Atheists often mock Christians by claiming that rather than look into science, we simply say "God done it", and leave it at that. Apparently, only atheists possess the intellectual power to actually study science to figure out how the world works.
In reality, the existence of God in no way stifles scientific inquiry. In fact, it encourages it (as is evident from the fact that Christians were at the forefront of the scientific revolution, and continue to contribute to our understanding of reality today).
Imagine a car. When you see a car, you don't need a book to tell you that someone made that car. Imagine three people come across this same car. One of these people, we'll call him Bill, insists that the car was created. Another, Ben, insists that there is no creator, the car just came about by random chance. The third, Bob, acknowledges that there is a creator, but he created the car in a random fashion, identical to the way Ben claims the car originated.
Ben believes Bill's theory is just a mechanic of the gaps theory, and that Bob's theory is irrelevant because, obviously, he agrees with everything Bill says, he just wants to slip in a casual mention of some weirdo called Harald Krüger (the current CEO of BMW). Bob also believes Bill's theory is too simplistic, requires too much faith and stifles mechanical interest. Bill disagrees with both of these people, knowing full well that the car was intelligently designed and masterfully created by BMW. But this doesn't mean he can't try to figure out how the car works, that he can't care for and maintain the car, or that the instruction manual was written by people whose only experience with engineering is a set of Legos their mother bought them one Christmas.
Who's correct in this scenario? Obviously, Ben's theory is asinine. Cars cannot be created by random chance. They need a designer. Furthermore, if Ben really believes the car is just thrown together randomly, there's no reason to assume it's even worth trying to understand it. It has no purpose, and the illusion of purpose is an interesting coincidence.
Bob's theory is arguably even crazier, because he believes there is a creator, but isn't willing to listen to how that creator says he created, instead compromising with a story that was explicitly designed to explain the car without a creator.
In this scenario, only Bill has the correct view of the car. He both understands its origins and is able to use that understanding to determine that yes, the car is worth studying.
Obviously, Ben's theory mirrors Evolution and related atheistic theories. First of all, the world as we know it simply cannot be the result of random chance, even the random chance atheists claim isn't really random, but let's be honest, still is. There is just no possible way for all the matter in the universe to be arranged in the way it is now without a designer. Ironically, there literally is more chance of creating a fully functioning vehicle by blowing up a junkyard than there is of even creating our galaxy with the magical explosion people call the "Big Bang".
What's more is that if this is how the world came to exist, there's no reason to study it. Our own brains weren't designed for the purpose of thinking, so how can we assume they can do such a job? As Darwin himself said, "would anyone trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind"? But even if we assume our minds are capable of pursuing and understanding truth, that's worthless if truth itself doesn't exist. What if, for example, our bodies aren't designed? If we were intelligently designed, our bodies should have a use for every part of it. If, however, we are simply evolved apes, there could, and arguably should be parts of our bodies that are useless.
This was the logic behind classifying more than 180 organs as "vestigial" (i.e. leftovers from our Evolutionary past). This even lead to the removal of some peoples' coccyx bones, which are supposedly just a vestigial tail. Turns out, God had a plan for those little protrusions. They provide a third point of impact when you sit down, there are 9 muscles attached that aid in excretion, and it even serves a purpose in childbirth (so ladies, you need to be especially worried about sloppy Darwinian science).
This ironically means that it is actually Evolution, not Christianity, that detracts from scientific research. Whereas most Christians would have been able to tell you from the get-go that the coccyx does serve a purpose, and it's better to dig deeper to find out what that purpose is, Evolutionists were way too hasty with their scalpels.
Bob's view of origins mimics compromising Christians, such as Theistic Evolutionists and Old Earth Creationists. To one degree or another, these people disagree with the Bible, and instead give atheistic theories way too much credibility. Although this does remove some of the problems of atheism, such as accounting for morality, and of course allowing believers to treat the world as if it was designed, it brings a whole host of other problems, chief among which being it's just intellectually dishonest. As I've said in the past, how can people believe that the one time man's word is more trustworthy than God's word is when man's word is infinitely more insane?
Creationism lacks all of these problems. It doesn't require us to check our brains in at the door, it doesn't require us to throw out all logic by claiming creation can happen by chance, it encourages scientific inquiry rather than stifling it, it promotes respect for the creation, it doesn't require compromise between two unequal choices. Generally speaking, Creationism is the obviously superior option.
Comments