The World According to kcillini77

April 14, 2007


Filed under: America,Christianity,Evolution/I.D. — kcillini77 @ 5:04 pm


A new friend of mine who is highly skeptical but interested in the claims of Christianity posed a question to me that I had never been asked before. Since a fair question to a skeptic is “What evidence would it take for you to believe in Christ”, he asked me, “What evidence would it take for you to abandon your faith?” I didn’t have any reasonable off the cuff answer for him, so I told him I’d have to think about that. It’s been in the back of my mind lately, and so I’d like to explore the question by examining some potential faithbusters and how I have either come to grips with them or how I feel I would respond if the situation arises. This will no doubt become a multi-post effort. Okay, without further ado – here’s the first:

The Origin of the Universe and of Man: Could there ever come a point at which science could prove to me that the God I believe in does not exist? Obviously, science can never disprove the existence of God, but in theory it could rule out the need for God. Prevailing scientific theory already believes it has done so, but Darwinian thought is prefaced with the assumption that only natural causes are valid. Hence, macroevolution as currently presented has already ruled out the existence of God and only surmises that God is not necessary via circular reasoning.

The reasoning of intelligent design scientists such as Michael Behe, William Dembski, and others make sense to me. I don’t intend to rehash their arguments here – you can research them for yourselves if interested. What I can say about my beliefs is that at this point I think the idea that Genesis 1 is intended as a literal retelling of creation (i.e. seven days and the earth is only 6,000 years old) is a stubborn idea based on a lack of understanding of the genres employed in scripture. That doesn’t mean that God couldn’t have created the earth in seven days, but that given the fairly irrefutable scientific evidence surrounding us, those who hold to such a notion (ie. Ken Hamm) are turning a blind eye to science in support of one interpretation of a section of scripture. Science is not an enemy of faith.

The age of the earth may require a different interpretation of Genesis than believing it to be a scientific textbook. But one thing that is clear no matter how you read it is that God created man in his own image and made a clear distinction between animals and man. The metaphysics of our being – the very fact that we can reason and emote and think as we do – separates us from animals and is one thing that even the theory of evolution cannot ever explain.

But I’m starting to go off on a tangent. I began by questioning what would make me question or perhaps abandon my faith. Because I believe that God created man in His own image, a strong indication that we DID evolve from randomness to the complex individuals we are today would make me rethink some of my positions. One might say, ‘but you have already been convinced to a point that you would reason away any proof that I might show you.’ Fair contention. Here’s what I would need to see. Forget your faked or extremely imaginative “missing links.” Forget your spotted moths and other evidences of microevolution. Show me one species born from another one and I’ll have questions about my understanding of the nature of God. If everything is constantly evolving, there has got to be a species somewhere in the world ready to make the leap into a more progressive species. Where is it?


  1. Christianity turns on only one point, either Jesus IS who He said He IS or He is not who He said He is. All these ancilliary topics are interesting talking points, but are not faithbusters.

    “And that’s all I have to say about that”. F. Gump

    Comment by Dad — April 14, 2007 @ 6:36 pm | Reply

  2. Dad – I agree with you that this is one of those secondary topics, but it is one that is often raised as critical by both sides of the fence. And since it is in the Bible, and Jesus refers to Genesis in some of His recorded words, it is a topic we need to at least wrestle with. I’m with you – it’s not critical to our faith in Christ whether the earth was made in seven days or not. On some levels one could argue that it doesn’t even matter if we did indeed evolve precisely as Darwin theorizes. However, because philosophical naturalism at its core eliminates the requirement that there even be a God, it is a key cornerstone of atheism and agnosticism. So when discussing our faith with people who don’t share it, this topic WILL come up and we need to know what we believe and why we believe it.

    Comment by kcillini77 — April 15, 2007 @ 8:13 am | Reply

  3. So the question to ponder — If God wanted to convey a literal 7 day creation rather than taking a long time, how would he have written it? Could he have possibly written the Genesis account in any way that would be adequate to convince people he really did it in 7 days? On the other hand, if he wanted us to know he took a long time to create the world, how could he make that most clear?

    Comment by tex — April 20, 2007 @ 8:26 am | Reply

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at

%d bloggers like this: