I have been reading quite a bit lately about the evolution-creationism/intelligent design debate. Certainly I am not a preeminent scholar, or am I a published (or unpublished) scientist. I am simply a relatively reasonable guy who likes to ask questions. With regard to the argument for evolution it seems only one question is really needed… “what created that?”. No matter how far back we can allegedly trace the common descent theory at some point the “first thing” had to be created. We have yet to determine how to create something (especially a living something) out of lifeless nothingness. I cannot get past that idea. The idea of nonliving nothing creating living something is completely nonsensical to me.
In addition to this I was reading through a Callie Joubert article, “The Unbeliever at War with God: Michael Ruse and the Creation-Evolution Controversy”, and Joubert brings up an interesting point. Arguing favorably for evolution can be called a religious worldview just as easily as arguing favorably for creationism. So why teach one over the other in a classroom? Even if, for the sake of argument, this was a religious debate The Washington Post reported that a 2005 U.S. poll estimated atheists to represent approximately 5% of the total U.S. population. Hardly an overwhelming sampling to justify ignoring creationism in the classroom. If we are to raise our youth to be critical thinkers we have an obligation to present these youth with unbiased options, and allow viewpoints to follow.
Back to the worldview vs worldview topic. Many atheists tout science as practical, and steadfast with regard to “knowing” things. These same folks oftentimes accuse believers of assuming and interpreting all too freely. The fact of the matter is that science makes many assumptions when testing hypotheses. With regard to evolution, for example, scientists oftentimes use a technique known colloquially as carbon dating. This technique works basis the assumption that the ratio of 14^C in the atmosphere has always been constant. If this assumption is false the carbon dating technique is useless. Furthermore, science uses philosophy to test hypotheses. The philosophy of mathematics, for example. If 1+1 does not equal 2 we have a problem! Of course, I am not by any means a disbeliever of science. In fact I am a huge fan of technology, and I submit that science has brought us a plethora of fantastic things from smartphones to medicine. I do, however, believe that science has boundaries, and one should not make assumptions where even the circumstantial evidence does to point to the alleged truth he or she is pushing as fact.
This circles me back to the notion of something coming from nothing. To create something requires a creator, or, at a minimum, a catalyst. Even if a simple catalyst is required to create I have to ask, who or what created the catalyst? And then who or what created the thing that created the catalyst, and so forth. I simply cannot buy into the fact that something came from nothing. It just makes logical sense to me that an omnipresent creator was the catalyst that created the something that eventually led to the somebody that is writing this blog.
God is good.