I had never seriously considered the question of where we came from until we took our children to a dinosaur exhibition. We had a lot of fun - but I was left with a problem. If everything we were being told at the display (and in general) is true, how could the Bible also be true? I was sure I wasn't just imagining God - yet how could God be trusted if his main disclosure of himself couldn't be relied on?
Some people take what the Bible says as if it were a figure of speech - but to me that simply doesn't make sense and raises more questions. At this stage I simply had no idea how it could possibly be , but while these things perturbed me greatly, life continued.
When I came across material explaining life from a creationist perspective I was blown away. I don't like it when things don't make sense. I appreciate the tricks illusionists do - but when real life issues don't make sense to me I struggle to make peace with apparently conflicting perceptions of reality.
This article won't deal with specific issues - those who want to consider these could start here. Of course they only chose 15 items - but they are significant. And there are still questions about the creationist perspective. The one that most perplexes me is the question of light from distant stars. I'm not a scientist - and make no pretence to understand technical issues. So what gives me grounds for acceptance? The first thing is that scientists have come up with a handful of possible theories which may explain this. At least two of the leading theories seem likely to hold the real explanation. And the second is that there are far more gaps in the main alternative theories.
This century groups of scientists have issued statements rejecting both the big bang theory and evolution. While they are keen for naturalistic explanations rather than accepting an alternative involving God, nevertheless they see that the flaws in these arguments are too great to continue accepting then as fact.
In recent times I've asked questions about what is largely termed Darwin's theory of evolution. How can such non-scientific stuff still be treated as fact? Turns out Darwin was not a scientist. He was qualified in theology. His "theory" consisted mainly of speculation (and the main principles date back over two thousand years). Arriving at a hypothesis is the first stage of the scientific process - but without research and testing, and consideration by peers, theories are not accepted as fact.
His knowledge of biology was of course very simple. His idea of a single cell was basically a blob - without any of the vast array of features and functions we now know about. British evolutionist J.B.S. Haldane claimed in 1949 that evolution could never produce "various mechanisms, such as the wheel and magnet, which would be useless till fairly perfect." Therefore such machines in organisms would, in his opinion, prove evolution false. "Fortunately" others have since come up with "evolutionary" explanations for the wheel and magnet.
Isn't it a wonderful theory that accommodates so many, often contradictory, items. Basically today we have two possible explanations. Those who won't accept the reality of God have only one - so have no alternative but to stay with the old theories until something more plausible comes along.