Is It Ever Appropriate to Say “God Did It” in Response to a Scientific Challenge?

[Mercy Shown]

Instead of acknowledging their ignorance, the materialists invent sciency words like, "emergent" or "brute fact" to pretend to explain what they cannot explain.

Yeah, and you hear them all the time say things like, “Sharks appeared x million years ago.” What?? Wait!! That sounds a lot like creation by fiat. They would rather use scorn to discredit unbelievers in their religion than truly examine and debate the facts.

 

[HarleyER]

Is It Ever Appropriate to Say “God Did It” in Response to a Scientific Challenge? - Apologetics Press

Is It Ever Appropriate to Say “God Did It” in Response to a Scientific Challenge?

apologeticspress.org

When a naturalist encounters a scientific challenge he cannot explain naturally, he cannot claim a supernatural explanation to his problem without contradicting his belief in naturalism. Having examined sufficient evidence to be a supernaturalist, a biblical creationist does have the option of claiming a supernatural explanation, but when is it appropriate to do so?

Of course, the most obvious time that it is appropriate to say “God did it” as a response to a proposed scientific difficulty with Creation is when the Bible explicitly says He did something. From time to time, however, we might come across a new quibble, about which Scripture is silent, and to which we cannot immediately give a reasonable answer. It would be easy to respond to such quibbles by simply saying “God did it” as our answer to the problem. Such an answer, however, becomes a form of the “God of the Gaps” argument, where God is inserted to solve a problem (or as proof that God must exist in order for the problem to be solved).

One could also make the same claim to a "scientist". How would a scientist explain ghosts or supernatural occurrences for example? How about someone being raised from the dead? Normally, what they would do is simply dismiss them without exploring them.

It is disingenuous to say Christians rely upon "God did it" when they can't explain how something happened. Scientists simply ignore things that contradict their beliefs by saying, "We don't have enough information." or present material that contains bias information (Perspectives on scientific error) to fit their agenda or pocketbook.

In the end, it all comes down to faith. Faith in God or faith in science. The question is where are you placing your faith?

 

[oikonomia]

Is It Ever Appropriate to Say “God Did It” in Response to a Scientific Challenge? - Apologetics Press

Is It Ever Appropriate to Say “God Did It” in Response to a Scientific Challenge?

apologeticspress.org

When a naturalist encounters a scientific challenge he cannot explain naturally, he cannot claim a supernatural explanation to his problem without contradicting his belief in naturalism. Having examined sufficient evidence to be a supernaturalist, a biblical creationist does have the option of claiming a supernatural explanation, but when is it appropriate to do so?

Of course, the most obvious time that it is appropriate to say “God did it” as a response to a proposed scientific difficulty with Creation is when the Bible explicitly says He did something. From time to time, however, we might come across a new quibble, about which Scripture is silent, and to which we cannot immediately give a reasonable answer. It would be easy to respond to such quibbles by simply saying “God did it” as our answer to the problem. Such an answer, however, becomes a form of the “God of the Gaps” argument, where God is inserted to solve a problem (or as proof that God must exist in order for the problem to be solved).

It is ok to say that you do not know something. And it is ok to say that you're happy to let scientists continue to study the natural world.
God does not seem to forbid it. "The eyes of the LORD keep guard over knowledge and the one who has it, But He overthrows the words of the treacherous. " (Prov. 22:12 Amplified)

In the meantime the life, death, resurrection of Jesus Christ and His eternal love give the only meaning to the universe
for you. And to really understand the WHY? of the whole thing you cannot make any sense of it all without Jesus Christ.
Without the Son of God it is all vanity of vanities.

I like a little cartoon that once showed a group of scientists around a chalkboard with complex calculations.
And one of them is saying "The most depressing thing about this is that everything we believe here today will one day be proved wrong."

What scientists say probably will change given time like shifting sand.
The word of Christ is the solid rock upon which we stand.

 

[Ted-01]

I find it interesting as well as incredibly frustrating, that many people, professing to be Christian, do not accept many/most of the narratives given in the OT as true and valid accounts of history, as it happened. They dogmatically assert that it's all myths and legends, typical of other Near East legends of creation accounts, or whatever.

Faith is lacking on many levels, IMHO. While many people who approach the Scriptures from a "scientific" perspective will claim that they believe in God, and believe God's word, with faith, they relegate Scripture to mere legendary tales (veritable, euphemistic, symbolic, symbolical, metaphorical, allegorical, metaphoric, figurative... or whatever) that are meant to instruct, but never to be construed as "literal".

