If you’re willing to accept the self-existence of a god, then you have no reason to deny the self-existence of a universe.

If you require more stringent proof of natural processes than you do of a being you’re banking your whole existence (and eternity, should it exist) upon, then I suggest examining your priorities. The existence of a god or gods (especially should such beings have any bearing on the fate of man) should be met with more scrutiny than any other issue, and the evidence required should be more irrefutable than in any other area of study.

Only the Bible says that the heavens declare the glory of God, but the only proof of that statement is that the Bible itself says it. No atheist looks to the heavens and says, “Boy, God sure is great! … I don’t believe in him, though!”

If the heavens only declare it to those who already believe, then what’s the point of the declaration?

They claim they do, but the fundamental tenet of creationism (i.e., that God created) is a denial of science in that it cannot be tested, verified, or even understood in scientific terms. This isn’t really surprising, though; just as creationists misunderstand what a theory is (i.e., “evolution is just a theory”), they misunderstand what science is (i.e., “God said it, and that’s all the proof we need”).

Jesus Christ is recorded in the Gospel of John as stating that the Father chooses who will come to Him and that those who are chosen not only will come to Him but that they will receive salvation (implied through the guarantee of being risen up at the last day).

If I am one of the one’s the Father has chosen, then according to Jesus, I will come to faith.

(And yes, I realize that is pretty “Calvinist,” but ultimately, it’s simply taking Jesus at his word without trying to explain away what he said to fit some arbitrary view of Christianity… So many Christians twist & distort what Jesus says in the Gospel of John regarding to sovereignty of the Father over salvation… the whole book might as well be tossed out. All they really want is John 3:16 anyway.)

Now, theology rant over… Back to science.

You say that it’s possible to find “pieces of God” simply by looking up at the sky or by exploring the heavens scientifically. What does a “piece of God” look like, and how may it be proven scientifically that it is any particular god which the “piece” belongs or points to? I could just as easily look up into the heavens and say that the awe I feel is surely proof that the invisible pink unicorn is a glorious creator & steward… and I would be doing so with every bit as much proof as the Christian who looks up and says the same regarding Jah.

Thankfully, better men of science aren’t so quick to discount what they can’t observe directly.

Creationism as a rejection of science? When I look up at the night sky, I look up at it as one who believes that God created it. This, in your mind, is a rejection of science, but in absolutely no way does my faith in a creator lead me to reject science. Quite the contrary actually. I love science all the more. Nowhere in my studies of theology or science do I find contradictions, since the two speak to utterly different realms of life with only a little overlap here and there. And in those places of overlap, both disciplines inform one another. Science or God is a false dichotomy.

Rick: You say, “The video above, the Hubble deep field, and every other piece of evidence discovered by science has failed to find traces of God” This is a perfect example of choosing what you want to believe, no matter what the evidence. If you were looking for clues to God’s existence, “traces of God” if you will, I think you would have found them more than adequately displayed if you wanted to, in the sources you just named. But it is obvious that you don’t want to find God in any of the clues because the implications are pretty serious, which is the heart of the problem. When an atheist does science they refuse to even consider that the evidence somehow points to a creator. Any explanation(no matter how ridiculous) other than a creator is plausible and laudable. I find that disingenuous and close-minded foolishness. But I also understand, b/c admitting that the evidence might, even in the smallest way, point to a creator has life-changing implications for someone who hates the idea of God. At that point, you have to ask yourself why you hate the idea of God, or God himself?

I find my belief in a creator makes me open to pretty much any possibility, which is great when it comes to doing science. (except for young earth creationism which is just terrible theology spoofing as science).

Sorry for the long comment but this shouldn’t be boiled down to “creationists are so stupid they can’t understand” because that is just simply not true.

Why did he take so long on the earth huh?
A: To provide a one-week pattern for humanity to follow. To show his sovereignty over life, creating plant life prior to the sun, for example.

And if he’s so good why did he need rest?
A: A rest doesn’t require being tired; a rest in the context is simply a respite from work, similar to a rest in music being a brief break from the melody.

And why are humans flawed?
A: Humanity was created perfect, which included freedom of will. Humanity made the wrong choice and was consequently cursed, creating the imperfections we all know too well.

As I said, those are they party-line answers. By & large, the Bible is internally consistent; objections raised to its content are answered or explained elsewhere. It wasn’t written by dummies by any means.

But that does not make it perfect. There are plenty of flaws. And if taken at face value without relying upon complicated methods of interpretation developed long after the books & letters of the Bible were written, even many Christians will object to what it teaches.

BD: I spent nearly a decade ardently defending young-earth creationism. At its best, it encourages us to stand in awe at the world so that we will give glory to God; in actuality, what it encourages is ignoring the world around us, preferring instead the workings of a deity. This is exactly what the myths of old did: Thunder bolts? Must be Zeus, right? Science now tells us why we have thunder & lightning. Judeochristianity is guilty of the same sort of explanations: the Bible ascribes the formation of the cosmos, the formation of life, the water cycle, weather, and more to a deity; yet today, through actually observing the world around us, we understand how such things work without appealing to the supernatural.

Calpatriot: “The big bang is nothing but a theory.” That shows a gross misunderstanding of what the word “theory” means, especially considering within the realm of creationist-affirming scientists, “creation theory” is used. A theory within scientific parlance is tantamount to fact; is the theory of gravity “just a theory”? Evolution is as well-supported scientifically as relativity, electromagnetism, gravity, and so forth, yet these are all fields whose grand proposals are labeled as “theories.” The word you are in fact thinking of is “hypothesis” (e.g., “My hypothesis for the science fair is that ketchup will make an effective lava for a volcano.”). Evolution (and gravity and electromagnetism and relativity et. al) began as hypotheses, but after thorough testing (and evolution is perhaps one of the most, if not *the* most, scrutinized of all scientific theories to date), the hypotheses are upgraded to that of a theory. Long story short, when scientists speak of “theories,” they are speaking of theses which have withstood scrutiny and have been found to be descriptive of the physical world around us.

Further, you said that the Hubble deep field validates the story of creation; this further shows your misunderstanding of what constitutes proof. To validate the story of creation as presented in the Bible would require first & foremost proof that God exists. The video above, the Hubble deep field, and every other piece of evidence discovered by science has failed to find traces of God but instead corroborate a naturalistic explanation for the universe’s evolution.

Ched: That the universe is large and we “so small within it” is not an argument against creationism; rather, it’s a reinforcement of the creationist’s beliefs that despite the size of the universe, God loves *us.* And yes, I agree, Christianity is a very clever religion; if not rebutted properly, we end up reinforcing their beliefs. This happens a lot when dealing with the writings of Paul; sure, the man may have believed in the supernatural, but he was incredibly smart, anticipating a variety of objections within his writings.

Oh, and thanks for allowing me to rant on your site, even though I am a good deal late to the party.