I do not normally read the comments section of the website Debunking Christianity as that section is usually filled with unbelievers saying all sorts of untrue things about the Bible. It gets depressing to read the results of spiritual blindness.
But today was different as I prayed that I had nothing to say. well God led to me another website that was posted in the comment section. I know nothing about the writer, his beliefs etc., but i put his website in my favorites to explore later. Right now I want to address those words in the title.
I am not commenting upon what the author wrote but using the two words in the title that were in his post as launching pads to address a couple or three problems. You can read the whole post at the following link: http://christthetao.blogspot.kr/2013/09/did-michael-behe-admit-that-astrology.html
Of course, everyone should know that I.D. in this context refers to Intelligent Design and I have had many problems with that group of people because though they want a designer, they are not picky about which one he is or what method he used.
My first problem with the I.D. position is the fact that they use the word ‘designer’ instead of God. This alteration now makes the source for existence quite murky as it could be God who fits the vacant slot or it could be an alien. I.D. supporters are not picky about who did it.
This position is in direct contrast to God’s as we read in the very first verse of the very first book of the Bible these words: “In the beginning God…” (Gen. 1:1 NIV 1984). Notice that God doesn’t waste his or anyone’s time and comes right out and says he created all things. This verse sets the tone for the whole Bible-God is responsible and he is behind everything.
There is no mystery, no guesswork, no doubt. God is the designer (to use I.D.’s word) no one else.
The second problem I have with I.D. supporters is that they are not picky about the methodology their designer used to create everything. Some of them are open to theistic evolution, while others can opt for a progressive creationist stance. While still others can insert their theories as to how all things came into existence.
I.D. is kind of like a melting pot for alternative Christianized theories. This thinking is a problem because it allows for confusion to enter in and cause rifts among any believers in the organization. I.D. is not doing anyone any favors by allowing alternative methods to be considered.
God,on the other hand, left no opportunity for confusion to enter into his communication to his creation. Verses 3, 6, 9, 14, 20, 24 all start the same way and use the exact same words: ‘and God said…’
There is no doubt about the methodology God used. he spoke and it was. Hebrews 11:3 supports this point and Genesis 1: “By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command…(NIV 1984).
The third problem I have with the I.D. organization is that they are trying to fit a supernatural act into a secular science mold and it will not work. God did not create via the secular science methodology thus it is useless to try to fit what God did into an unholy framework in order for secular people to accept it.
Believers are not to dance to the tune of the secular scientist. No, they are to find the truth, accept it then proclaim that truth to all. we do not alter the truth to make it appealable to those who do not believe.
You will notice that God does not alter what he did to make it more acceptable to unbelievers. He just stated the truth and let his creation make up their own minds. We are not responsible for people rejecting the truth but we are responsible for how we present it. This means that we do not compromise God’s words nor alter it in hopes of getting someone to salvation.
To compromise or alter the truth is not being honest nor is it representing God correctly. We stand with the truth because that is what God did. We say what we believe and be honest about it. If nothing else, we will get respect from unbelievers for preaching what we actually believe. Being honest about our beliefs is what wins the day.
So since God said HE created all things, we do not mask that revelation with words that cloud the issue or confuse our listeners. We remain clear so that our listeners understand perfectly what we believe and who created all things.
That post also talks about observation but here is the key to understanding how that works. If a person observes a man and a woman exiting a motel room, they have observed only a part of what actually took place. They do not have the full story or the truth about that couple.
That observation is very limited and the observer has many options (I despise the word interpretation as it is misleading in its scope) to choose from to describe what might be the correct context for that exit.
No one observed the whole situation from start to finish thus the observer is at a loss to explain what actually took place. They do not know, so they guess. The problem with guessing is that they could guess wrong and since there is only 1 truth, the chances of the observer guessing wrong is high.
This is the way it is with evolutionists. They claim to observe evolution in action as they conduct their experiments. BUT they are not witnessing the whole scenario, they only witness a part of it and are left with a guess.
Of course, evolutionists will bring in other tools to shore up their guess like ‘predictions’ but predictions did not observe the whole situation either so those do not know the whole story. Predictions are easy to manipulate and the evolutionist doesn’t stop at just one. They keep making them until they get it right but I digress.
The evolutionist does not know from their limited observation who really is the source for the results of their experiment. They didn’t witness the situation taking place, they are missing key pieces of information, namely the truth.
In origins and life development there is only one truth and the chances of the evolutionist guessing wrong are extremely high because they have other influences manipulating their observation. One of those influences is unbelief. They will not choose the truth because they do not believe it and they want an alternative to the truth not the truth itself.
There are many problems for the evolutionist to overcome in getting their theory verified and one of those problems is their self-designed time frame. It is impossible for the evolutionist to see the whole situation unfold and observe what really took place.
They haven’t lived long enough to do so and they won’t live long enough. That alone dispels their theory-it can’t be observed throughout the whole process to see if it supports the evolutionary viewpoint.
The second problem the evolutionary scientist has is that, unlike the couple in the example,their test subjects cannot confess and tell the whole story of what happened during the unobserved period of time. Evolution will always remain a guess as there is nothing available to verify one thing the evolutionist claims. Nothing to substantiate their work.
Observation is not a key element in knowing about origins because it wasn’t done when observers were around to verify what took place. Observation is too limited and used wrongly can cause a lot of problems for innocent people. The leaps to conclusions or assumptions used to describe an unknown part of the situation are not based upon the truth but fictional ideas thought of by the observer.
Observation can be very misleading and when one uses it they should be careful because a lot of damage could be done that can’t be undone.