Darwin's Standard

In Darwin’s book on page 158 he states: “"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." Here he sets up the standard to falsify his theory. This is just after he has imagined his way through how the formation of an eagle’s eye over millions and millions of years and countless selected modifications could maybe have happened. If I were to parallel this I would say I get to imagine my God and call it science unless you can show He does not exist. Be that as it may.
I would put forth Behe’s idea that the flagellum is irreducibly complex at least puts the ball back in Darwin’s court. Now I read Miller’s take on it and like Darwin he can imagine how at least a subset of parts could have come into functional existence and latter morphed into the flagellum. But I say again, I can imagine how God spoke the flagellum into existence.
No I think the probabilities introduced by Dembski demand a scientific reckoning superior to imagination alone. I think it is high time a feasible detailed scenario be proposed for the evolution of the flagellum or any complex organ for that matter.
Otherwise, I think we can dismiss the theory based on Darwin’s standard laid out above.

Christians Caviler on Creation?

According to Mary Fairchild, the purpose of the Creation story “is for moral and spiritual revelation.”  She points to three main revelations of the narrative: 1) God created you He is pleased by you and you are of great worth to Him; 2) God first references the Trinity; 3) We should not feel guilty when we take time each week to rest.

Seriously, those are, claims Mary Fairchild, the main reasons God saw fit to include the account of Creation in His Word.  It was certainly not, according to Fairchild, to tell us how long it took or how it happened, exactly.

Mary Fairchild is the Christianity Guide on About.com.  She seems legitimate and all the other posts on the site also seem on the mark.  So, I ask myself, why the fade to gray when it comes to the Creation account in Genesis Chapter 1?  If this were an isolated case, I would not be too concerned.  Unfortunately this caviler attitude toward the Creation is the norm with those calling themselves Christian.

A lot, and I mean most, Christians I have talked to don’t have the stomach to take on evolution.  They don’t really understand the claim but for some reason they buy the premise and so, they are forced to water down the Creation account.  I suspect that Fairchild’s summary of the Creation story is at least an attempt to avoid butting heads with evolution.

I am wondering, how do you process Genesis 1: 1 – 2: 3?  Do you dismiss the secular evolutionary tail altogether and accept a young earth?  Do you contort your beliefs in an attempt to reconcile evolution with the Biblical account of Creation?  Do you release Genesis 1 from any historical responsibility as does Mary Fairchild?  Or, do you have some other take on the subject?

This is important because many of the lost do take Genesis 1 very seriously from a historical perspective.  What is more, they become very confused when Christians don’t but do take other sections of the Bible very seriously historically.  They look at Genesis 1 at face value and say to themselves:  “Sounds like a historical account to me.  It does not jive at all with what I have been told about evolution and the history of the universe.  So, it can’t be a historical account.  So, anything else in the Bible that sounds like a historical account is not necessarily so.  Jesus could just be a literary figure used to show how much God cares for us and not an actual person, who lived and breathed, suffered and died for sin.  He just represents the lengths God is willing to go for us.”  This is a logical progression and reasonable given the number of Christians who will not defend Genesis 1 as historical.

I believe that God created the heavens and the earth and all that in them is.  I believe He did it in seven literal days.  I believe He did it less than 10,000 years ago.  I believe He accomplished it by super natural power.  I know that nobody has shown me any discovery of man that contradicts these beliefs and stand, as Elijah did before the prophets of Baal, to mock their efforts to do so.  The efforts of science thus far have only worked to bolster my beliefs in the historical accuracy of Genesis 1.  I look forward to the next scientific discovery with respect to origins and how it will further confirm the account.

Two Realms

Genesis 1: 4

And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness.

Here in verse four our attention is turned toward the visible spectrum.  Can anyone argue that visible light is not good?  What is more God has purposefully created a universe in which the light is divided from the darkness, so that two realms emerge.  What?  Light has to be separate from darkness; you say.  Perhaps.  Perhaps in this universe that is so, but it is so because God made it so.

Light!

Genesis 1: 3
And God said, Let there be light; and there was light.

