Should Evolution Continue to have a Monopoly over the Teaching of Science?

 Should Intelligent Design (ID) be taught in the public school science classes? A recent survey revealed that 40% of American would favor this, while 32% are opposed.

Meanwhile, several academies of school maintain that such questions shouldn’t be decided by the public but by the experts. Indeed, in many areas of our lives, we do allow the expert opinion to predominate. Isn’t this why we have experts!

However, others would respond that the evolution vs. ID debate isn’t simply a matter of expert testimony. It involves many other factors like our values and worldviews. At stake are questions that involve the meaning of life and whether natural processes are capable of explaining everything we encounter on planet earth and beyond. (Also, there are many questions about whether or not evolutionary science is capable of touching the question of origins – something that might fall more into the domain of history than science.)

Evolution is part of a worldview called naturalism that maintains that everything can be explained in terms of natural laws. However, others will point out a conundrum – Is it possible that natural laws can explain the origin of the natural laws?

Evolutionists will respond, “We are biologists! We aren’t concerned about the origins of the cosmos, as interesting as these questions might be! Evolution is only concerned about the origin of species!”

However, when we examine the science classroom – not just evolution – it seems that any discussion of ID as an explanation of any scientific phenomena has become verboten! It is simply not permitted! This means that “science” has now become defined as methodologies that attempt to identify naturalistic causation. This virtually has given naturalism a monopoly over all public education. Consequently, vast sums of money and resources are committed to finding natural explanation while none is committed to questioning this underlying worldview.

For those who represent ID, this constitutes a suffocating bias – perhaps even the establishment of the state religion of naturalism.

Although there might exist various understandings of evolution, naturalistic evolution remains the controlling orthodoxy. To deviate could mean expulsion from the university, as many instances of this have proven. ID seeks to infuse a bit of fresh air into the sciences, some healthy competition, and some needed insights, as even some atheists have conceded.

Why I Obey a Cosmic Dictator

Some call God a “cosmic dictator.” One atheist claimed that if Scripture – God had commanded Israel to destroy the Canaanites - is foremost in our ethical decision-making, then any ethical horror can be justified. He also claimed that such a morality was just another repugnant form of “might makes right”:

• Religious morality can actually harm society for no other reason that because it is dogmatic…If your justification [for the wars God had ordered in the OT] is "because god says so" then anything can be justified that way - literally anything. It defies all sense of common decency and it shows how religious dogma can prevent critical thinking. And you are clearly demonstrating here that your moral framework is based on authority and "might makes right"! That's a weak ethical system.
  

Here’s my response to him:

Admittedly, my defense has to be very nuanced. Relationships are nuanced. If God created this world, everyone and all of our notions of justice, love, fairness and morality, then he has the right to call the shots. This is even true, in a limited sense, if I come to your house. I have to obey your house rules or out I go. It’s not exactly a matter of “might makes right” but of transcendent rights. You own your house, but in a far greater sense God owns this universe. I therefore have a moral obligation to obey Him.

Of course, it doesn’t mean that once I enter your house I have to suspend all moral judgment. You might ask me to do something unethical, in which case, I will leave. I can also do this with God, and many do leave. However, I have chosen to stay! Here’s why:

If I owe any debt of gratitude to my parents, I also owe such a debt to God.

If God is God and is the source of all moral reasoning, then, logically, if have to be suspicious of my own reasoning if it conflicts with God, and sometimes it does. A wise first grader should also have such reservations if he finds himself disagreeing with his math teacher, and the teacher isn’t even the source of all mathematics! This doesn’t mean that I am perfectly comfortable with everything that the Bible teaches.

In my 36 years of following my Savior, I have found that, in many ways, I have been wrong and He has been right. Coming from my radical background, I was against all authority. However, I came to see how my opinions had been born out of my very limited experience. Without parking my mind and moral discernment at the door, I have come to find that I have been wrong in so many ways. This doesn’t mean that I give myself a mental lobotomy, but it does mean that I have come to acknowledge God for who He is. His Word therefore has the upper hand in my life, as it should!

