[AUTHOR'S NOTE: This is (I think) the fifth installment in the series originally published several years ago, during my tenure as the Atlanta Creationism Examiner. Minor editing and re-formatting to accommodate the differences between the old and new platform have been done on every article, but the original content has otherwise remained unchanged. ] Supernatural evidence We have examined the few real "facts" of evolution. Then we reviewed the conjecture about evolution expressed in the theories of Charles Darwin. Then I suggested an alternative to Darwin's theory of natural selection (evolution theory) which I have called Iterative Creation (IC). And of course, we talked about DNA as a unique and dynamically generated source code for the creation of a new living organism. The remaining question left unasked thus far: is evolution theory clearly superior to IC? Are the theories equally unprovable, or does IC actually hold some advantage over evolution theory? The only way evolution theory can be considered superior to IC is by resorting to scientism. By asserting that evidence somehow "belongs" to science would imply IC can't use the same evidence, presumably because a different standard for scientific method is applied to each theory. At the heart of any scientific argument against any form of creation lies the postulate that a supernatural God is simply impossible to believe. This is a very important point. God is derisively referred to “an invisible man in the sky” by my atheist friends, as a legend or fairy tale. Tales of NDEs and other … [Read more...]
Proof versus evidence
Some of my atheist friends (excluding my friend Kyle, of course) are always demanding proof that God exists, but I've come to realize that they don't really mean it. What most of them want is to insist they have no reason to believe in a supernatural God, but generally because they simply don't want God to exist, because that would conflict with their existing worldview. Demanding proof that God exists implies that person does not fully understand the concept of faith. Proof and faith are mutually exclusive. If you have proof, faith is no longer required. Don't believe me? Let me prove it to you. (Pun intended) Anyway, honest scientists don't talk in terms of proof. Scientists mostly talk about what they can deduce from what the evidence tells them. Personally, I think that I waste too much of my life arguing with unhappy atheists. I don't particularly enjoy being constantly needled or ridiculed by very angry people simply for expressing my opinion, especially I don't really consider myself any sort of evangelist for Christianity. I'm just a writer. My best writing seems to focus on things that interest me, and because I consider myself a Christian, alleged evidence that supports Christian faith interests me quite a bit. But I understand that when I seek information about a story, I'm not seeking proof the story is true. I'm merely seeking evidence to support or debunk a claim being made. For example, I've said before that the Shroud of Turin will never and could never be fully authenticated as the burial cloth in which the body of Jesus Christ was … [Read more...]