The idea that "God did it" is anathema to them, it seems... IDK?

 

[oikonomia]

I find it interesting as well as incredibly frustrating, that many people, professing to be Christian, do not accept many/most of the narratives given in the OT as true and valid accounts of history, as it happened. They dogmatically assert that it's all myths and legends, typical of other Near East legends of creation accounts, or whatever.

Faith is lacking on many levels, IMHO. While many people who approach the Scriptures from a "scientific" perspective will claim that they believe in God, and believe God's word, with faith, they relegate Scripture to mere legendary tales (veritable, euphemistic, symbolic, symbolical, metaphorical, allegorical, metaphoric, figurative... or whatever) that are meant to instruct, but never to be construed as "literal".

The idea that "God did it" is anathema to them, it seems... IDK?

I came to the Old Testament through the New. I noticed that Jesus, whose integrity was beyond questioning for me, believed
the Old Testament accounts of some things which I was typically skeptical of with modernist viewpoints. Eventually I decided that if it was good for Christ it must be good.
This was a process by which I gained confidence in the entire Bible.

Of course it is important to me to examine what is actually being said. And then we may interpret
what is being conveyed about what is actually written there.

You get into problems attempting to make the Bible a science book existing only to explain to our curiosity
about the natural world. The Bible is a book of divine life conveying a relationship with a living God.
It tells us the things most pertinent to that goal. I cannot go through the Bible searching for all the details
of how the mechanics of the natural world work.

If for example Genesis was written to give a detailed explanation of how everything works, then perhaps
sixty chapters would have been dedicated to discribe what water is.

It is a book of life - spiritual life which we eventually secure in a relationship with the available living Jesus Christ.
He is the meaning of the dry land that came up from the water on the third day.
He is the meaning of all the lives that came about as a result of that land appearing out of the covering waters.
God is way, way ahead of us. The revelation was shown to the writer of Genesis with God's purpose in Christ in His mind.

 

[Ted-01]

I came to the Old Testament through the New. I noticed that Jesus, whose integrity was beyond questioning for me, believed
the Old Testament accounts of some things which I was typically skeptical of with modernist viewpoints. Eventually I decided that if it was good for Christ it must be good.
This was a process by which I gained confidence in the entire Bible.

Of course it is important to me to examine what is actually being said. And then we may interpret
what is being conveyed about what is actually written there.

You get into problems attempting to make the Bible a science book existing only to explain to our curiosity
about the natural world. The Bible is a book of divine life conveying a relationship with a living God.
It tells us the things most pertinent to that goal. I cannot go through the Bible searching for all the details
of how the mechanics of the natural world work.

If for example Genesis was written to give a detailed explanation of how everything works, then perhaps
sixty chapters would have been dedicated to discribe what water is.

It is a book of life - spiritual life which we eventually secure in a relationship with the available live Jesus Christ.
He is the meaning of the dry land that came up from the water on the third day.
He is the meaning of all the lives that came about as a result of that land appearing out of the covering waters.
God is way, way ahead of us. The revelation was shown to the writer of Genesis with God's purpose in Christ in His mind.

Awesome post! Thank you.

I think that I took the same route as you... coming to the OT through the NT. I believe that it was a good route for me and that it's showing fruit, so to speak.

One thing though that I've experienced is that many of the people that see the OT as legends that are meant to inspire (as opposed to any idea of literal accuracy) claim that when Jesus, or others, refer to the OT accounts, they are merely referring to the legends... not in any way ascribing accuracy to the accounts. They have been consistently dogmatic about it all... I don't know how to get around and get discouraged sometimes.

 

[KevinT]

One thing though that I've experienced is that many of the people that see the OT as legends that are meant to inspire (as opposed to any idea of literal accuracy) claim that when Jesus, or others, refer to the OT accounts, they are merely referring to the legends... not in any way ascribing accuracy to the accounts. They have been consistently dogmatic about it all... I don't know how to get around and get discouraged sometimes.

I agree. Like when the Bible is distributed as just the New Testament, completely removing the OT. But we are all on a journey, led by God. Hopefully we can help them understand.
KT

 

[o_mlly]

In the end, it all comes down to faith. Faith in God or faith in science.

Yes. Interesting fact: the scientific method cannot prove the validity of the scientific method. Therefore, the scientific method is self-contradictory. We need another mode of knowing. Good thing God gave us Revelation.