Besides, in many areas of my life, I have come to rely on experts. This doesn’t mean that I turn my mind off, but it’s an acknowledgement of the fact that I am very limited and I need the help of others more expert than myself.

He has won my heart! I am convinced that He loves me and has died for me. I am therefore grateful and gladly follow Him! While the idea that “God says so” is utterly distasteful to you, it is sweet music to my ears. This is because I trust Him and the love He has for me. Admittedly, I’d prefer to have perfect understanding of His Word before I take a step. However, I know that He has His reasons for not explaining everything to me. I am therefore willing to walk through the “valley of the shadow of death,” because I know that He is with me and will never let go of me.

He has never required me to do something that I later regarded as wrong. You claim that if God had asked the Israelites to exterminate the Canaanites, then anything can be justified. This just isn’t true. Regarding ethical questions, His Word is very clear. If a pastor tells me that God had told him to leave His wife and marry a younger woman, I would ask him to show me what Scriptural justification he has. Of course, there is none, nor for many other things that people want to do. Immorality cannot be justified Scripturally!

His Word is also consistent with the moral dictates He has written on our hearts. When Scripture tells us to not divorce, I have a corresponding witness in my heart to this moral truth. I know that there are things more important than my own immediate satisfaction. In other words, Scripture does not require us to do anything we know is wrong!

Not only do I delight in following my Savior, there are also so many blessings in doing this. Not only has He rescued me from myself – from depression, panic attacks, and self-loathing – He will also rescue me from the judgment to come. Meanwhile, He is working everything for good that comes into my life, however painful they might be.

Despite being a God of judgment, He is even more so the Savior of the world. He has promised all of us:

• “Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.  For everyone who asks receives; the one who seeks finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened.” (Mat. 7:7-8)

If we refuse to seek Him, we have only ourselves to blame!

• For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” (Rom. 10:12-13)

Atheists have no Defense against Genocide

Approximately 100,000,000 people – an unthinkable number - had been exterminated under atheistic communism. One atheist responded back that these genocides had nothing to do with atheism:

·         “There is nothing about atheism that says it is ok to commit genocide. Atheism is just the disbelief in god. So your tarnish of atheism is unwarranted. If people are the problem, even when they are Christians, then why is atheism the problem? [Previously, I had distinguished the horrible things done under the name of Jesus from the actual teachings of the New Testament.] You don't seem logically consistent.”

Here’s my response:

While I acknowledge that, linguistically, atheism merely means “disbelief in god,” once you have embraced this “disbelief,” you have also inherited its implicit implications:

1. There can be no possible basis for an objective and universal moral system. Therefore, genocide can only be rejected on pragmatic, relativistic grounds. However, it might be deemed pragmatic to commit genocide. The Communists resorted to genocide on many occasions for pragmatic reasons. Without God, pragmatism can justify anything!

2. Once you reject God, you also reject any basis for the dignity of humankind. Instead of bearing meaning and the image of God, we become no more than a sack of randomly assembled chemicals, lacking freewill and transcendent value. And, if we are merely an animalistic, pre-determined, electro-chemical robot, then there is no reason to treat one another as if we have dignity. Instead, we are a pathetic accident, ignorantly trying to find meaning on a cold, barren and totally apathetic landscape. We are therefore the red meat for the powerful, to be used and abused according to their “progressive” cause. Finally, after we have served our purpose, we are thrown on the junk heap with the rest of the robots.

3. Without meaning and objective values, there are no adequate reasons for moral persuasion. If then unity and compliance cannot be obtained through moral reasoning, then they will be won through coercion and manipulation! It is therefore unsurprising that communist/atheist leaders justified any violence to secure their goals.

4. By rejecting God, atheism has also rejected any basis for unalienable human rights. Once God was rejected, the atheistic communists uniformly trampled upon these rights. If our rights are merely granted by government, then government can just as easily retract those rights.

God has stacked the deck against you. You cannot reject Him without also rejecting your very self – all those things you were created to require. The atheist has rejected God in hope of becoming the master of his own life. However, in the process, he has reduced himself to the status of an animal. The Apostle Paul said it this way:

·         For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles. Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. (Rom. 1:21-25)

Church-Bashing and Genocide

(With thanks to David Singer for the photo!)

