One of the most important steps in developing an experiment or a hypothesis is to make sure that our assumptions are accurate. If we start with assumptions that are otherwise then we will most certainly develop conclusions that contain a high margin of error. As we develop a theory regarding the existence of a creator it would be arrogant and naïve not to consider all of the possibilities.
The question is this; is there a creator or not? The theory of evolution or any other scientific theory can never answer this question because if there is an omnipotent creator then that creator can use any tools that he chooses, which can include evolution, a massive explosion or even seven days. To go even further, what is to say that a god didn’t create the world a year ago and simply programmed within it all our memories, political history and emotional history? This would certainly be possible if we assume an omnipotent creator. So the question remains, is there a creator or not?
As scholars we are more than willing to respect and listen to the opinions of our intelligent scientists. We may have not personally witnessed the experiment but based on their credentials, the consistency of their data and the oversight of fellow scientists we are willing to accept their information. Why are we so fearful of respecting the evidence that is put forth by millions of intelligent theologians? They claim to have undeniable evidence. They have millions of other theologians that have witnessed the same and/or similar evidence and can account for what has been produced.
It is unwise and extremely arrogant for us to assume that just because we have not witnessed it for ourselves or that we think that the theory is some outrageous, inconceivable, improbable one that it must not be true. Isn’t that what Christianity claimed about evolution?
It is unwise as well to assume that one is so “intelligent” that there is not a counter-argument for every argument one might put forth. I understand that an atheist might read this and say “but what about x, y or z”, but trust me there is not much in the realm of philosophy and science with regard to the god question that has not already been discussed and debated. This short response to a short article is not a sufficient medium through which to discuss this extremely complex issue. It takes much more time and energy to weed through all the information and develop a conclusion that is worth following.
As I said earlier, and based upon the previous statements, science will never be able to answer the god question, but we can attempt to if we use our scientific methods to develop theories that are based upon sound information. In the end the existence of a god is a question that can only be determined through a personal experiment that we must all be willing, and have the courage, to perform. It simply involves us putting aside our pride, any preconceived mindsets, assumptions and some time to pray and read the accounts of millions of people including those recorded two thousand years ago. We can then determine, through our own evidence, the answer to the most important question.
Stephen HamptonAustin, TX
