A Rejection of Mediocrity

Often as I surf the Internet debating Creation/Evolution with secular humanists, I find that they try to bolster their argument by accusing me of subjectivity:

“All that stuff about God and the Bible is just faith. Faith has no place in science!”

In other words, David MacMillan doesn’t have a place in science either.

I’ve seen quite a few analogies that try to defend faith. An example of this would be the car analogy: “You have faith that your car will start in the morning.” However, this falls short because it deals with faith that something will happen, rather than faith that something is true.

Jesus told us to do to others what we want them to do to us. This command stems from the fact that people normally do “unto others” what the others have done to them in the past.

So, I’m going to do to the secular humanists just what they have done to me; that is, attack the thing that their arguments rest on. We Christian believe in the Bible. Atheists believe in science textbooks.

Let’s take Joe. Joe is an fictional atheist freshman in highschool studying biology. He believes what he reads in his science textbook, right? But why does he believe what it tells him? Unless he has examined every statement in the book, he must accept the book on faith.

This is anything but a blind faith. Joe has quite a few reasons to believe the textbook. To start with, viable authorities like his teachers and his parents have told him that the textbook tells the truth. His parents and teachers have never lied to him in the past, so the textbook is probably accurate based only on this support.

However, this is not the only reason he has faith in the contents of his textbook. Everything that he already knows about biology agrees with what he reads. The book shows careful attention to detail and much planning. Joe knows that all the stuff he has checked makes sense, so he trusts the rest enough to have faith in it.

The most important thing, though, is the author. On the front of the book, he can read the author’s name followed by a PhD. If the writer of this textbook has multiple PhDs in biology, Joe reasons, he probably knows a lot more about this subject than I do. That’s the most important point on which his faith rests: the greater knowledge of the author.

These are all the same kinds of reasons that we Christians believe in the Bible. We have faith in the Bible based on different things: the testimony of our elders for instance. Strangely, though, this is used against us: “You just believe the Bible because your parents do.”

Everything that we understand about the world we live in agrees with the Bible. This is another reason that we accept the Bible on faith. Since we know that the Bible is accurate wherever we have checked it, we can have a strong faith that the rest of it is equally accurate.

The last and most important reason that we have faith in the Bible is that the Author is smarter than we are. He tells us in one of the books (2 Timothy, to be exact) that “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness.”

It is true that Christians believe the Bible based on faith. But it is anything but a blind faith. In fact, it takes much more faith to believe in most scientific textbooks than it does to believe in God’s Word. The only support of faith in evolution would be the recommendation of our peers. All other evidence supports faith in the Bible.

To sum up this post, I’d like to quote the renowned evolutionist professor Richard Dawkins:

“All appearance to the contrary, the only watchmaker in nature is the blind forces of physics, albeit deployed in a very special way.”

Even when all the evidence is against the theory of evolution, they still have faith that God doesn’t exist.

Often as I surf the Internet debating Creation/Evolution with secular humanists, I find that they try to bolster their argument by accusing me of subjectivity:

“All that stuff about God and the Bible is just faith. Faith has no place in science!”

In other words, David MacMillan doesn’t have a place in science either.

I’ve seen quite a few analogies that try to defend faith. An example of this would be the car analogy: “You have faith that your car will start in the morning.” However, this falls short because it deals with faith that something will happen, rather than faith that something is true.

Jesus told us to do to others what we want them to do to us. This command stems from the fact that people normally do “unto others” what the others have done to them in the past.

So, I’m going to do to the secular humanists just what they have done to me; that is, attack the thing that their arguments rest on. We Christian believe in the Bible. Atheists believe in science textbooks.

Let’s take Joe. Joe is an fictional atheist freshman in highschool studying biology. He believes what he reads in his science textbook, right? But why does he believe what it tells him? Unless he has examined every statement in the book, he must accept the book on faith.

This is anything but a blind faith. Joe has quite a few reasons to believe the textbook. To start with, viable authorities like his teachers and his parents have told him that the textbook tells the truth. His parents and teachers have never lied to him in the past, so the textbook is probably accurate based only on this support.

However, this is not the only reason he has faith in the contents of his textbook. Everything that he already knows about biology agrees with what he reads. The book shows careful attention to detail and much planning. Joe knows that all the stuff he has checked makes sense, so he trusts the rest enough to have faith in it.

The most important thing, though, is the author. On the front of the book, he can read the author’s name followed by a PhD. If the writer of this textbook has multiple PhDs in biology, Joe reasons, he probably knows a lot more about this subject than I do. That’s the most important point on which his faith rests: the greater knowledge of the author.

