Creator’s Prerogative – The Investment Premise

Last summer, I began a project to show how evolution and Biblical principals were incompatible, focusing on the ethical side of things. My project didn’t get very far, but I did develop an idea called Creator’s Prerogative. (For those who want to know where the argument came from, look to the post titled “Evolution’s Ethical Problem: Creator’s Prerogative” from July 19th, 2010.)

Here is the Creator’s Prerogative argument as a refresher:

P1: The Creator has invested everything needed to make their creation
P2: The Creator has a specific purpose and function intended for their creation
P3: The Creator continually provides everything needed for the creation to function according to the Creator's intentions
C: Therefore, the Creator has Creator's Prerogative, the right to expect and require the creation to function according to the purposes and intentions of the Creator, and even to create consequences in the event of failure to do so.

My purpose, here, is not to disprove evolution – I am not a scientist. My purpose is to show that the tenets of evolution, at a fundamental level, are wholly incompatible with Christian philosophy. In order for this argument to help me, then, I must prove that the Bible supports its premises. Over the next few posts, I intend to do this very thing, premise by premise.

We start with the first premise: the “Investment Premise.” I argue that the Creator (God, in this case) has provided/invested everything needed to make His creations.

Here’s what the Bible has to say about this point: Genesis 1, of course, points it out clearly. God speaks, and the authority and power attached to His command bring the things He names into being. Sounds like investment to me! What about Psalm 148:5, where David says that “He commanded and they were created,” after listing the things of creation. Isaiah tells us in 42:5 that it was God “who created the heavens and stretched them out, Who spread out the earth and its offspring, Who gives breath to its people and spirit to those who walk in it.” God not only made us, but He is the source of our breath and our spirit! Paul claims boldly in Ephesians 3:9 and Colossians 1:16 that God “created all things.” When God selects the chief craftsman for the Tabernacle, we are told in Exodus 35:31 that God “filled him with the Spirit of God in wisdom, in understanding, and in all kinds of craftsmanship.” It seems God has a hand in helping us to do what we do every day, as well. 1 Chronicles 22:12, it is proposed that only because God gave discretion and authority does the king rule. This idea is echoed by Jesus in the Great Commission, that all authority comes from God, and is mentioned again by Paul in Romans 13:1.

The Bible resoundingly states that God invested everything needed to make us, and make our world, and it would seem even our societies and technology. If this is the case, then the Bible indeed supports and points to the Investment Premise.

Objections? Counter-examples? Suggestions?

Spiritually Secure, Intellectually UNimpressed

So I've been reading Sam Harris' Letter to a Christian Nation. I heard that it was a leading book in the New Atheist movement, that Ravi Zacharias had written a response, and that the book was sweeping the nation. So, I bought the book to see what all the fuss as about.

I'm twelve pages from done, and I don't know, honestly what the fuss is about. Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennet, they're forces to be reckoned with, who have legitimate arguments that need to be dealt with. But Sam Harris has constructed a leaning Tower of Pisa out of toothpicks and mini-marshmallows and is trying to pass it off as the latest Pentagon-designed weaponry against Christian thought.

Of course, no new atheist writing will ever "undermine" Christianity; that would be saying that someone could write a book that would destroy the law of gravity. It's not possible, from my point of view. Christian thought (which is not an oxy-moron, as Harris claims) will always be able to defend itself, assuming it's truth, as I do. Hence, I am spiritually secure at the end of the letter, despite the countless promises by critics(Christian and non-Christian alike) who say that the letter will shake the very foundations of my faith.

Intellectually, though, I'm disappointed with the work. I wanted something deep, something strong, an argument that would take real think power to undo. Sam Harris, if he's as smart as the NAs believe him to be (and I think he is), could easily undermine his own arguments with a little iota of thought. The only daunting part is the sheer number, but careful inspection belies their flimsy, faulty construction. I wanted a challenge, I got a fuzzy lollipop stick (how disappointing).

What I'm wondering, though, is how wrong I am for feeling that way. Is it arrogance that craves the chance to debate NAs? Am I being humble when I can see on every page how his Atheism argument can't hold a candle to my Christianity? The answer to both is yes. If I "love my neighbor as myself," should I want Sam Harris to be a powerful NA? If I care about the fate of his and all immortal souls, should I be disappointed with the flimsy nature o his argument? The answer to these, is no. Balancing intellectual pursuits with spiritual duties is always hard, and I've fallen.

And in that simple realization I'm grateful for the 100 millionth time that God is real, is gracious, and that He loves me.