 

[oikonomia]

Awesome post! Thank you.

I think that I took the same route as you... coming to the OT through the NT. I believe that it was a good route for me and that it's showing fruit, so to speak.

One thing though that I've experienced is that many of the people that see the OT as legends that are meant to inspire (as opposed to any idea of literal accuracy) claim that when Jesus, or others, refer to the OT accounts, they are merely referring to the legends... not in any way ascribing accuracy to the accounts. They have been consistently dogmatic about it all... I don't know how to get around and get discouraged sometimes.

I have the same challenge. I more in latter years make Christ the focus of any talk on the word of God.
Like I said, His integrity and morality for me are above questioning. Christ I want to make as the center and circumference of the Bible.

For example, when someone complains about the conquest of the Canaanites from God, insisting that this or that slaughter
was immoral of God, I might say - "Well, you know the Person most qualified to indicate that God was immoral would be Jesus.
And interestingly He never said His Father was immoral. Rather He called His Father "Righteous Father" (John 17:25) with no such condemnation of ANYTHING God did in the Old Testament."

The point pressed is that of all persons on earth Jesus Christ would be the most qualified to expose unrighteousness from any source.
He prayed "Righteous Father, though the world has not known You, yet I have known You, and these have known that You have sent Me."

Another example:
Jesus taught that men who were preached to or judged by God in the Old Testament would stand with the contemporary audience at the last judgment.

Ninevite men will stand up in the judgment with this generation and will condemn it, because they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and behold, something more than Jonah is here. (Matt. 12:41)

Or

For if the works of power which took place in you had taken place in Sodom, it would have remained until today.
But I say to you that it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment than for you. (Matt. 11:23b,24)

How could mythical people stand with unmythyical people at the last judgment?
The strong implication is that Jesus took the book of Jonah as history.

So this approach requires that you love much and know well the New Testament. That is to accumulate all the statements
out of the mouth of Christ -being familiar with both these statements and the stories of the Old Testament.
There is no need to force the issue. But place the matter before the doubter of Christ's words and integrity.
Only thier own conscience can enlighten them under the conviction of the Holy Spirit.

"But Jesus Christ took this account as history. And Jesus Christ took that account as non-fiction.
And nothing suggests to me that Jesus Christ was given to superstition, exxageration, deception, etc. The sobermindedness
and realism of Jesus Christ to me is beyond reproach."

Besides, the goal of our witness is to bring them close to touching Christ, receiving Christ.
The relationship with Christ Himself must be more important. Some things they can resolve as they grow in spiritual life after
receiving Christ. Try to ever point them to the trustworthiness and availability of Jesus as paramount. This is not evasion.
This is focusing on the kernel, the nucleus of the Bible - the Son of God and knowing Him.

 

[HarleyER]

I have the same challenge. I more in latter years make Christ the focus of any talk on the word of God.
Like I said, His integrity and morality for me are above questioning. Christ I want to make as the center and circumference of the Bible.

For example, when someone complains about the conquest of the Canaanites from God, insisting that this or that slaughter
was immoral of God, I might say - "Well, you know the Person most qualified to indicate that God was immoral would be Jesus.
And interestingly He never said His Father was immoral. Rather He called His Father "Righteous Father" (John 17:25) with no such condemnation of ANYTHING God did in the Old Testament."

The point pressed is that of all persons on earth Jesus Christ would be the most qualified to expose unrighteousness from any source.
He prayed "Righteous Father, though the world has not known You, yet I have known You, and these have known that You have sent Me."

Another example:
Jesus taught that men who were preached to or judged by God in the Old Testament would stand with the contemporary audience at the last judgment.

Ninevite men will stand up in the judgment with this generation and will condemn it, because they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and behold, something more than Jonah is here. (Matt. 12:41)

Or

For if the works of power which took place in you had taken place in Sodom, it would have remained until today.
But I say to you that it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment than for you. (Matt. 11:23b,24)

How could mythical people stand with unmythyical people at the last judgment?
The strong implication is that Jesus took the book of Jonah as history.

So this approach requires that you love much and know well the New Testament. That is to accumulate all the statements
out of the mouth of Christ -being familiar with both these statements and the stories of the Old Testament.
There is no need to force the issue. But place the matter before the doubter of Christ's words and integrity.
Only thier own conscience can enlighten them under the conviction of the Holy Spirit.

