What do all of these would-be utopias have in common?
- The workers’ paradise of the Soviet Union.
- Ancient Hebrew society as ruled directly by God, before they insisted on having a king.
- The Puritan community in the Massachusetts Bay Colony.
- Plato’s Republic.
I can think of two correct answers:
Faced with evidence for an old universe such as starlight that has clearly taken billions of years to reach us, young-Earth creationists say, “God created the universe about 6,000 years ago, but in a mature state. Your conclusion that it is old is a matter of faith in naturalistic, uniformitarian assumptions. How do you know the speed of light or the passage of time have always been the same as they are now?”
Faced with evidence for evolution such as what we saw in the last post, creationists often reply, “You see evidence for evolution, but this could equally be the work of a Designer. Your conclusion of ‘evolution’ is a matter of faith just as much as my conclusion of ‘creation’.”
Is this true? Is the choice between mainstream science and creationism just a matter of choosing one faith or another?
At one level, yes. But let’s keep going.
What do you think of these arguments against the chance origin of life?
From an Answers in Genesis online textbook (Chapter 5):
Harold J. Morowitz, professor of biophysics at Yale, has calculated that the [probability of] formation of one E. coli bacteria in the universe at 10-100,000,000,000, or one in 10 to the power of 100 billion. Sir Fred Hoyle has offered the analogy of a tornado passing through a junkyard and assembling a Boeing 747, “nonsense of a high order” in his words. Natural selection cannot be the mechanism that caused life to form from matter as it can only work on a complete living organism.
…The many distinct interactions within living systems clearly point to the presence of a designer, the God of the Bible.
And earlier in the same chapter:
[Evolutionist Thomas] Huxley suggested that, given enough time and material, six monkeys could type the 23rd Psalm simply by randomly punching the keys. … So what is the answer to Huxley’s argument of time and chance?
Last week on Ecuador’s Got Talent, an argument for the existence of God that I have often faced was in the news once more. Sixteen-year-old singer Carolina Pena had just finished her performance when a judge asked her, “Do you believe in God?”
Carolina replied that she did not “because God has not given me a reason to believe.”
To which one of the judges replied, “So what do you believe? Where did we come from?”
Last time, we saw how we can miss the truth when we think we know what’s in other people’s heads — when we play Amateur Psychologist. Not to pick on David Sereda, but in the same video he also serves as a foil for this post’s Truth-Loving Test for Amateur Scientists:
A truth-loving amateur scientist has a keen nose for baloney from other amateur scientists.
If you’re just joining the discussion, it’s about the video below that “proves” UFOs were out in space with the shuttle Columbia.
In the last post, we saw a tape from NASA that proved UFOs were out in space along with the space shuttle Columbia. Proved, that is, until that interpretation of the tape was easily debunked.
Sue Houston left a comment on that post that is a perfect segue to what I wanted to share today:
…clearly the space guys [from NASA] are not excited by these objects. They know what they are, as they are familiar with the optics of the situation. That should have been reason enough for “true believers” to take pause.
As we will see, one person’s lack of excitement is another person’s stunned silence.
Today I was invited to participate in a forum in which ex-Christians such as yours truly are invited to answer questions such as “how [we] cope with life without the support of Christian belief and Bible promises.”
Here is how Robert Ingersoll, “The Great Agnostic,” answered that question over a hundred years ago.