Why Many Evolutionists Will Never Believe…

An internet blog comment yesterday reads:

I am now making the offer of 100 gazillionmilliontrillion dollars and a steak to one single person or group to definitively prove the existence of a creator God or creation at all.

The ground:
- Must be physical proof that science will never be able to refute.
- Must be proof that logic cannot defy.
- Must have God itself present said proof.

By 8bithero on October 14, 2008 8:33 PM

At first glance, it seems like an innocent question. But this is like saying, “I will only believe in God if he exists on a playing field of my own definition. Here’s the playing field: Referencing only physical proof, prove the supernatural exists.” But the logic is skewed. The logic problem is clearly seen when using the same argument in the other direction: “Referencing only the supernatural, prove the physical universe exists.” Essentially we’ve carefully padded our challenge against failure by insisting up front that all evidence to the contrary be considered invalid. The challenge boils down to: “Without reference to the supernatural, prove supernatural reality exists,” and is akin to saying “Without reference to presently observable physical proof, prove physical reality exists.”

For example, if a 1970-yr-old written eyewitness account of a miracle was presented as evidence of the supernatural, the miracle is excluded from consideration because it does not fall within the definition of scientific (currently observable, repeatable, and testable) physical proof. Suppose a 28-yr-old acquaintance comes up to you and gives you the following evidence for God: “God has changed my life. I felt him touch my inner being last week at church. Based on my own rules for living, I had thought my life was fine. But I’ve changed my mind now. I have stopped drinking because I now realize it was wrong, according to God’s rules, for me to get drunk and beat my wife and kids.” But since this evidence occurs off the playing field (it is not physical proof), it cannot be considered as evidence for God.

Defining the playing field in such a way is like insisting:

Without reference to the NASA space program, prove to me that man landed on the moon.

or

Without referencing any historical evidence related to Abraham Lincoln’s life, prove to me that Abraham Lincoln was the man the historical evidence says he was.

or

Using only yellow and blue, prove to me that red exists.

or

Using only darkness, prove to me that light exists.

The challengers have determined who wins the game by the way they define the playing field. It is defining what is true prior to considering any evidence that might instruct us if our playing field is constructed too small. We are defining REALITY as only that which can fit in a controlled environment and be repeatedly and consistently observed. It is boldly asserting, “Since I am already 100% confident that the observable physical universe is the only reality, I am going to believe only those things which I can experience through physical means.”

An eyewitness to Jesus’ life recorded Jesus’ response to this type of challenge. Jesus was asked, “Teacher, we want to see a sign from you.” At first glance, it seems like an innocent question. But Jesus’ response was very harsh, as he defused the argument by revealing its real motive. He said,

An evil, adulterous generation demands a miraculous sign; but no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For just as Jonah was in the belly of the great fish for three days and three nights, so will the Son of Man be in the heart of the earth for three days and three nights.

No wonder people hated Jesus. He didn’t give their fallacies any ground to stand on, and they hated him for it. They were close-minded from the beginning, never honestly being open to the possibility that Jesus could be right when he spoke to them as an eyewitness concerning the things of heaven.