Introduction. God defined faith as “the evidence of things not seen.” (Heb. 11:1). There is an important reason why this is faith’s definition. We only need faith when we can’t see something for ourselves. “For we walk by faith, not by sight.” (2Cor. 5:7). All that we see and experience ourselves is considered knowledge by direct observation. It doesn’t need the additional step of looking at evidence. When “we see it with our own eyes,” we are fully convinced it is truth.
Although what we see and experience ourselves is the strongest form of knowledge we possess, it has a severe limitation. It only covers those things we are physically present to observe. If this were our only means of gleaning knowledge, we could learn nothing about anything that occurred either before we were born, or anywhere else in the world. Time and distance are archenemies of a full knowledge of everything that occurs and exists in this world. We would be doomed to a very limited existence if this was the only means of gaining knowledge we could access.
This is what makes faith so important. While many synonyms have been created, God’s definition still stands today. All knowledge not gained by sight or personal experience is gained by faith. If our knowledge of any event or fact had to be gained by looking at evidence and not by direct observation, it fits the definition of faith: “the evidence of things not seen.”
We can call it deduction, logic, inference, diagnosis, or any other technical term we desire, but it is still “faith” as God defined it in the Bible. If it happened in any other location than where we were, whether in the next block, another part of the world, or completely outside of this creation we must rely on faith. If it happened the day before we were born, thousands of years ago, or even before the creation, we couldn’t use direct observation to learn it. All that we consider knowledge, gleaned by any other means but sight and experience, is actually “faith,” because it was gained by “the evidence of things not seen.”
Although what we see and experience ourselves is the strongest form of knowledge we possess, it has a severe limitation. It only covers those things we are physically present to observe. If this were our only means of gleaning knowledge, we could learn nothing about anything that occurred either before we were born, or anywhere else in the world. Time and distance are archenemies of a full knowledge of everything that occurs and exists in this world. We would be doomed to a very limited existence if this was the only means of gaining knowledge we could access.
This is what makes faith so important. While many synonyms have been created, God’s definition still stands today. All knowledge not gained by sight or personal experience is gained by faith. If our knowledge of any event or fact had to be gained by looking at evidence and not by direct observation, it fits the definition of faith: “the evidence of things not seen.”
We can call it deduction, logic, inference, diagnosis, or any other technical term we desire, but it is still “faith” as God defined it in the Bible. If it happened in any other location than where we were, whether in the next block, another part of the world, or completely outside of this creation we must rely on faith. If it happened the day before we were born, thousands of years ago, or even before the creation, we couldn’t use direct observation to learn it. All that we consider knowledge, gleaned by any other means but sight and experience, is actually “faith,” because it was gained by “the evidence of things not seen.”
In school, teachers have adapted their classes to work within these limitations. Nearly every subject is taught with a combination of direct observation and faith. Some subjects, like History and Geography, are almost exclusively based on evidence. Only the teacher’s word, and the textbook with its pictures, maps and documents are the evidence that created the faith necessary to confirm it as knowledge.
We “trusted” the teachers and the textbooks, learned what they contained and called it knowledge. Few discount this quality of “faith.” We consider what we learned by evidence to be on an equal level with what we learned by seeing and experiencing. We went to History class, used the textbook with its documented evidence, and learned what happened before we were born. After the bell rang, we went to another textbook to study Geography and with the documented maps and pictures, memorized the locations of places we had never seen. Each class had enough direct observation and faith in the evidence that we gained a well-rounded knowledge of the world.
What changed when the Bible became the “textbook?” We used exactly the same analytical skills of deduction and logic to assess the “evidence” and used the same “faith” to accept it as knowledge. God explained it this way: First, “faith is the evidence of things not seen” and second, “faith comes by hearing the word of God.” (Rom. 10:17) The only difference between God’s “textbook” and those we used in school is the scope of what is taught. There is not the slightest difference between what we did at school and what we did in a Bible class.
Thus the decision to believe evolution or creation was not a debate on methods of learning, but on the quality of the evidence. The universe was created before anyone was born. Direct knowledge is only available to those who could be present, and only God proclaims He was present to see it. Using our analytical skills without prejudice, we need to assess His testimony. Is it possible and credible that a person more powerful than we are created us and our universe? If we take away the emotions and just look at the facts, we would all have to agree that there is nothing incredible about a creation being the evidence of a creator. Every complicated creation (we call them inventions) argues for its creator (inventor). No one looks at a computer, television or automobile without seeing creative genius and human ingenuity. We never think: “How” did it come into existence with any other created thing. We only ask: “Who made it?” Why should the infinitely more complicated universe not be held to the same standards?
Although there are a few alternative theories such as “steady state,” “eternal inflation,” or “oscillating universe,” the most common explanation we heard in science class is the “big bang.” Our “knowledge” of the “big bang,” like our “knowledge” of “God” is based on the faith gleaned by looking at evidence. The truth is that both God and the big bang are based more on philosophical and inferential grounds than any direct evidence. There is no direct evidence! No left over signs of an explosion or of a creation. The universe is just here, existing.
Yet what makes more sense? What fits in better with our experience? A powerful Creator, intervened in this material creation, or an explosion, enough time, and the lucky chance that the right physics and chemistry combined to bring it into being? While both require a “leap of faith,” the “big bang” is actually a much greater leap. An explosion would be a pretty tough sell for anything else that exists. Neither in our lifetime, nor in the combined writings of the human race is there any description of such an event. Has any invention, body, or anything else ever fared well under the power of a volcanic eruption, atomic bomb detonation, tornado, earthquake, or any other cataclysm? If it can happen, one would expect to see it at least occasionally. In all our experience, explosions destroy and no amount of time will restore what has been destroyed. The faith to believe in the big bang is therefore much greater since there is actually no evidence that such a thing could even occur.