That is power (omnipotent)!  God spoke and then what He spoke happened.  What happened?  What is light?  We define it as electromagnetic radiation which is energy emitted and absorbed by charged particles with wave like properties.  So, God turned the universe on with His voice.  Or, God added the wave like energy to the universe.  This would imply that the physical universe is an open system.  This contradicts the popular science notion that the physical universe is closed and isolated.  Open meaning God can put things in it that were not in it before, like, energy.  And it means he can take things out, like, Enoch (Genesis 5: 24) and Elijah (2 Kings 2: 11).  An open universe should not be a surprise, as every other system known to man is an open system.  But this implies things exist outside the material, physical, natural.

God's power is then super natural.  The materialist is here found of saying; "You might as well attribute things you don't understand to The Great Flying Spaghetti Monster."  Were this an honest appeal by the materialist, I would be encouraged for them.  It would mean that there heart was softening toward God.  As it is, this is a scoff most easily refuted with testimony.  "Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, let us throw off everything that hinders and the sin that so easily entangles. And let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us,..." - Hebrews 12: 1.  You will find a scant few scoffers compared to the magnitude of this cloud.  The vast majority of humans that have ever lived embrace the idea of a real god.  As we continue through Genesis Chapter 1, we will gain more and more knowledge about the one true living God Almighty.

Void?

Genesis 1: 2

And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.  And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

As we go through the rest of the chapter we will be told the evolution of the creation of the universe.  Yes I said evolution.  Things do change over time in the universe.  I am not here talking about any sort of Darwinian evolution however.  Darwinian evolution is irreconcilable with Christianity in general and is totally inconsistent with the Holy Bible in its specifics.

Verse two gives us a murky general idea as to what creation was like in this early stage of the process and it did not look like much.  It had no form and contained nothing substantial.  Yet, I believe it would have been a very exciting / suspenseful time to witness; God’s Spirit moving over the face of the waters.

It is impossible for us to know now of what these waters consisted.  Dr. Russell Humphreys contends, in his book “Starlight and Time” that these waters might have been actual water.  I recommend you read his book for a better understanding of this claim.  Could be “the waters” refers to the recently discovered Higgs field the description of which is consistent with both a void and a fluid of sorts.  The size and scope of the formless deep is not revealed.  Why?  I don’t know but I contend the size and scope of the universe at this time are irrelevant.  I think suffice to say that the formless deep void of the waters or Higgs field formed the elementary basis for what would come next.  That it had some size is evident and that it would become much larger will soon be evident.

How long did the Spirit move on the face?  Was the Spirit performing any task at this time or was the Spirit just building intensity for the tasks ahead?  I am only sure of one thing at this point; Jesus was there!  John 1: 1 – 3 “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.  The same was in the beginning with God.  All things were made by Him; and without Him was not any thing made that was made.”

In The Beginning!

Genesis 1: 1

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

This is a profound statement.  We are being told (creavit – third person singular perfect active indicative form of creo) that God created, made, produced, begat, caused, chose both heaven and earth so that they came into existence solely by His will and power.  We are not pointed to any substantiating evidence nor is any attempt made to persuade us that this proclamation is true.  How is the reader supposed to react to this?  In one of three basic ways, I suppose.

The reader could say: “You know what?  No way.  There is no such possible being that could possibly exist that could possibly poses the power, knowledge, and ability necessary to accomplish such a remarkable feet.”  The honest question put to those taking this track is then:  “Well, the universe – heaven and earth – is here, so how did it get here?”  Used to be, the popular response was:  “It has always been here.  The universe has an infinite past.”  In recent years, The Big Bang theory has risen in fame where these folks claim:  “Billions of years ago, everything that now exists, existed in a point – a singularity with no dimension – where for no discernible reason, it exploded into the universe we now see.”

The reader could say:  “Possible sounds far-fetched but I am willing to listen on.  I mean, I don’t know this God but it is also the case that I don’t know everything.  In fact, I don’t even know half of everything.  This God could exist in the at least half of everything that I don’t know.”

The reader could say:  “Yes.  I know this God!  He is the one who saved me.  I love this, the one true living God, because He first loved me.  His invisible attributes from creation are manifest in the universe He created.”

I would like to take some time to examine the specific, vivid, and chronological Genesis Chapter One account of God’s work in creating the universe.  If you are the first reader, then this process might turn out to be frustrating, painful, or even angering.  Or, it might turn out to be liberating.