As an advocate of creationism for at least the last decade, I find myself in dialogue with other like-minded individuals.
By advocate, I mean I am somewhat studied and understand not only the theological reasons as to why the universe could not just appear out of nowhere, but I am fairly versed in other non-religious reasons why naturalism just doesn’t work, as well.
Likewise, I read some of the articles on the other side of the fence. I read to try and understand why and how non-theists think (or don’t).
Before entering the clergy, I was preparing for a medical career. And I really was just in the beginning stages before God spoke clearly for me to turn my attention towards Seminary.
But I remember as I was getting prepared, the biology courses that I would have to complete before I could enter even into the preparatory courses. Of course, the premise of such courses are,
“How can I understand medicine, till I understand the way the body works biologically”?
And it’s while recounting this that I realized the hypocrisy that naturalists and most of the scientific community defend.
Maybe some of you remember Ben Stein’s “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed!”
Stein cornered angry little Richard Dawkins on how life came to be from non-matter? Richard became very uncomfortable, stammered a bit and to the amazement of Stein, offered the suggestion of Extra Terrestrial seeding (which just takes the problem to another planet, nothing more).
It was clear that he didn’t know.
When cornered on the early universe’s magical appearance from out of nowhere, he usually subscribes to its mystery being such a wonderful opportunity to explore science.
Cardinal George Pell laughed (while in debate with Dawkins) at how the famed atheist was so excited about, what in essence, was nothing (literally nothing).
Likewise brilliant Stephen Hawking has changed his position from belief in higher intelligence as he now believes gravity is the answer to the beginning of the universe and that a deity is not needed.
But alas, instead of getting to floor one of the argument by starting at stair one, Hawking himself jumps a flight of stairs by not addressing the very need for something to even create gravity or the laws that bind it in order for his hypothesis to work. Stunning considering how smart he is.
The truth is folks that naturalism doesn’t get off the ground from even the very beginning.
The Naturalist has interpreted science through an empirically impossible scenario:
Something cannot come from nothing.
It defies every bit of naturalism there is to yawn at.
The naturalist demands that we take the transcendent out of science and yet starts everything they do with the fact the something just came from nothing.
They defy the second law of thermodynamics.
Whether it’s abiogenesis or the Big Bang, naturalism has been interpreting science upon the idea that something can come from nothing…without intelligence for decade upon decade.
The very thing they have attempted with every mocking, spitting syllable; with every quadratic equation, with every fossil found; the very thing they build their findings on is in reality, transcendent.
But when you tell them this, their eyes start to cross and their toes start to curl. A blank look comes upon their face, and they move on without an acceptable answer.
So folks, I’m almost at the point of demanding an appropriate answer for the beginning. I want an answer from you that tells me that you can explain how the universe could spring from nothing, and how life could come from non-matter.
Imagine starting every Creation Evolution debate like so. No long intros, no five to ten minute rebuttals just:
“Mr Atheist before getting started, I’d like you to show me that you understand the first premise of what you are proposing. I need to know that you understand the first thing when referring to the beginning of the universe. Because Mr. Atheist, if you don’t even understand the beginning of what you are coming to defend, then it’s more than likely you have interpreted your information wrongly.”
I mean why go on in debate if the naturalist cannot produce any such reasonable response to the absolute genesis of their argument?
Right from go, they are done.
It’s like building a house on a Jell-O foundation.
They continually ignore that and go on to other supposed problems for the creationist.
I say, don’t let them!
When sparring with a naturalist over the universe’s beginning, don’t let them ignore that the very first idea of naturalism can only; ONLY work if a transcendent creator is in control. Insist they respond to you within the framework of their own beliefs.
When arguing against macroevolution, don’t let them continue on until they tell you how naturalism accounts for life from non-matter.
Although I encourage a person to learn as much as they can as to why naturalism alone doesn’t work, it doesn’t take a microbiologist or astrophysicist to respond to such a ridiculous theory. You can be any old Joe and respond to any lab coat championing a Godless universe.
It is they who have trapped themselves with the prudishness of denying a creator.