What I didn't realize until I got to the bottom of the article is that the author is from Turkey, and is a Muslim (according to the bio at the bottom), though likely a somewhat secular Muslim. But the point is he's not a fundamentalist Christian.
I also found it interesting because it tied in to the posts earlier today.
I do not believe in the purely materialistic view of creation -- never did, even prior to my coming to faith in Christ. I had a vague sense of theism, but nothing concrete. But the idea that everything around us is the result of pure random chance is something that never resonated with me. In college I recall a professor arguing for evolution, and I thought, "No, something is wrong with this argument." He was arguing for the eventual elimination of the appendix or small toe on humans, but such an argument fundamentally refutes the idea of random mutations leading to reproductive advantage. The presence or absence of a small toe on a person does not make them any more or less likely to be reproductively successful, particularly in an age where reproductive choice is not determined solely on survival factors. It was then that I sensed that there was another agenda at work -- secular materialism, but I didn't know it at the time -- and my radar went up, suspicious of what I was hearing.
Note: that's one of my big beefs with materialists -- they impute in evolution a sense of purpose. They'll deny it, but they're language gives them away. They often speak of some change "making sense" ... but of course, "sense" has no place in a world that is a product of pure chance, and has no place particuarly within a mechanism of pure chance.
Another aspect of the secular materialism I could not stomach was the notion that prior to the "Big Bang," all matter in the universe existed in a point of "singularity." That's abstract enough. But to think that such a thing would exist for some period of time and then suddenly -- through some apparent causal effect -- explode in a "Big Bang" without benefit of any outside force ... well, that was too much. Why would the state of things prior to the "Big Bang" exist in an apparently steady state and then suddenly change, if not for some outside influence? But of course, an influence outside the point of "singularity" was not possible; it refutes the idea of singularity.
To add fuel to the fire of those who read my earlier post and view me a heretic, I don't believe in the literal creation of the universe in six solar days. I don't refute the ability of a sovereign and omnipotent God to do that. Rather, I look about this planet and see ample evidence that time has existed for longer than the lineage of humans suggested in the Bible. For instance, the Grand Canyon clearly was not formed by natural erosion in ... what? ... 4,676 years? That means either the earth is older than 4,676 years, or God created the Grand Canyon (and other evidence of long-duration time effects) as they are for some reason unknown to us.
I'm in a philosophical mood ...
I honestly don't see the contradiction here. To assume a creator outside the realm of our natural universe does not, in my mind, refute science. If anything, it elevates my sense of the Holy in God that he could create such an extraordinarily intracate lace of natural laws and physics that would be as we see them today.
Hence my admiration for the article I posted the link to earlier. I see that as a perfectly sensible argument on behalf of "Intelligent Design," though absent any thundering theological condemnation.
Thoughts?
No comments:
Post a Comment