That God created the heavens and the earth has been prejudicially relegated to the realm of “superstition”, “blind faith” and a “crutch for the weak”. But why? Is it for lack of evidence, lack of credulity, or lack of consistency? Absolutely not! Every other creation (invention) was created by someone smart enough to bring together the necessary elements and properly assemble them. If light is so easily formed, why did it take Edison so long to figure out how to make a lightbulb? If sound is so easily transmitted, when does it take such a complicated electronic device and power supply to reproduce it? If thought is so easily duplicated, why are computers so precise and complicated? Nothing else in this creation is easily duplicated. Consistency really demands a Creator, not blind chance.
Conclusion. While science has a clear animosity toward religion, the basis is not in logic, deduction or even in evidence. It is based in prejudice! It is the attempt to paint those who look at the evidence and draw the conclusion of a Creator as foolish, ignorant, superstitious, or prejudicial. But a careful examination of the facts reveals something entirely different. “For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.” (Rom. 1:20). People may not like this conclusion, but it is not because of logic or reasoning. The more we learn about DNA, physics, and chemistry, the less possible chance becomes and the more necessary it becomes to have a Creator.
We “trusted” the teachers and the textbooks, learned what they contained and called it knowledge. Few discount this quality of “faith.” We consider what we learned by evidence to be on an equal level with what we learned by seeing and experiencing. We went to History class, used the textbook with its documented evidence, and learned what happened before we were born. After the bell rang, we went to another textbook to study Geography and with the documented maps and pictures, memorized the locations of places we had never seen. Each class had enough direct observation and faith in the evidence that we gained a well-rounded knowledge of the world.
What changed when the Bible became the “textbook?” We used exactly the same analytical skills of deduction and logic to assess the “evidence” and used the same “faith” to accept it as knowledge. God explained it this way: First, “faith is the evidence of things not seen” and second, “faith comes by hearing the word of God.” (Rom. 10:17) The only difference between God’s “textbook” and those we used in school is the scope of what is taught. There is not the slightest difference between what we did at school and what we did in a Bible class.
Thus the decision to believe evolution or creation was not a debate on methods of learning, but on the quality of the evidence. The universe was created before anyone was born. Direct knowledge is only available to those who could be present, and only God proclaims He was present to see it. Using our analytical skills without prejudice, we need to assess His testimony. Is it possible and credible that a person more powerful than we are created us and our universe? If we take away the emotions and just look at the facts, we would all have to agree that there is nothing incredible about a creation being the evidence of a creator. Every complicated creation (we call them inventions) argues for its creator (inventor). No one looks at a computer, television or automobile without seeing creative genius and human ingenuity. We never think: “How” did it come into existence with any other created thing. We only ask: “Who made it?” Why should the infinitely more complicated universe not be held to the same standards?
Although there are a few alternative theories such as “steady state,” “eternal inflation,” or “oscillating universe,” the most common explanation we heard in science class is the “big bang.” Our “knowledge” of the “big bang,” like our “knowledge” of “God” is based on the faith gleaned by looking at evidence. The truth is that both God and the big bang are based more on philosophical and inferential grounds than any direct evidence. There is no direct evidence! No left over signs of an explosion or of a creation. The universe is just here, existing.
Yet what makes more sense? What fits in better with our experience? A powerful Creator, intervened in this material creation, or an explosion, enough time, and the lucky chance that the right physics and chemistry combined to bring it into being? While both require a “leap of faith,” the “big bang” is actually a much greater leap. An explosion would be a pretty tough sell for anything else that exists. Neither in our lifetime, nor in the combined writings of the human race is there any description of such an event. Has any invention, body, or anything else ever fared well under the power of a volcanic eruption, atomic bomb detonation, tornado, earthquake, or any other cataclysm? If it can happen, one would expect to see it at least occasionally. In all our experience, explosions destroy and no amount of time will restore what has been destroyed. The faith to believe in the big bang is therefore much greater since there is actually no evidence that such a thing could even occur.
That God created the heavens and the earth has been prejudicially relegated to the realm of “superstition”, “blind faith” and a “crutch for the weak”. But why? Is it for lack of evidence, lack of credulity, or lack of consistency? Absolutely not! Every other creation (invention) was created by someone smart enough to bring together the necessary elements and properly assemble them. If light is so easily formed, why did it take Edison so long to figure out how to make a lightbulb? If sound is so easily transmitted, when does it take such a complicated electronic device and power supply to reproduce it? If thought is so easily duplicated, why are computers so precise and complicated? Nothing else in this creation is easily duplicated. Consistency really demands a Creator, not blind chance.
Conclusion. While science has a clear animosity toward religion, the basis is not in logic, deduction or even in evidence. It is based in prejudice! It is the attempt to paint those who look at the evidence and draw the conclusion of a Creator as foolish, ignorant, superstitious, or prejudicial. But a careful examination of the facts reveals something entirely different. “For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.” (Rom. 1:20). People may not like this conclusion, but it is not because of logic or reasoning. The more we learn about DNA, physics, and chemistry, the less possible chance becomes and the more necessary it becomes to have a Creator.