The Existence of God - Part 2

There is a very prevalent assumption, on the part of many people, that if biological evolution is proven scientifically to be true, then we can rule out the existence of God. This is illogical.

I am not convinced that science actually has proven macro-evolution to be true, but let us assume, for the sake of argument, that it is a fact. (Macro-evolution means one kind of animal turning into a completely different kind of animal - like a whale into a cow, or a reptile into a bird, which has never happened. Micro-evolution means one kind of animal changing within the boundaries of its existing genetic potential, like all the breeds of dogs coming originally from wolves, or a strain of a disease becoming resistant to certain drugs, which obviously does happen).

So if we assume that macro-evolution is true, we still have a big problem. Where did all the original stuff come from in the first place? Where did the matter and energy that everything evolved out of, come from? Of course, no one can answer that, any more than we can answer the question of where God came from. Traditionally, Christians believe that God is eternal. He necessarily exists. He is not derived from anything. This is why Yahweh revealed Himself to Moses as "I am". He was revealing the fact that He is self-existent.

The point that I want to make is that no matter what science proves or does not prove, if we ask enough of the right kinds of questions we will eventually run out of answers because we will eventually ask questions that are not testable scientifically. Everyone, no matter how passionately they proclaim themselves to be secular-humanists, has faith in something, because everyone believes in something that they can't prove.

If you are a theist, you believe that God exists even though you can't prove it and don't really know what it means that He is self-existent. He just is. If you are an atheist, you believe that matter and energy are self-existent just because they are.

So we Christians must not fall for it when atheists proclaim that they are the only ones capable of doing real science, because they are (in their own minds) free from faith-based assumptions that color the way they view the scientific evidence. They are just as influenced by their faith-based presuppositions as everyone else. It is not bad to have presuppositions - they are unavoidable - it is bad when we operate without being aware of what our presuppositions are, because it breeds arrogance and blindness.