Genocide is not a weed that just suddenly appears. It has to be deliberately cultivated over a long period of time. The henchmen have to be prepared and convinced that they are doing the right thing. The target group has to be defamed and demonstrated that they do not have a right to exist. They are vermin that have to be eliminated in order to create a better world.

The Communists did this with the land owners. They were consistently cast as the “oppressors.” The National Socialists did the same thing with the Jews; the Hutus with the Tutsis – first vilify and then eliminate!

This is part of the reason why I object to the overwhelming torrent of criticism aimed at the church in the West. It is not that we are totally innocent; nor is it that we cannot profit from the criticism. We can! However, there is a point when criticism ceases to become constructive and instead becomes systematic defamation, and defamation opens to door to subjugation and even elimination.

It is so troubling to hear the many voices calling for the silencing of the church. And what a stark contrast to the Western acclaim for diversity and tolerance! While they wave the banner of multiculturalism and diversity, they are intent on marginalizing or even eliminating the church. As one atheistic group, I’m Proud to be an Atheist, advertised:

• I’ll stop attacking religion when religion stops hurting people and telling lies.

According to this group, we hurt people by our very nature. We talk about eternal judgment, and that bothers people. Consequently, the attacks will not stop. But talk about calories bothers people! Another group, Atheism and World Peace, declared:

• I have no reason and no intention to respect a religion that violates basic human rights. 

In other words, “I refuse to respect you unless you agree with my philosophy of life.” In this intolerant social climate, we are now charged with “hate speech” when we don’t agree, and therefore, we must be silenced.

However, what are even more troubling than the hypocrisy of the West are the voices within the church, especially among the evangelical break-away group calling itself the “Emergent Church!” One of their exponents, Shane Claiborne, described the traditional church this way:

• When studying sociology, I saw a lot of disturbing things. Sociological studies show that the higher a person’s church attendance, often the more prone they are to be racist, sexist, anti-gay, pro-war, pro-death penalty, and known for a lot of things that Jesus wasn’t know for…Just a few years ago, friends of mine did a study; they asked non-Christians around the country, “What do you think when you hear ‘Christian?’” And the number one answer was “anti-homosexual.” (ALife, 7/15/13, 14)

Well, this is not surprising, given the anti-Christian animus in the West! While I will not dispute that Christians haven’t always conducted themselves as they should have, my experience runs counter to the narrative ubiquitously promoted in western media – Christian parents disown their gay children. I have never seen an instance of this. However, I know many Christian parents who have been rejected by their gay children!

It is not surprising that Claiborne has referenced  selected studies that have reflected badly on Christians. However, I have seen many studies with the opposite findings. However, Claiborne has concluded that these studies represent, proof-positive, that the church has failed to follow Jesus and that He and his Emergent Church movement are correcting all of that by simply taking Jesus literally.

Well, let’s look closer at his critique. Perhaps serious Christian are more “sexist.” It depends upon what Claiborne means by “sexist.” If he is referring to biblically ordained role distinctions, then he is right. Perhaps serious Christians are also more “pro-war” and “pro-death penalty.” However, to deny that war is ever necessary is also to deny that police are ever necessary!  Perhaps Christians are more, “anti-gay,” depending upon what he means by that. If it means that we are against this highly self-destructive lifestyle, then I guess we are anti-gay. But is this in opposition to the love of Jesus, calling everyone to repent of their sins? And is this an adequate basis to join the prevailing culture to vilify the church?

It seems that Claiborne entered into his sociology classes with a worldview already poised against the biblical church. We then have to ask, “What does he mean by Christians being more ‘racist?’” Perhaps he simply means that many churches congregate according to race. Although I wish this wasn’t the case, this is certainly a far cry from his charge of racism.

Here’s what troubles me – so many members of the Emergent Church are just as critical of the church as those on the outside. In Claiborne’s case – and his worldview is reflective of the attitudes of many young Christians – his contempt for the traditional church has led him and other Emergents to reject the church and to reinvent it in a way that it more congruent with Western tastes.

