Feedback archive → Feedback 2019
Do creationists need to prove God exists?
Published: 8 June 2019 (GMT+10)
Our article Creation isn’t science? elicited many responses, some positive and some negative. Others may have been well intentioned but missed the boat entirely. We are publishing two comments below, with responses from Lita Cosner.
Brien D., Australia, wrote:
Creationism is founded on the belief of a god! That god has yet to be proven.!… Therefore, until that god is proven, ‘creationism’ is not a valid concept to discuss; It remains a fictional idea!!
Lita Cosner, CMI-US, responds:
You are correct that creation rests upon a foundation of belief in the Creator God. But you are incorrect that we need to prove that He exists before creation can become a valid topic to discuss.
In fact, your attempt at philosophy falls far short of a good argument. You use the word “proof” as if there is any such thing in the world of science. There is not. Instead, to approach science one needs to make several important starting assumptions. Are you awake? Is the universe real? Can you actually know what you know? You cannot even ‘prove’ that the universe was not created yesterday and that false memories were implanted in your brain. Of course, this is ridiculous, but why is it ridiculous? It is because such ideas do not fit into the grand edifice of knowledge we have built from our basic assumptions. The universe is real, it is logical, and we have the ability to comprehend it. We believe these things are true because God is true. Non-theists have to assume they are true without a reason. But all I am trying to say is that science is squarely based on philosophy and your question ignores this very important fact. You would benefit from reading our 3-part article series called Dystopian Science.
Why do we feel comfortable using the Bible as a guide for science?
First, God has revealed Himself through what He has made. Scripture tells us that all of us, including you, know that God exists. It also says that people who do not believe suppress that truth (Romans 1). The Bible also says, “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God.’”—and apparently God thought it was important enough to include the exact same statement twice (Psalm 14:1; 53:1). But even children instinctively know there is a God who created the world. The existence of God is self-evident, and we are without excuse if we reject the evidence for His existence (Romans 1:20).
Second, God has revealed Himself through His Word. The Bible tells us about God, His attributes and nature, and how He has interacted with humanity to bring about salvation.
Third, God has revealed Himself through His Son, Jesus Christ, who was born as a human, like us in every way except that He was without sin. He lived the righteous life we never could, and died the death that we deserved (because we have broken God’s good law, which is written on our hearts—Romans 1). He rose from the grave on the third day as vindication of His claims and proof that God accepted His perfect sacrifice on behalf of all who would trust in Him for salvation.
Thus, we do not have to prove that God exists because God has revealed Himself to us already. Furthermore, people who try to explain the universe apart from the Creator God have a hopeless task, because they want to use the creation that testifies to God’s power and eternal nature to try to disprove that very God! And they run into trouble at every level, from the microscopic to the cosmic.
The atheist cannot explain how the universe began, how stars formed, how planets form, how life began, the diversity of life and all the wondrous design in living creatures, the complex coded language of DNA, why humans have consciousness and a conscience. They can’t explain why we instinctively believe in God and why something like 99% of people throughout history have believed in a god.
In conclusion, we do not have to prove that God exists because you already know that He does. The good news is that He has revealed Himself in the Person of the Saviour, Jesus Christ, and that anyone who calls on Him will be saved. But the ‘bad news’ is that anyone who continues to suppress the truth in unrighteousness will one day stand before that same Jesus, but not as their Saviour, as their judge. I urge you to consider these matters before it is too late, because none of us is guaranteed another chance.
Jeff, US, writes:
Dear Lita
You have, by intention I suspect, missed the point of Vince D’s comment. The NAS describes Creationism as pseudoscience, not necessarily its practitioners. So all the names you mention can sleep sound knowing that they are “doing science” as long as it is not creationism. Poets are poets only when they are wrapped in the throes of poesy. Footballers, when they are playing the game. And so on. Rest easy!
Lita Cosner responds:
If there could be such a neat separation between creation science as an idea and the scientists who believe it, why would there be such a systematic campaign of persecution of any scientist who displays even the slightest belief in design? This seems like a convenient way to dismiss the fact that scientists who believe in creation have made some real scientific advances. As such, I reject the distinction as intellectually dishonest.
Readers’ comments
'The Grand Theory of Evolution is founded on the belief of there being no god! That the absence of god has yet to be proven.!… Therefore, until that absence is proven, ‘T.G.E.’ is not a valid concept to discuss; It remains a fictional idea!!'
