The Theory Of Creation
Posted by Okie on August 23rd, 2006There seems to be an excitement about religion lately.
This excitement seems to be showing up in so many different areas of our life, it seems that at times we can’t get away from it. From “The Da Vinci Code”, Creation v. Evolution curriculum, “The Passion Of The Christ”, to a simple cross on a hill, religion is an issue at the forefront of our lives.
It’s the “issue” I have a problem with.
Sunday night I was watching TV (I know Wade, I know… I’m trying to cut back) and on the history channel nestled in between ‘Band Of Brothers’ and ‘The Antichrist’ was a show called ‘Exodus Decoded’ hosted by its producer James Cameron. It was a very slick production with lots of digital effects and new ideas. It also produced a theory on how the exodus can be proven scientifically. Using up to date techniques, modern history and a new logic, they did a fine job of presenting how one of the greatest stories of the bible took place. It actually made sense. I felt a lot better. I could get a good night sleep now. . . .
But something was still bothering me about the whole deal.
The next day I was commenting on a friend’s blog site. He is a scientist and for the last few years has really been holding back the waves of evolutional zealots using facts, or the lack there, stemming the tide of naked creationist bashing on his blog. It’s really interesting to listen to him explain things from his perspective, on his level. From his point of view this debate breaks down to theory- Science can’t prove your theory and it can’t prove mine.
That was bugging me too. The more I thought about it, the more it bugged me, like an itch I couldn’t scratch (last time that happened I had to buy a Neil Diamond CD). I had to figure this out. Then it hit me.
Since when did faith require justification?
Since when did God have to be explained scientifically? Can you imagine Moses taking a moment to explain that the miracle of the burning bush came about because God had place creosote bushes in the area with deposits of volcanic glass that, when at the persise moment of Him speaking, light prisims ignited the bush. How about Jesus taking time to explain the whole Lazarus thing?
Pharisees: “Surely we see that Lazarus hath kicketh the bucket”.
Jesus: “No see, He’s only mostly dead. By my command the nucleus of his cells restart in sequence to…”
He didn’t need to do that. He wasn’t supposed to do that. Hopefully we happy few can remember that. Maybe we can share that. Can it be at this time, at the current peak of our knowledge, that we think in our pride we can prove or disprove God? Is it the oldest trick in Satan’s handbook that convinces us that we can? Or is it just human nature? Is the excitement of religion doing more harm than good because those without faith can make an intellectual decision and those with faith don’t speak up?
“Verily, verily, I say unto you, before Abraham was, I am.”
Good enough for me. -
I agree with what you have said. Faith doesn’t require justification. Yet those who don’t agree with us attack us as being simple-minded, blindly ignorant, and unwilling to “look at the facts”. For this reason, apologists, scientists, and others have felt the need to “defend the faith”.
Does faith need defense? Surely David didn’t think so when confronting Goliath. Surely Elisha didn’t think so, when he knew that there were more on his side than on Syria’s.
Faith is in what we hope for, which is, by definition, not seen. People can try to disprove my faith all they want, but their attempts to do so often emboldens and solidifies it.
Comment # 1 left by Connor Boyack on August 23rd, 2006
Is it the oldest trick in Satan’s handbook that convinces us that we can [prove or disprove the existence of God]? Or is it just human nature?
Good question. I think both are correct. It’s human nature to want to know. And in the modern age, since the enlightenment, science is the go-to for understanding everything. Hence, religion is put to the scientific test. Because we desire to know, we think science is the only way to understand God and whether He exists.
Because Satan understands our desires to know and acheive intellectual fulfillment, he entices us to think that if current scientific theory cannot prove or disprove God’s existence, then God therefore must not exist. Yet, it is intellectually dishonest to think current science/theory can portray true reality all the time. It cannot. And it never will while satan continues to roam on his belly.
On the other hand, it’s interesting to note some general authorities have spent their lives defending the faith by way of their scientific expertise. One example is Elder Widtsoe. His book, Evidences and Reconciliations is a great read. Another example is Elder Talmage. There was a myth that Albert Einstein claimed Talmage was the smartest man alive.
Comment # 2 left by Wade on August 23rd, 2006
While it is all well and good to claim that faith does not need justification, this puts faith in a fairly unstable position.