Although the Emergents do not want to see the church eliminated in the same way that atheists want to see it eliminated, their criticism of the traditional church reflects an unbiblical contempt and a willingness to misuse Scripture to support their own agenda.

Claiborne claims that the traditional church has not reflected Jesus as they ought to have. He cites, “And they will know you are Christians by your love,” to prove his point. However, he has wrongly quoted this verse:

•  ^“By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” (John 13:35)

According to Jesus, the world will know that we belong to Him by our love for the brethren and not by some amorphous “love” that is supposed to embrace all lifestyles, no matter how sinful or destructive. Sadly, the Emergent Church has failed in Jesus’ love. Instead of loving the brethren, they have rejected us.

I have my own sins, and I am very willing to confess them. We all must confess our sins. However, according to the National Socialists, the Jews had devolved far beneath other peoples. According to Muslims, the Jews had become children of apes and swine, far beneath any Muslim! Therefore, it was fitting to eliminate them as they would any disease. This is precisely what has been building in the power structures of Western society regarding the church.

Criticism has its place, but it also must be kept in balance, the very thing that is now lacking. Once people believe that we are worse than others, they will begin to treat us as such!

What is the source of the contempt for the church? Instead of answering this question, I want younger Christians to do a little self-reflection. Are their negative attitudes about the church a product of cultural influences? Has their criticism ceased to be constructive? Is it merely serving to further marginalize the church or even to eliminate it? Is this what they want? Above all else, what should the love that our Savior taught us look like?

How Much Doctrine Do we Need to Believe in order to be Saved?

How much doctrine or theological correctness do we need to be saved? One Facebooker wrote:

• The use of verses [like the belief in the virgin birth] to justify the exclusion of individuals [from salvation] predicated upon somewhat differing theological propositions seems contrived.

“Is salvation a matter of attaining to a certain level of doctrinal purity or correctness? Must we be able to name at least five of the Ten Commandments or six of the twelve Apostles in order to be saved? Can we be saved if we can only name two of the four Gospels?”

If this is the substance of faith and salvation, I can understand why this Facebooker believes that such an understanding of salvation is contrived. Nevertheless, there are so many verses that do seem to equate salvation with theological correctness. For instance, Jesus warned the Pharisees:

• I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am the one I claim to be, you will indeed die in your sins." (John 8:24) 

However, Scripture does not give us a minimum list of verses to believe to guarantee salvation. Instead, the emphasis seems to be upon whether or not we are willing to receive the testimony of Jesus, His Apostles and Scripture:

• We accept man's testimony, but God's testimony is greater because it is the testimony of God, which he has given about his Son. Anyone who believes in the Son of God has this testimony in his heart. Anyone who does not believe God has made him out to be a liar, because he has not believed the testimony God has given about his Son. And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life. I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life. (1 John 5:9-13)

The key question is still: “Are we willing to accept the testimony of Scripture?” We are certainly willing to accept human testimony. How much more then should we be willing to accept God’s testimony!

“Well, why should be believe the testimony of Scripture? How do we know that it’s the testimony of God?” John suggests that when we believe this testimony, we are acknowledging a compelling voice that wells up within us from the center of our being (1 John 5:10). However, John doesn’t stop there. We are not limited to an internal and intuitive testimony. It also is a matter of eyewitness testimony to confirmatory miracles (1 John 5:13):

• That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched--this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us. We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ. (1 John 1:1-3) 

“What is faith? Is it mental precision regarding the teachings of Jesus or the Bible or is it receiving His testimony which will eventually grow into greater theological precision?” If theological precision saved us, this would leave out children and many who are presently unable to achieve such intellectual attainments. Instead, it is simple. It is a matter of receiving Jesus and His Spirit. However, Jesus promised that this simple step would become a fountain of wisdom:

• "Everyone who drinks this [well] water will be thirsty again, but whoever drinks the water I give him will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life." (John 4:13-14)

Growing in understanding and wisdom is a process initiated by that initial drink from the testimony of God:

• To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, "If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." (John 8:31-32) 

“Must we believe in the Trinity or the virgin birth in order to be saved?” It is not that these beliefs cause salvation. Instead, they indicate that we have received the testimony of God, the Gospel of salvation.

