Looking for God in all the wrong gaps

Evolutionists like to complain that every time creationists find something they can't explain, they claim this is evidence for god. (How many people do this I don't know.)

This is not the point I try to make. It's not the things we can't explain that give evidence of God... but that everything gives evidence of God.

That people exist is evidence for God; that they do science is evidence for god, that they ask questions, that they care about answering question. The moon, the stars, the air we breathe, dogs, (even cats) the world; everything is evidence for God. It's not that we need God to make sense of (explain) a few mysteries... it's that without a Creator nothing makes sense.

Why is this so? The basic reason is that Materialists can't explain any of this; can't explain anything at all. (ie. can't get to square one... can't even come up with that first magical and primordial cell.)

The materialist has to explain how all of human life and thought was somehow resident in the rocks of early earth... and even in hydrogen gas. All the ideas of the philosophers, all the ideas of scientists, all the lines of poetry, all the equations of mathematicians (etc.) have to somehow have been hiding in rocks. All we see around us was somehow imprisoned in inert matter... and over the eons somehow managed to come out and find expression. (If the history of the earth is one long unbroken chain of being, then everything had to have been existent in that primordial cell.)

I can only speak for myself but I can't believe such a story for a second. (As a lad I just accepted it with the other slop they handed out at the schools it was my misfortune to be sent to; but it doesn't hold up under scrutiny.) Somehow the genetic code (a trillion times more complex than any human written code) was hiding in a piece of rock. I just don't see this as being possible.

What has happened is that the origins debate has become a conflict between religions, between worldviews. On the one hand we have Rationalism (materialism) and on the other hand we have biblical Christianity. The Rationalists aren't interested in the truth of the matter, but only in maintaining their cultural and political advantage. (That's a generalization, but I think it's mainly correct.) They bet the farm on a bad argument, and it's failed them.

People like Charles Darwin imagined 'life' was a simple matter... and so imagined it wouldn't be hard to spontaneously arise. (Though none of them had any idea how.) Now we find that living organisms (the cell, etc.) are billions of times more complex than anyone ever began to imagine. The complexity has stunned the materialists, and left them holding a losing hand. They don't see anyway out of their predicament and so they've turned to power politics to win the debate. [1.]

Summary; I don't recommend that people use a 'god of the gaps' method of argument. For the materialist everything constitutes a gap in his ability to account for the world we live in. He can't explain the origin of living organisms; nor can he explain human consciousness and intelligence. He can't explain meaning or offer a rational account of human experience.

- For the materialist all things reduce to matter in motion, and so the possibility of rational definition is destroyed. You can't define any human concept in terms of matter in motion. (Try giving an account of science, causation, explanation, reality, etc. in terms of matter in motion.) The materialist can only talk about science (etc.) if he refuses to use his own ontology (metaphysics) but borrows that of the theist.

M. Johnson [frfarer at gmail.com]

Notes;
1. They mock, they ridicule, they slander, they lie, they engage in deceit, they bully, they suppress opinion, they tyrannize people, they use the courts, they use the State, they use the media... all trying to stall the inevitable. The idea 'life' just 'emerged' from inert matter is an idea that's going down the tubes. It's only a matter of when.
2. To say the materialist can't give an account of anything doesn't mean he or she can't do scientific research, or that they can't describe the things they see.
3. I've used terms like billion and trillion; but it's impossible to give any exact figure.