Man vs. God

The piece took up two pages in the Wall Street Journal. Three inch high bold letters announced the debate: "Man vs. God."

In Man's corner we had famed evolutionist and atheist Richard Dawkins, best selling author of numerous books including "The God Delusion." His piece described how evolution was "the most beautiful production that the laws of physics have ever generated." He believes life emerged from an inanimate universe made of "rocks and sand, gas clouds and stars..." and developed into "kangaroo(s), bat(s),dolphin(s),and Redwood(s)" while never violating the laws of physics. His theories - which don't ring true when you look at them closely - eliminate God as a player.

Representing God in the opposing corner was Karen Armstrong, a religion writer whose latest book is "The Case for God." Her response was firm, concise and to the point. She set the tone with her first line, "Richard Dawkins has been right all along, of course..." and proceeded to agree with him right down the line.

She claims that "Darwin showed there could be no proof for God's existence" and that religion is "...a kind of art form that, like music or painting, introduces us to a mode of knowledge that is different from the purely rational. At its best, it holds us in an attitude of wonder...not unlike the awe that Mr. Dawkins experiences - and has helped me to appreciate - when he contemplates the marvels of natural selection."

With friends like this, who needs enemies?

Say the Theory of Evolution is correct. Does it really preclude God's existence? Look at what Dawkins and Armstrong admit to believing. First, they think laws of physics made the universe. If you're going down that road, you might ask how something intangible (rules) created something tangible (everything physical). Offhand, I can't think of any examples where this happens. And even if this were possible, who formulated the rules?

They also believe life arose from an inanimate universe. It's beyond mathematical probability for all of the elements for life to have randomly assembled. And even if they did wind up in the same place at the same time, the problem of investing this collection of matter with life would be left unsolved. Even Dawkins notes this in stating "if we didn't know about life we wouldn't believe it was possible." In other words, he'd believe that the generation of life is impossible. He only came up with his rationalizations because life does, in fact, exist and as an atheist he's compelled to offer some kind of non-God answer.

He also notes that "Darwinian evolution is the nonrandom survival of randomly varying coded information." The synonym for "nonrandom" is "planned." He doesn't say who did the planning: maybe the same magical laws of physics that created the universe out of nothing.

I'm no intellectual and our "debaters" could no doubt talk circles around me. But I do have common sense. This argument is about who's got the best answer to how the universe and life got started. Their scenarios - presented as serious alternatives to God - simply don't make enough sense to be taken seriously.

Believers see the organization of nature as the product of the creator who planned it. Albert Einstein, who didn't believe in a personal God, did believe in God the Creator. I guess he just wasn't sophisticated enough to subvert this conclusion by inventing rationalizations to deny His role.  
Whether it's the creation of the universe or the generation of life, we're not discussing natural events. They're supernatural, and this makes them the work of God. Skeptics smugly regard the faithful as being small-minded, but the believer's worldview is expansive enough to conceive of God. Which side has the truly open mind?

God complements science by explaining things man cannot know otherwise. He gives us a holistic, sensible view of our existence that skeptics can never provide.


To receive notice when a new weekly post is up, please enter email address at www.triadpress.us/contactus

Be a Fan