"But Jesus Christ took this account as history. And Jesus Christ took that account as non-fiction.
And nothing suggests to me that Jesus Christ was given to superstition, exxageration, deception, etc. The sobermindedness
and realism of Jesus Christ to me is beyond reproach."

Besides, the goal of our witness is to bring them close to touching Christ, receiving Christ.
The relationship with Christ Himself must be more important. Some things they can resolve as the grow in spiritual life after
receiving Christ. Try to ever point them to the trustworthiness and avaliablility of Jesus as paramount. This is not evasion.
This is focusing on the kernel, the nucleus of the Bible - the Son of God and knowing Him.

Great post! We just completed a study of Genesis 1-11. An interesting fact is that EVERY book (except Esther) contains quotes from the first 11 chapters of Genesis. If memory serves me correctly, our Lord Jesus quoted various passages from Genesis 1-11 while referring to some of the most controversial stories (Cain/Abel, Noah, Jonah, etc.) as historical fact.

 

[oikonomia]

Great post! We just completed a study of Genesis 1-11. An interesting fact is that EVERY book (except Esther) contains quotes from the first 11 chapters of Genesis. If memory serves me correctly, our Lord Jesus quoted various passages from Genesis 1-11 while referring to some of the most controversial stories (Cain/Abel, Noah, Jonah, etc.) as historical fact.

The account of the flood of Noah is a good example of how people can miss the main point.
When you get into long debates on whether the water covered the top of this or that mountain you can be destracted from the central point. When you get sidetracked on debating if New Zealand or the Grand Canyon was under water in Noah's flood you can be destracted I think.


I heard a news reporter interviewing a poor farmer after a hurricane had leveled his crops.
The news person was asking the farmer if he thought the wind of 80 miles per hour or 90 miles per hour.
The farmer said in essence - "It doesn't matter if the wind was 80 or 90 miles per hour. My whole field was flat, ruined, gone.
I lost everything. Flat is flat."

I think it is the same with Noah's flood. Judged is judged! All except those in the ark were gone - period. They all got judged
by God and only those in the ark got saved. That's the point." We need to grasp the main essence of what God is telling us in the Scripture.

Try to ever point the inquisitive mind towards Christ and His work- the central matter in the divine revelation.

 

[Ted-01]

I have the same challenge. I more in latter years make Christ the focus of any talk on the word of God.
Like I said, His integrity and morality for me are above questioning. Christ I want to make as the center and circumference of the Bible.

For example, when someone complains about the conquest of the Canaanites from God, insisting that this or that slaughter
was immoral of God, I might say - "Well, you know the Person most qualified to indicate that God was immoral would be Jesus.
And interestingly He never said His Father was immoral. Rather He called His Father "Righteous Father" (John 17:25) with no such condemnation of ANYTHING God did in the Old Testament."

The point pressed is that of all persons on earth Jesus Christ would be the most qualified to expose unrighteousness from any source.
He prayed "Righteous Father, though the world has not known You, yet I have known You, and these have known that You have sent Me."

Another example:
Jesus taught that men who were preached to or judged by God in the Old Testament would stand with the contemporary audience at the last judgment.

Ninevite men will stand up in the judgment with this generation and will condemn it, because they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and behold, something more than Jonah is here. (Matt. 12:41)

Or

For if the works of power which took place in you had taken place in Sodom, it would have remained until today.
But I say to you that it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment than for you. (Matt. 11:23b,24)

How could mythical people stand with unmythyical people at the last judgment?
The strong implication is that Jesus took the book of Jonah as history.

So this approach requires that you love much and know well the New Testament. That is to accumulate all the statements
out of the mouth of Christ -being familiar with both these statements and the stories of the Old Testament.
There is no need to force the issue. But place the matter before the doubter of Christ's words and integrity.
Only thier own conscience can enlighten them under the conviction of the Holy Spirit.

"But Jesus Christ took this account as history. And Jesus Christ took that account as non-fiction.
And nothing suggests to me that Jesus Christ was given to superstition, exxageration, deception, etc. The sobermindedness
and realism of Jesus Christ to me is beyond reproach."

Besides, the goal of our witness is to bring them close to touching Christ, receiving Christ.
The relationship with Christ Himself must be more important. Some things they can resolve as they grow in spiritual life after
receiving Christ. Try to ever point them to the trustworthiness and availability of Jesus as paramount. This is not evasion.
This is focusing on the kernel, the nucleus of the Bible - the Son of God and knowing Him.