Shane Claiborne and Minimizing Doctrine

Shane Claiborne is the co-founder of The Simple Way, a ministry that is attempting to take Jesus’ teachings into his Philadelphia community. In an interview carried by ALife of the Christian Missionary Alliance, he states that, according to the Sermon on the Mount:

• We are to love our enemy…we’re not to worry about tomorrow. It would flip the world upside down if we really read the Sermon on the Mount and tried to live as if Jesus meant it.

Although much of what Jesus taught shouldn’t be taken literally – He taught us to figuratively pluck out our eyes and cut off our hands and even to “hate our parents" – Claiborne is correct that there is much that Jesus taught that the church has largely ignored to our detriment. Claiborne is probably also correct that our failure to love others as we ought has served to marginalize the church in the Western world.

However, much of Claiborne’s rhetoric is troubling:

• Jesus says at the Judgment all of us will be gathered before God and asked a few questions as we give an account for our lives. The questions are not doctrinal – “Virgin Birth: agree or disagree?” “Creation or evolution: did it really happen in seven days?” According to Jesus we will be asked, “When I was hungry, did you feed me?” “When I was a stranger, did you welcome me?” “When I was in prison, did you visit me?” The real test of our faith is how it works itself out in love and compassion.

Claiborne is correct that real faith “works itself out in love and compassion,” as James affirmed:

• But someone will say, "You have faith; I have deeds." Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do. You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that--and shudder. You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless? (James 2:18-20) 

A faith that fails to produce obedience is a faith that isn’t real – a faith that doesn’t save. However, a real faith is also one that has content. A changed heart that produces faith also illuminates Biblical truths. According to John, a real faith has the anointing of the Spirit, which teaches us all the things that we need to know (1 John 2:20, 27). One of them is the truth about Jesus:

• My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. (John 10:27-28)

Consequently, if faith doesn’t include certain truths, it is not a saving faith. Saving faith must perceive that Jesus is the Savior – and this is what He requires:

• “I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am the one I claim to be, you will indeed die in your sins." (John 8:24)

When asked about the “work” that had to be performed in order to be saved, Jesus answered:

• "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent." (John 6:29)

However, Claiborne maintains that judgment has little or nothing to do with doctrine:

• Jesus says at the Judgment all of us will be gathered before God and asked a few questions as we give an account for our lives. The questions are not doctrinal – “Virgin Birth: agree or disagree?”

Instead, it seems that faith, and not works, is the key to salvation:

• "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” (John 3:16)

• "I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life.” (John 5:24)

This is certainly not to dismiss or minimize our responsibility to follow Jesus. However, following Jesus is the fruit of believing and being born from above:

• For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day…No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day. (John 6:40-44)

In the Parable of the Sower, Jesus taught that bearing fruit must be preceded by the seed of the Word of God:

• But the one who received the seed that fell on good soil is the man who hears the word and understands it. He produces a crop, yielding a hundred, sixty or thirty times what was sown." (Matthew 13:23)

Hearing and understanding the Gospel must precede the crop! As there cannot be any harvest without the planting of seeds, there cannot be any spiritual growth without understanding the Word. There are many reasons for this:

Without faith it is impossible to please God. The Book of Hebrews explains why:

• Because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him. (Hebrews 11:6)

Clearly, there are certain beliefs that are essential to a relationship with God. The rest of the chapter then demonstrates how faith served as the engine to produce good works. It was by faith that Noah built the ark and condemned the world (Heb. 11:7-8)

Without the teachings of the Bible, we do not know how to love and to be the light to society. Without understanding the teachings of Jesus in the light of the rest of the Bible, we cannot follow Him. For many, adultery equates with love. For others, the welfare state represents a form of love. The communists believed that their revolution was an expression of love. However, it seems that such “love” has done more to undermine the family and entire communities than it has benefited them.

