Verbal Chess

12/12/2013                Stuart             about 30

“How much of what you think about evolution and the origins of the earth comes from other people?  When you think about it, almost everything you believe about the past comes from people whom you trust to be reliable. So the real question is, whom will you trust?  The scientific approach would say that we should trust the “experts” – scientists, archeologists, scholars, etc., because they base their findings on evidence and research.  But is it possible they are biased?  Do they not decide what evidence to accept and what to ignore, how to interpret the evidence they do accept, and what conclusions are even possible in the first place?  By its very nature, the scientific method unquestionably rejects any evidence of those  conclusions that fall outside of known physical laws or that even hint of a higher intelligence or divine intervention.  In place of this is the belief that nothing could create everything in the very beginning; and faith in random chance requiring billions of years for everything to develop order. Questions that can’t be answered are confidently averted by saying “Science hasn’t developed to that point yet”.  What to do with the massive amount of evidence of intelligence, order, and divine intervention?  What about all the evidence that has accumulated in opposition to the theory of evolution and the belief in billions of years?  Don’t know about it?  There’s good reason – any scientist or academic who cares about his or her career must reject it outright or risk being a laughingstock among his peers.  He may also reject it because to acknowledge evidence of God’s existence and involvement is to acknowledge that there is a higher power to whom they are accountable personally.  When there is a discrepancy between a secular scientist who will not accept evidence of the divine and a believing scientist who dares to acknowledge it, whom will you trust?  One who has an inherent bias against any evidence for God or one who knows God requires and deserves his total honesty?”    …This is the line of thinking I WISH I had taken with a man named Stuart at the coffeshop.  I had asked about his beliefs and our conversation quickly turned into a verbal chess match.  He was an ardent and experienced atheist who could see the logical outcomes of my questions and countered with evasions and claims of evidence supporting all the scientific theories of origins that he believes to be true.  He did his best to try to ridicule my beliefs in the Bible and my Christian faith, and to avoid my questions about eternity, and he was very good at it.  In hindsight, I think that instead of questioning his “evidence”, I needed to question his sources. It was a friendly debate, but a debate nonetheless, and I’m not sure it was of any benefit to Stuart’s spiritual condition.  But sharing our faith doesn’t just help the people we try to share it with.  It helps us as well.  It helps to know the questions people will ask, and to be more confident and able to communicate the Gospel the next time.