These are all the same kinds of reasons that we Christians believe in the Bible. We have faith in the Bible based on different things: the testimony of our elders for instance. Strangely, though, this is used against us: “You just believe the Bible because your parents do.”

Everything that we understand about the world we live in agrees with the Bible. This is another reason that we accept the Bible on faith. Since we know that the Bible is accurate wherever we have checked it, we can have a strong faith that the rest of it is equally accurate.

The last and most important reason that we have faith in the Bible is that the Author is smarter than we are. He tells us in one of the books (2 Timothy, to be exact) that “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness.”

It is true that Christians believe the Bible based on faith. But it is anything but a blind faith. In fact, it takes much more faith to believe in most scientific textbooks than it does to believe in God’s Word. The only support of faith in evolution would be the recommendation of our peers. All other evidence supports faith in the Bible.

To sum up this post, I’d like to quote the renowned evolutionist professor Richard Dawkins:

“All appearance to the contrary, the only watchmaker in nature is the blind forces of physics, albeit deployed in a very special way.”

Even when all the evidence is against the theory of evolution, they still have faith that God doesn’t exist.

Dear Cyberspace,

I’m going to be 16 on the 12th of July, but at that time I will be busy at a camp in Georgia. So, I’m having a birthday bash this weekend (June 24th-26th) to celebrate.

We are renting a cabin on a lake in a nearby town. Swimming, fishing, disc golf, etc.

As a result of this, I probably won’t be blogging or commenting until early next week. So long for now, everyone!

In Him,

David

Dear Cyberspace,

I’m going to be 16 on the 12th of July, but at that time I will be busy at a camp in Georgia. So, I’m having a birthday bash this weekend (June 24th-26th) to celebrate.

We are renting a cabin on a lake in a nearby town. Swimming, fishing, disc golf, etc.

As a result of this, I probably won’t be blogging or commenting until early next week. So long for now, everyone!

In Him,

David

Hello Cyberspace,

I’d like to thank all the great folks who link to me across the internet. My latest “wholinkstome” search turned up 65 links or more! Thanks, everybody!

For all you bloggers who link to my site, I have a great new way to do it.

Where, under this part of your Blogger template (Replace “{” and “}” with “”:

{mainorarchivepage}
{h2 class=”sidebar-title”}Other Blogs/Great Links/etc.{/h2}
{ul}

you’ve put:

{li}{a href=”http://www.standonbible.blogspot.com”}D3’s Blog{/a}{/li}

replace it with this html code:

{li}{a href=”http://www.standonbible.blogspot.com”}{img height=”32″ src=”http://photos1.blogger.com/img/154/4310/1024/D3″ width=”91″ /}{/a}{/li}

Experiment with the height and width until you get the size you want. If the image is too distorted, that’s ok. If you want, you can click on the link, download the picture, downsize it to the right width, and edit the words “D3’s Blog” so that they appear better. Whatever you want to do with it is perfectly ok . . . as long as you still link to me!

If you don’t already link to me, please do! Leave me a comment with a link to your site and I will link to it from my site. I’m getting around 20 hits per day not including my own visits, and the numbers keep on escalating!

In Him,

D3

Hello Cyberspace,

I’d like to thank all the great folks who link to me across the internet. My latest “wholinkstome” search turned up 65 links or more! Thanks, everybody!

For all you bloggers who link to my site, I have a great new way to do it.

Where, under this part of your Blogger template (Replace “{” and “}” with “”:

{mainorarchivepage}
{h2 class=”sidebar-title”}Other Blogs/Great Links/etc.{/h2}
{ul}

you’ve put:

{li}{a href=”http://www.standonbible.blogspot.com”}D3’s Blog{/a}{/li}

replace it with this html code:

{li}{a href=”http://www.standonbible.blogspot.com”}{img height=”32″ src=”http://photos1.blogger.com/img/154/4310/1024/D3″ width=”91″ /}{/a}{/li}

Experiment with the height and width until you get the size you want. If the image is too distorted, that’s ok. If you want, you can click on the link, download the picture, downsize it to the right width, and edit the words “D3’s Blog” so that they appear better. Whatever you want to do with it is perfectly ok . . . as long as you still link to me!

If you don’t already link to me, please do! Leave me a comment with a link to your site and I will link to it from my site. I’m getting around 20 hits per day not including my own visits, and the numbers keep on escalating!

