natural world should be enough to prove the existence of an Infinite Mind. There is order everywhere we look… living organisms are infinitely more complex that the non-living world around us.
Let’s end this brief essay. The truth is staring us in the face. Just the fact that Richard Dawkins can think… and Steven Hawking can think… is evidence that there is INDEED a supernatural world outside the realm of science. Mr. Dawkins and Mr. Hawking move molecules inside their brain by the power of their human will. How can they think unique thoughts, if they are but chemicals? Chemicals can’t make decisions, but Mr. Dawkins an Mr. Hawking can make the decision not to believe in the existence of Elohim.