Front Foot – Part 2

starsThe origin of the universe is said to centre on a Big Bang. Alleged evidence of an expanding universe supposes that a reversal of the process to an infinitely small origin is not only plausible, but backed by mathematical equations. This requires matter and antimatter to have once cancelled each other out to a ‘time zero’ of nothingness. The problem is that there is no mechanism for the laws of the universe to give rise to such a universe. Scientists’ best guess is a multitude of parallel universes from which just one – ours – emerged with just the right set of conditions to lead to what we have today. This Darwinian theory is so speculative and unsupported by any evidence that it becomes no more than an alternative faith position. So when people ask me, “If God made us then who made God”, I suggest that the faith to believe the He existed in all eternity past is a simpler proposition to me than to propose a purposeless and unprovable solution to the equally valid question, “If a Big Bang made us then who or what made the Big Bang?”!

Scientists reiterate time and again that they have no proof for how the first life came into existence either, but comfortably believe that Darwin explained how simple life evolved into complex life and how the universe came into being before life emerged. This is despite a lack of fossil proof and significant problems with radiometric dating. Scientists furthermore say that the gaps in their ‘chain’ are shrinking and that Christians cannot keep invoking God to fill them. My ‘front foot’ combat finds no rebuff when I suggest that these are not small gaps and that the gaps are filled with faith whichever side of the argument one is on! It is sheer presumption, bordering on dishonesty, to suppose that the massive gaps in the fossil record and this absence of any proof for the emergence of life can build anything other than a flimsy case for evolution.

Finally, I was once told that creationists start with the Bible, but evolutionists start with science, making it possible to be an intellectually-fulfilled atheist. I would suggest that what science can prove and measure will always have limitations; there are things it simply cannot and should not be forced to explain. In this sense, science and faith can happily coexist when they remain within their logical boundaries.

That’s why I see no tension between having professional training and experience in both science and theology. It’s also why I feel comfortable going on the front foot against the irrational and unreasonable view that science can commandeer the only sensible views on how we came into being.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.