Another awesome post, truly!
I appreciate the consistency of your posts and the humble way that you present wise council.
Thank you.

 

[oikonomia]

Another awesome post, truly!
I appreciate the consistency of your posts and the humble way that you present wise council.
Thank you.

Praise the Lord for the mutual encouragement.

 

[The Barbarian]

Of course, the most obvious time that it is appropriate to say “God did it” as a response to a proposed scientific difficulty with Creation is when the Bible explicitly says He did something.

In all aspects of creation, God did it. The issue is that YE creationists are often upset at the way He did it.

 

[HarleyER]

In all aspects of creation, God did it. The issue is that YE creationists are often upset at the way He did it.

Quite frankly, I'm not a bit upset at the way God created the universe (and the earth). What is appalling is the way Christians don't believe plain teaching of Scripture.

Do you believe in a literal Adam, Eve and a Garden of Eden. Or did they just evolved? I'd love to hear your explanation.

 

[The Barbarian]

Quite frankly, I'm not a bit upset at the way God created the universe (and the earth). What is appalling is the way Christians don't believe plain teaching of Scripture.

I'm pretty sure you aren't intentionally disbelieving scripture. Most people who insist that it all must be literally true reject parables and allegories in scripture for their own, often sincere, reasons.

 

[HarleyER]

I'm pretty sure you aren't intentionally disbelieving scripture. Most people who insist that it all must be literally true reject parables and allegories in scripture for their own, often sincere, reasons.

You bring up an interesting point. While you know what I believe, what is it that you believe? Do you believe in a literal Adam? Eve? Garden of Eden?

If so, how did they evolve?

 

[The Barbarian]

You bring up an interesting point. While you know what I believe, what is it that you believe? Do you believe in a literal Adam? Eve?

A literal Adam and Eve is consistent with God's creation. Yes. We are descended from a single pair of humans.

Garden of Eden?

They were somewhere called Eden. Paradise was fellowship with God, not a magical place. Where they were, with God, was Eden.

If so, how did they evolve?

Individuals don't evolve; populations do. We don't even know when God gave a single pair of humans living souls. We don't even know which species of humans they were. Why would it matter? Trust God. Those things are not what Genesis 1-3 are about.

 

[Mountainmike]

One could also make the same claim to a "scientist". How would a scientist explain ghosts or supernatural occurrences for example? How about someone being raised from the dead? Normally, what they would do is simply dismiss them without exploring them.

It is disingenuous to say Christians rely upon "God did it" when they can't explain how something happened. Scientists simply ignore things that contradict their beliefs by saying, "We don't have enough information." or present material that contains bias information (Perspectives on scientific error) to fit their agenda or pocketbook.

In the end, it all comes down to faith. Faith in God or faith in science. The question is where are you placing your faith?

That is the problem with all this dialogue.

You have a false dichotomy Faith in God OR science. Chalk and cheese.
God is a faith. Science is a process and a model.

It is never appropriate to say "God did this" in a scientific discussion because you have no test for "God ness"
But that does not mean that either God did not do it, or that evidence implies God did it.
Science is testing what you observe and putting it into a pattern if evidence shows a pattern.

A one of event does not fit in a pattern. Science little to say.

But for avoidance of doubt neither can science say "life came from abiogenesis". There is no observation it happened, no process for it, no experiment that can be conducted.
Scientists can say "they believe life came from established processes, but they have not a shred of evidence it did"

Too often scientists go way beyond the perimeter of science to make claims that science can never support.
They believe in scientism. They are not making science statements when they do.

The best you can say is there is evidence of a core dogman of christianity, that science is unlikely ever to explain because it breaks all the core tenets of established science. I name for example eucharistic miracles in which flesh became bread in a manner way beyond the ability of science to understand let alone reprocude. And to have done multiple times.

Incidentally falsifying darwin by his own falsification criterion.
But you cannot claim by science God did it, only by belief.


I speak as scientist AND christian.

 

[The Barbarian]

Incidentally falsifying darwin by his own falsification criterion.

Which of Darwin's points do you think have been falsified? You should probably know that most YE creationist organizations now admit that all of them are facts. Let us know what you think.

What do you think "falsification" means in science? I suspect you're not very clear on that.

But you cannot claim by science God did it, only by belief.

True. Science is a method that cannot assess the supernatural.