Okay, there’s exactly three ways that people have agreed the earth could have come about.  One is that the universe is all an illusion.  Notice that no one who ever ascribes to this view ever walks into the street without looking.  Sounds great in some ashram somewhere, or if you are doing LSD, but not too applicable in the real world.  Another is that the universe is eternal.  Sounds good, but…

If that were the case, due to the laws of thermodynamics and the law of entropy, the universe would be barren due to heat loss an eternity ago.  Basically , that leaves only one other solution, and it is that the universe had a finite beginning.  If it did, it had to have a cause greater than itself.  A creator is pretty much the only answer.  Sorry, naturalists.  Maybe Stephen Hawking can come up with another entertaining “super-duper-string multiverse theory of all that is” so that you can entertain the idea of there being no God.  See, evolutionists believe in an endless string of infinitely impossible chances, whereas ID supporters believe that there need only be one tiny leap of faith in the direction of a creator which makes things fall into place.  He even gave us science to study His universe ’cause He’s rational and since we were created in His image, we are too.  I guess He thought we might enjoy that.

I am attempting this year to stay faithful in a quest to read the entire Bible in one year. I have, over the course of my life, read the entire Bible, but never in a precise manner. At any rate, today I was reading Genesis, when it made me think about a lot of things.

I understand the mental block for those who feel that Genesis is a fictional account of how things began. It all seems a bit far-fetched, doesn’t it? Literary critics have tried to destroy the creation account over and over again, and a never-ending parade of Darwinists like Richard Dawkins, Chris Hitchens, and the late Stephen Jay Gould literally fall over themselves to find new ways to refute the creation.

For those who would think that the Theory of Evolution is the grand explanation of life, I would ask this: How do you reconcile the fact that most scientific evidence does NOT support macroevolution?  I know that scientists who believe evolution is the answer have a constant stream of plausible explanations for the holes in the evidence for evolution, but eventually they are going to be left with no more excuses.  What then?

Belief in the Word of God as inerrant and inspired is difficult to grasp at first for the new believer, especially the new believer that is steeped in postmodernism.  However, when you look at how far evolutionists have to stretch reason in order to make the theory plausible, does it really take any more faith to be a creationist than an evolutionist?