What happens when something which is justified contradicts faith? Your position seem to imply that faith should just roll over, but this is surely not what happens.
While faith may not need justification, it sure is a whole lot safer for it to have it. Otherwise it will nearly always play third to experience and reason.
Comment # 3 left by Jeff G on August 23rd, 2006
Otherwise it will nearly always play third to experience and reason
It seems unfair to pin that deficiency on faith and not on whomever has the mixed up priorities.
Comment # 4 left by Ryan on August 23rd, 2006
“Since when did faith require justification?”
At least since Alma’s time:
“Therefore, if a seed groweth it is good, but if it groweth not, behold it is not good, therefore it is cast away” (Alma 32:32).
I realize that the thrust of your question is in regard to scientific data for Alma’s experiment. I wonder, however, if some of the scientific data or at least a scientific approach may yield what Alma looks for as data: “it beginneth to enlarge my soul; yea, it beginneth to enlighten my understanding” (vs 28).
Comment # 5 left by BrianJ on August 23rd, 2006
Brian makes a good point. In fact, when I first read the post, a particular verse from Alam’s confrontation with Korihor came to mind. Korihor was demanding physical evidence (or one could argue that Korihor was demanding scientific proof) of the existence of God. Alma’s response was not that faith in God needs no justification; rather Alma said the following: all things denote there is a God; yea, even the earth, and all things that are upon the face of it, yea, and its motion, yea, and also all the planets which move in their regular form do witness that there is a Supreme Creator. (Alma 30:44). This is an interesting passage of scripture in light of Okie’s post. Here we find Alma defending his faith with an appeal to astronomy and physics. It’s interesting.
Comment # 6 left by Wade on August 23rd, 2006
Eveybody -
I guess my real point was if the Lord commanded a mountain to move, and it did. I wouldn’t need to understand the science to “Justify” my belief in him even if I hadn’t seen it… the whole belief in whats true, even if unseen thing -
Comment # 7 left by Okie on August 24th, 2006
What i have found to be real interesting is that people, especially christians will absolutely believe in untestable and undocumented things if it pertains to their personal welfare and salvation while if it doesn’t they will believe in the arm of man. This is true in the case of resurrection. According to science, something that has been dead for a long time cannot come back to life. But according to God, he will resurrect the dead. Now most people believe in that great feat knowing that their current science refutes such an act. But in the case of man coming from apes where their own personal welfare isn’t at stake, they will believe in the arm of man.
Now I am not saying that all or most christians think this way, but there is that percentage out there that do.
It is interesting that you mention the creationists and evolutionists in this post because it brings up another interesting point. I have taken polls on the blogs over time and have found that christians fit into one of three classes concerning the issue. They are-
1. People who both believe or disbelieve in both evolution and/or the global flood of Noah’s day but also do not know a lot about either nor does it bother them. These people will tend to believe whoever they think is an authoritive figure and take it as the passing day.
2. People who believe in the global flood as is spoken in the bible and also disbelieve evolution. This is based on a thorough research of the matter. These people also have more faith in the literalness of God’s miracles and do not need to justify everything through scientific research. These people seem pretty happy knowing they can believe in God after studying the scriptures and then relying on faith as they view the evidence.
3. People who believe in evolution but do not believe in the global flood at all. They feel it is necessary to try to conduct scientific experiments and collect data before they will believe in the literalness of God’s miracles and works. Even though their data is in error at times they feel they are justified in always being right or on coarse to solve everything in the earth without including God in the picture. These people also are always in competition it seems to come up with the lates angle that most times gets proven wrong or gets changed.
Think about that because it is almost always the case that everyone who is christian will fit into one of those categories.
Comment # 8 left by Rob Osborn on August 24th, 2006
I think belief without evidence and belief in the face of contrary evidence are separate issues–perhaps with some blurring between them. To treat the latter like the former, I think, trivializes the issue. If you tell me that you’ve been miraculously healed of cancer, then I may well believe you. But if I find out that your medical chart does not contain any diagnosis of cancer but says you have been quite healthy in your yearly check-ups, and that nobody in your family knew you had cancer, my belief will be strained.
Similar issues are at play with natural history.
Comment # 9 left by Jared on August 24th, 2006