Reflections on life, marriage, and purpose...by a young woman who is constantly learning how much there will always be to learn!


Thursday, May 25, 2006

Why I believe in God

I'm not a scientist. I can't wow you with my understanding of physics, formulas and biological data. But I don't believe that a thorough study of these sciences is necessary to comprehend the following basic facts:

1. Life cannot come from non-life. In NO case have we ever observed even one living cell develop from a lifeless, inanimate object such as a rock.

2. Macroevolution would require that complex life-forms evolve from simple life-forms. However, the effects of entropy (see the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics) cannot be thwarted. (To this argument, macroevolutionists try to make a distinction between closed and open systems: They claim that if a system was impenetrable by other influences, it would deteriorate due to loss of energy. But our universe is "open" to other influences, they say, so that energy can flow into it from outer space and cause a decrease in entropy. What they neglect to account for, however, is that raw energy alone does not increase the probability that the energy will be used "constructively"...to build, rather than to destroy. Where is the information--or "intelligence", if you will--coming from that determines how an increase in energy within our universe will be distributed? For more on this, read this article by Granville Sewell, a Professor of Mathematics. It's rather scientific, but very interesting.)

3. The world looks designed. The world acts designed. Survival of the fittest does not account for things like interdependent organisms or body parts evolving at the same time (such as the eye and the brain). Or how about the devolpment of male and female reproduction capabilities in most species?

4. The body of EVIDENCE AGAINST macroevolution is enormous.

5. Humans are more than flesh and blood. How does one measure or create abstracts like love or a moral conscience in a science lab? If such concepts have been generated solely by the biological evolution of the human body, why can we not heal the human soul with surgery or solve the human condition with drugs? (Some people will try, but surprisingly--or not!--it hasn't been accomplished!) This is what the discipline of sociology claims: that if we can "scientifically" understand why people behave the way that they do, we can engineer society to satisfy everyone's' needs and desires, thus reducing and eventually eliminating social ills. How interesting that experiments in socialism and communism have been colossal failures! And how interesting that one can be fulfilled, though hungry, and despairing, though possessing every material thing!

The above evidence causes me to believe in an Intelligent Designer with my head. I could give you many, many more reasons, too, if I had the time and space. Now let me tell you why I believe in God with my heart:

My heart had a hole that needed filling. God filled it. Living for Him gives a peace and a joy that is unsurpassed by the highest high that the world has to offer! I look around this world and see that only the things that will last forever (God and people--in particular, our spirits or "non-physical" parts) are worth living and dying for. Earthly fame, power, money, cars, houses, clothes, conveniences, television shows, food, luxury, physical gratification--all the things that people fill their lives with are merely hollow distractions we use to keep ourselves from hurting. None of it will last past your final breath. You could spend your whole life living to be praised by men, and in the end you might end up with a little blurb in a history book, IF you're lucky. So what? I mean, really...is THAT worth living your whole life for?

A true athiest might tell me that I'm just deluding myself. I believe in God so that I won't have to go through life feeling like it has no meaning. I believe in God because it comforts me. At least such an athiest is being honest in acknowledging that a life without God WOULD have no meaning! Most people try to invent meaning or ignore the inevitable, rather than submit that without a God, we might as well blow up the planet right now, because nothing will ultimately come of our existence. If life is simply a cruel joke, why should we play along any longer?

I guess to answer the honest athiest, I can provide head knowledge such as the "basic facts" listed above. But I don't believe such knowledge alone will bring someone to the truth. You see, I didn't "CHOOSE" God. He placed a "knowing" in my heart. There is something within my heart that resonates with His Word and that is soft to His touch. I'm not a mystic or anything...I don't hear voices or speak in tongues, and I've never seen an angel or witnessed water turned into wine. But I am simply one who has had a previous emptiness filled. I am one who has meaning and peace and joy, even though life is painful. I cannot tell you anything I have done to achieve this, because I HAVEN'T done anything! God has asked me for my life, and I have given it to Him. I cannot prove it to you. But I know Whose I am. I can say this with absolute certainty!

"The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God's children." Romans 8:16

5 Comments:

Blogger Mrs.B. said...

Excellent Erin!

IMHO, a belief in evolution takes WAY more faith than believing that God created everything.

12:54 PM, May 25, 2006  
Blogger Erin said...

I agree, Mrs. B! To me, believing in macroevolution seems to require a real suspension of logic:op

9:52 AM, May 26, 2006  
Anonymous The Happy Feminist said...

Just dropping in belatedly after a hiatus of not reading blogs!

I think that believing or disbelieving in macroevolution is a separate issue from believing or disbelieving in God.

Macro-evolution, the Big Bang theory, and other scientific theories attempt to explain the mechanism by which creation occurred. There is no reason to suppose that an "Intelligent Designer" could not chosen these mechanisms as his/her/its means of creating life.

The idea of Intelligent Design, however, does not explain (or attempt to explain) HOW the Intelligent Designer created life. What was the physical process the Intelligent Designer used? The idea of Intelligent Design doesn't address that at all. That is not to say that belief in an Intelligent Designer is incorrect -- just that this belief does not address the same questions as the theory of evolution.

I think you can believe in both God and the theory of evolution. In fact, I know plenty of people who do. The theory of evolution may be inconsistent with a literal belief in the Bible but it is not inconsistent with a belief in God.

Personally, I do accept the theory of evolution. But I don't have a horse in this particular race. If it turns out the theory of evolution is wrong, that's cool too, as far as I am concerned.

12:59 PM, May 29, 2006  
Blogger Erin said...

Hi, HF!:o)

I think you can believe in both God and the theory of evolution. In fact, I know plenty of people who do. The theory of evolution may be inconsistent with a literal belief in the Bible but it is not inconsistent with a belief in God.

That's right! People have many different ideas about who or what God is. But for someone who believes in the God of the Bible, belief in macroevolution is inconsistent with that.

The idea of Intelligent Design, however, does not explain (or attempt to explain) HOW the Intelligent Designer created life. What was the physical process the Intelligent Designer used? The idea of Intelligent Design doesn't address that at all.

I agree. That is why I say that whatever position you take about the origins of life, it's a position of faith. As a believer in the God of the Bible, I take on faith that God spoke and the world was created. A believer in macroevolution takes on faith that life came from nothing. (Even though there is no scientific evidence that this can happen!)

Though believers in macroevolution do offer theories about how life progressed once it initially appeared, they are full of holes and inconsistencies. When I observe the world and the way that it works today, I find the idea of a Creator much more scientifically tenable than random chance.

1:17 PM, May 31, 2006  
Blogger Erin said...

Just to add...

I suppose a macroevolutionist with a different conception of God could believe that their god created the initial spark of life and then let chance take over. I can see no reason to believe in this sort of impersonal god, other than the fact that it gives each individual license to live their lives the way they want to.

First of all, their god would not be the God of the Bible. Where is this picture of deity deriving from? Is god whatever you want it to be? Secondly, it makes no sense for an intelligent being to create a single cell and then step out of the picture. Why bother? Thirdly, the macroevolutionist's theories about the progression of life are pretty much impossible to justify (beyond saying, "we just haven't discovered the right links and missing pieces yet" and leaving the question perpetually open). It makes more sense to me to believe that God created an ordered world from the very beginning!

1:28 PM, May 31, 2006  

Post a Comment

<< Home