We might ask our skeptical friends: Is the universe really there? 'Of course it is' they'll say. But Hindus and most animists aren't so sure: maybe it's a dream? Ultimately we can't prove anything is there: ergo, as we creationists know, the founding fathers of science knew that the universe was there, because the bible tells us that it exists. The bible tells us that God, who objectively exists, made the world.
But if we reject the bible's assertion that the world objectively exists, how can we do science? How can experiments work, if we aren't certain that the material universe is even there?
Science is a child of the Christian tradition: without the bible there is no basis for modern science.
If overthrowing evolution meant overthrowing science itself, sorry skeptics, but that ship has sailed, that means science should have been thrown out long time ago. Time and time again the consensus is overturned when all the experts were dead wrong.
I’m fact, just earlier today I came across an interesting article that challenges the late Professor Stephen Hawking’s theory that the universe had no beginning. Mind you it was from a secular source, not a creationist one. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve seen people on the internet or atheist websites appeal to his work (appeal of authority) in a vain attempt at shutting down debate. Even he can and has been wrong!
I don't suppose you've ever heard of any other unproven idea being discussed. Say... maybe... the 'big bang theory'? Or life from non-life? Mutations producing new kinds of creatures? Dinosaur soft tissue and carbon 14 surviving for tens of millions or billions of years, respectively? Missing transitional life forms, of which there should be billions? 'etceteraaa, etceteraaa, etceteraaa' (movie:The King and I).
We must discipline our minds when we think.
Keep focus, folk, Jesus is the Truth, and the love of truth is love of Him. No falsehood can ever be proved true, that stands to reason. When we are not fully informed on a matter, or don't understand it, reserve judgement, but as we well know through through History, Science, experience and conscience, whatever the Bible says will be found trustworthy. We don't ever have to fudge evidence or be afraid of facts and investigation, truth cannot and will not change. Work (for the truth) whilst it is still day: the night comes when no man can work.
All Gospel work has eternal reward. Remember John 27:17b "Thy word is truth".
If anything, modern science has proven evolution cannot explain the existence of the universe or biology. It is too complex to have happened by pure chance. And so evolutionists need to stop using the personification of nature and the creative narrative to explain their point of view, (they are ripping off God). "Blind, pitiless, indifference" doesn't cut it as an explanation! The evolutionary hypothesis is, in fact a competing religion but a intuitively ridiculous one. Historical science can't prove anything. The real scientific method necessarily happens in the present time as discovered by creationists during the enlightenment. Nether the creation or evolution historical point of view can be defined as science but at least we creationists have a narrative that explains nicely the present observations.In light of everything that has been made, (complexity) it is up to evolutionists to prove God doesn't exist by creating a complex living thing from nothing, (dirt only)! They'll never be able to do it and if they did, they would only prove it takes an intelligent being. Despite the fact that evo's control the educational and scientific communities, we creationists can have peace of mind knowing we stand on higher ground. Jesus Christ!
Instead we need to turn to the language of the courtroom: proven "beyond reasonable doubt". And how does a court attempt to arrive at such a determination? Why, of course, by inspecting the evidence! Yet in the courtroom of Judge Brien D, the evidence is not worthy to be considered because the case has not yet been proven. He wants there to be proof, before the evidence can be presented: it's the wrong way round!
Lita's article rightly focuses on higher, Scriptural principles by which the truth about God may be known, and these ought to be given careful attention. But even for people who as yet have no regard for such things, there is abundant additional evidence amassed by creationist scientists and accessible through resources such as this website.
Brien D, if you don't even want to examine such evidence, then you stand convicted of operating a "kangaroo court" in your own mind. As for me, I find all doubting of the reality of God's existence to be unreasonable, because it flies in the face of overwhelming evidence.
Invariably, the Secularist will argue something along the lines of claiming that the eyewitnesses are liars/mistaken/fictitious/etc but note that the tables have turned. They are now the ones making claims and most likely haven't presented evidence of their own. Just point this out and the more open minded will probably start realising how blind their beliefs are. More narrow-minded will most likely either have a rescuing device or circular reasoning to save them.
Also the weird way they (and not only they) talk about "a god" and "that god" strongly suggests they have a weak grasp of what the word God means in the first place. There can only be one Creator God, or none. And the funny thing is that if you don't properly know what the word "God" means, it follows that your idea of what "atheism" means is equally vague. Frankly, given their inability to explain the world, atheists should really be called acosmists - something Isaac Asimov seemed to be edging towards, believe it or not.
Comments are automatically closed 14 days after publication.