But Faith is for the Unintelligent?
But Faith is for the Unintelligent?
Faith is trust based upon the knowledge we have of someone or something, even though our knowledge is not complete. We exercise faith whenever we trust beyond what we can know with absolute certainty. So tell me: Who or what do you trust that you have some knowledge of, but not complete knowledge of? Give me your answer, and I will point out where you exercise faith.
Oh really? Faith is for the unintelligent? Then why don’t you tell me exactly what “faith” it is that you unintelligently subscribe to. I make no attempt in this discussion to conceal my starting point: I believe that God created the heavens and the earth and that life exists because God created life. I am a Christian. I believe in the Creator. The purpose of this discussion is therefore not to suggest that creation by chance and creation by God are equally plausible alternatives. Rather, I am responding to those who dismiss belief in God as “stupid faith” while treating the proposition that our universe, Earth, and life itself required no Creator as though that position requires no faith at all.
So let us consider what would have to be explained without a Creator.
The Astronomical Odds of Chance
Astrophysicist Hugh Ross has compiled a list of 322 parameters that he argues must fall within appropriate ranges for a planet to sustain advanced physical life. His raw calculation for all of these conditions occurring together produces odds of approximately 1 in 10388. After adjustments for dependencies among the parameters and longevity requirements, his calculation is approximately 1 in 10304. When Ross additionally considers his estimate of the total number of potentially available bodies in the observable universe, his calculation produces odds of less than approximately 1 in 10282 that even one such life-supporting body would occur by chance.
To put 10282 into perspective, that is 1 followed by 282 zeros.
Those numbers are Ross’s calculations rather than a universally accepted scientific probability, and I want to be clear about that. But whether one accepts every parameter and every probability Ross assigns to it is not really the point. The remarkable fact remains that the more we have learned about our planet and the universe surrounding it, the more conditions we have discovered that must work together for Earth to sustain the extraordinary abundance and complexity of life that it does. And even then, we have accomplished only one thing: We have a planet capable of sustaining life.
We still do not have life. That is an entirely separate problem. Before evolution can begin operating upon living organisms, life must first exist. Nonliving matter must somehow become living matter capable of maintaining itself and reproducing. The study of how life could arise from nonliving chemistry is called abiogenesis, and science presently has no established probability demonstrating the likelihood that this will occur naturally even when suitable planetary conditions exist. So I cannot honestly tell you that the scientifically established odds of life originating by chance are 1 in 1040, 1 in 10100, or 1 in 101,000.
Science does not know.
But notice what that means for the argument being made against me. First we must account for a universe in which life is even possible. Then we must account for a planet possessing the extraordinary combination of conditions necessary to sustain that life. And after accomplishing all of that, we still must explain how nonliving matter became life in the first place.
I am then told that my belief in a Creator requires too much faith. Oh really? I believe that what appears designed has a Designer. I believe that what was created has a Creator. I believe that life ultimately comes from the One who possesses life. “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1). You are certainly free to tell me that believing those words requires faith. I agree. But don’t then pretend that removing the Creator removes the questions. It multiplies them.