Good deeds, without a changed heart and Gospel knowledge, inevitably produce arrogance and self righteousness. I have seen so many who have unselfishly sacrificed for others who have developed an entitlement mentality. They subsequently feel entitled to look down on others because they have now become more worthy. In one parable, Jesus demonstrated how the self-righteousness of the Pharisee enabled him to look down on others (Luke 18:9-12; also 7:47).

A good-deeds-mentality tends to give us the wrong idea – that we are deserving. However, Jesus taught that this was the last thing we should think (Luke 17:10). Instead, the only two people Jesus praised were Gentiles who displayed an incredible understanding of their unworthiness (Mat. 8; 15).

Without faith – growing in the knowledge of God – we will not be grateful, an essential quality to serving Christ. Instead, we have to know and remember from where we have come in order to be grateful as a motivation to produce good deeds:

• At one time we too were foolish, disobedient, deceived and enslaved by all kinds of passions and pleasures…But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy…I want you to stress these things, so that those who have trusted in God may be careful to devote themselves to doing what is good. (Titus 3:3-8)

We are what we believe. If I hadn't believed that I was forgiven (1 John 1:9) and totally cleared of all of my sin (Rom. 8:1), I would have remained a dysfunctional mess.

Most importantly, without the Gospel, we cannot be saved. Therefore, Claiborne’s emphasis on a judgment based exclusively on works is, at best, unbalanced. In place of this simple assurance or grace, Claiborne insists that judgment will be based exclusively on works - did I show enough hospitality? Did I feed the hungry often enough? The consequences of this thinking will lead in either of two directions. Either we will become arrogant, thinking that we have performed better than 95% of the church, or we will be morbidly self-conscious and depressed, knowing that we have consistently failed to live up to the example of Jesus (1 Peter 1:15).

While it is true that the fruit of our lives (good works) is relevant to the final judgment, this is only because our fruit reflects something far more important - our faith (who we are before the Lord). As apples reflect the apple tree that bore them, our fruits reflect our changed status before God, and this is the most important thing!

Claiborne’s understanding of judgment is superficial. It focuses on works and not the changed heart that produces them. Although a number of verses do associate judgment with works, these works are significant because they reveal the state of the heart:

• "I the Lord search the heart and examine the mind, to reward a man according to his conduct, according to what his deeds deserve." (Jeremiah 17:10)

Our deeds reveal the more important question of the heart and the mind. For our Lord, it is the tree (the heart of faith, the heart that clings to Him) that has priority over the resultant fruit. Consequently, if we are His – and this is the main issue - we will follow Him, however imperfectly.

Believing and following are inseparable. Therefore, if we are judged by what we do, ultimately, we are judged by the renewed heart that enables us to do.

Claiborne claims that his outreach to his Philadelphia community has “been fun.” There’s nothing the matter with fun, but what happens when the fun stops. We are instructed to not weary of doing good (Gal. 6:9). This is because good deeds can become wearying. They loose their psychological payoff.

What will happen to Claiborne and the rest of the Emergent Church when they become weary? Will they have the theological roots to keep them on course, or will they simply dry up when the hot sun scorches their ground?

Who is the Real Science-Stopper?

While evolutionists claim that the belief in God is a science-stopper, Albert Einstein thought otherwise:

• I want to know how God created this world.

For Einstein, the belief in God was a science-cheerleader! This belief promised that the incredible artifacts of observed design will be matched by the design and intelligence that we don’t yet observe! It represents the uncovering of buried secrets and points to a supremely endowed universe! In other words, we would expect that the studying of the creation will be richly rewarded.

Let’s contrast this with a faith in naturalism – the belief that the appearance of design and uniformity just happens naturally out of a chaotic nothingness. No intelligence or purpose involved! This has to be a science-stopper. After all, who is motivated to learn more about chaos and nothingness that underlie all reality? Not a very appealing occupation to base one’s life upon! To use an analogy, what would you rather devote your life to study – the workings of intelligence or a series of numbers generated randomly by a computer?

I think that the choice is easy!