In Him,

D3

Today, the Lexington Herald-Leader published one of my myriad letters to the editor. It is as follows:

Blinded by Science

While scanning the June 10th edition of the Herald-Leader, I noticed a headline: “Scientists search for common-ancestor cell.” I had to see what it was about.
Biologists have now decided that all organisms, from President Bush to the bush in your yard, are descended from a single cell. This is convenient for them, as it only requires life to arise from the “primordial stew” once.
Momentarily, let’s set aside the myriad of evolutionary difficulties. We won’t criticize the never-observed “process” of new information being added to the genome; necessary for Darwinism. We won’t even analyze the abject impossibility of that first fully operating cell “appearing” from non-life.
If, as the article intimates, we are the “cousins of everything from whales to . . . pond scum,” where does that place us? If, indeed, it is perfectly alright to squash a fly, who can say that it is ‘wrong’ to squash the life out of the elderly, the sick, or anyone else who we think is useless?
The researchers stated that the efforts to understand this bug will help other branches of “science” as well. Branches like “evolution”, the study of something that never happened, “genetics”, biogenetic tampering, “medical science”, cloning other human beings, and last of all, “finding primitive life on other planets”. They expect if they understand life’s beginnings on this planet, and know what simple life forms to look for elsewhere, they can prove that we are all accidents.
It’s amazing what lengths humankind will go to to disavow a Creator.

-D3

Today, the Lexington Herald-Leader published one of my myriad letters to the editor. It is as follows:

Blinded by Science

While scanning the June 10th edition of the Herald-Leader, I noticed a headline: “Scientists search for common-ancestor cell.” I had to see what it was about.
Biologists have now decided that all organisms, from President Bush to the bush in your yard, are descended from a single cell. This is convenient for them, as it only requires life to arise from the “primordial stew” once.
Momentarily, let’s set aside the myriad of evolutionary difficulties. We won’t criticize the never-observed “process” of new information being added to the genome; necessary for Darwinism. We won’t even analyze the abject impossibility of that first fully operating cell “appearing” from non-life.
If, as the article intimates, we are the “cousins of everything from whales to . . . pond scum,” where does that place us? If, indeed, it is perfectly alright to squash a fly, who can say that it is ‘wrong’ to squash the life out of the elderly, the sick, or anyone else who we think is useless?
The researchers stated that the efforts to understand this bug will help other branches of “science” as well. Branches like “evolution”, the study of something that never happened, “genetics”, biogenetic tampering, “medical science”, cloning other human beings, and last of all, “finding primitive life on other planets”. They expect if they understand life’s beginnings on this planet, and know what simple life forms to look for elsewhere, they can prove that we are all accidents.
It’s amazing what lengths humankind will go to to disavow a Creator.

-D3

Today, my mother and I went to the wedding of some close friends of ours. A few years ago at a different wedding, the groom at this wedding had completely ceram-wrapped the honeymoon vehicle. So a few of us decided that today was payback time.

Ingredients:

• 1 Nissan Maxima
• 27 rolls of cheap toilet paper
• 1 deck of Bicycle playing cards
• 14 plastic cups
• 20 feet of nylon string
• 1 stick of white shoe polish
• 12 very jovial guys

You can guess the results.

We took all their luggage from the backseat and placed it in the trunk, then wrote “We have your bags” on the window. The car was so stuffed with toilet paper that we had trouble closing the doors. The leftover tubes were put to good use too; they adorned the radio antenna and the windshield wipers.

Once we get the pictures that we took, I’ll see if I can post them as well.

Happy Wedding Day, Dan & Andrea!

Today, my mother and I went to the wedding of some close friends of ours. A few years ago at a different wedding, the groom at this wedding had completely ceram-wrapped the honeymoon vehicle. So a few of us decided that today was payback time.

Ingredients:

• 1 Nissan Maxima
• 27 rolls of cheap toilet paper
• 1 deck of Bicycle playing cards
• 14 plastic cups
• 20 feet of nylon string
• 1 stick of white shoe polish
• 12 very jovial guys

You can guess the results.

We took all their luggage from the backseat and placed it in the trunk, then wrote “We have your bags” on the window. The car was so stuffed with toilet paper that we had trouble closing the doors. The leftover tubes were put to good use too; they adorned the radio antenna and the windshield wipers.

Once we get the pictures that we took, I’ll see if I can post them as well.

Happy Wedding Day, Dan & Andrea!

Hey guys,

Do you like the new look of the website? It took a lot of HTML mental gymnastics, but I finally was able to create the image in Adobe and paste it onto the website header.

Questions? Comments?