Updated: added an excerpt from and a link to Cris Putnam’s blog post.
LogosApologia | December 30, 2010
Everything that begins to exist has a cause.The universe began to exist. Therefore the universe has a cause.
Why couldn’t natural forces have produced the universe? Because there was no nature and there were no natural forces prior to the Big Bang. Because nature itself was created at the Big Bang, the cause of the universe must be something beyond nature—something we must call supernatural. It also means that the supernatural cause of the universe must at least be:
•spaceless because it created space
•timeless because it created time
•immaterial because it created matter
•powerful because it created out of nothing
•intelligent because the creation event and the universe was precisely designed
•personal because it made a choice to convert a state of nothing into something (impersonal forces don’t make choices).
Turek & Geisler. I Don’t Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist. CrosswayBooks; 2004.
Sproul, R.C. Not a Chance : The Myth of Chance in Modern Science and Cosmology. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2000, c1994.
Thanks to Hugh Ross, Norman Geisler, Dr. Frank Turek, Dr. William Lane Craig, RC Sproul, as well as Dr. Henry F. Schaefer III.
Creation Is A Scientific Fact – Final Cut
My View On Creation it’s a fact!
by Cris Putnam
December 31, 2010
PERSONAL VIEW OF CREATION
I strongly believe the Christian worldview is more coherent with reality and science than the naturalistic one. I fall somewhere between the categories of “Historic Creationist” and “Literary framework/ Day age.” I usually say that I am a progressive or “old-earth” creationist. I believe in creation ex nihilo and that the big bang cosmology has decisively confirmed it. Paul writes in Romans One that God’s “eternal power and divine nature” have been made in self-evident in creation and that for this reason atheists are “without excuse” (Rom 1:20). Therefore, I believe that sound science and biblical revelation should not conflict. When there is a perceived conflict there is a problem with either our exegesis or the interpretation of the scientific data. Both must be up for scrutiny. By all appearances the earth appears very old. Without getting into the technicalities of radiometric dating, very easy to understand ice core samples show rings similar to a tree rings which strongly evidence that the earth is far older than young earth proponents imagine. These ice cores have been co related with known volcanic eruptions ash signatures and the dates match up.[i] This evidence is simple and compelling and reveals an earth orders of magnitude older that the young earth creationist model. Not to mention the evidence from geology and cosmology. The evidential case for a very ancient creation is overwhelming. I do not believe God would create the universe to appear old, when it was actually recent. That would seem to constitute a viable excuse, in effect negating Paul’s argument in Romans 1:20. Like many contemporary Hebrew language scholars, I believe that sound exegesis places the creation of the entire universe during an unspecified duration of time “in the beginning” (Gen1:1). I believe God designed and employs a limited amount of evolution but I do not accept common ancestry. Above all, I believe man was uniquely created and given God’s image.
from the archives: