# 111: Response to Comments

I am writing this post in response to comments I received from a relative of mine who is an extremely intelligent person with an excellent memory. About two months ago, he asked me if intelligent design belonged in the biology class. I gave him a hard copy of post #109, "Creation, Evolution, and Intelligent Design," because he is a physical chemist and I wanted to get some scientific input on the subject of discussion. I am not certain what his status is concerning his belief in God, and what effect God has on his life. But I do know that he believes in most, if not all, fields of science. I will quote only the excerpts in #109, relative to his comments. If you desire to know what the context of my responses is, click on post #109.

1) On his first comment, I could understand why he commented: because I didn’t make myself clear enough. Therefore, I clarified this next excerpt: “I don’t mean to actually delete those early chapters, but for informed Christians to, at least in their mind, realize the writer’s limited knowledge and improvise creation’s time frame as being much longer than six 24-hour earth days.” This was his comment: “Bad example. Moses did understand what a day was. God could have said millions of years.” The changes I made were to put an apostrophe in the word “writer’s,” move a comma in back of “improvise,” and change the pronoun “the” to “creation’s.”

2) “And yet, with all those mistakes, the Bible is by all means the best source of information in existence that relays to humanity why God exists and what God and life are all about.” His comment was, “How do you know this?” My response is this: The proof is in the pudding. I have had plenty of years to try many lifestyles to find lasting meaning in my life. In the end, every one of them failed. What the Bible teaches, if practiced without reservation, fulfills one’s most intrinsic needs. And isn’t that what we are all seeking?

3) “And I truly believe that holy book was inspired by God; He had it written by fallible men in such a way, so that men/women could understand, for the limited knowledge they had at the time.” His comment was: “Where’s the latest version? Did God retire?” My answer is this: To my knowledge, the New International Version Bible is still used as the best source for accuracy. And then I think he inserted a little bit of jest about God retiring.

4) “Therefore, the winner is the one who has the most plausible answer, and for that reason, is the closest to possibly having the correct answer.” His comment was this: “This is absurd. Apply it to planetary motion, and physics would not exist.” My response is this: Physics, evolution and natural selection have not been able to answer the question of how the information encoded in DNA molecules formed on its own in the first living organism. And until they have the answer to that question, intelligent design is the best answer. If it violates the laws of physics, so be it. Just remember that believing in the existence of God violates physics. Therefore, the laws of physics break down when God enters the picture. Could that be why many brilliant scientists don’t believe in God?

5) “Biology and evolution argue that intelligent design is attempting to sneak God into the biology class and the school room through the back door. That must never be allowed.” This was his comment: “Why do you need to know everything?” I will respond to that question with a question: Does God desire for us to remain ignorant on matters that will better our lives, especially for inquisitive people like myself? If there is something to be known which will better our lives, I desire to know it. Is that what you mean by the word “everything”?

6) “Unanswered questions.” This was his comment: “All possibilities are infinite, including mice made the world. Again, why can’t we just accept there are things we don’t know?” My response is this: There are at least, if not only, two excellent questions in the world: questions that have not yet been asked, and questions that have no apparent answers.

7) “Now the question arises, how could this motor have arisen from a population of bacteria without tails, through natural selection?” His comment was this: His argument. “After-X-years of bacterial evolution on day -Y- of history, God added a flagellin to X bacteria.” This is my response: As mentioned previously, evolution, which implies natural selection, could not have functioned without information; where did that genetic information in the first bacterium come from?

8) “Again, there is no natural system that can produce information.” His comment was this: “Bacteria already had information available and were mutating and swapping information.” This is my response: Information needs intelligence/a mind to come into existence. Where did that information which the “bacteria already had” come from? Sounds like we are going around and around.

9) “If the universe was the result of a gigantic explosion, it was mostly likely an intelligent metaphysical force (which I call God) that created that bit of physical matter out of thin air, so to speak. That makes more sense than a random unknown force or energy.” His comment was this: “And if not? If you’re wrong? Let's say God did start everything. Why should we call point G the beginning when it was really A?” This is my response: It won’t be the first time I have been wrong. In the second part, I have no answer because I don’t understand the logic to the question.

Since post #109 is so controversial, feel free to send in your comments and criticism.

Thanks.

Continued… He also gave me a comment on post #108, “Where is Your Heart?” In the second-to-last paragraph: “And lastly, love God with all your might and love for the needy.” His comment was: “Firstly! Why? Would God be happier if you spent your money on starving children or on this blog? Do you care more about the needy or this blog?” This is my response: That is a soul-searching question. I must attempt for a balance. But even more importantly, which will bring God the greatest glory, and which will make Him known as He desires to be known? That would be my primary motive, while not neglecting the needy or children. But one thing to remember is that the secular world does help the needy, and at the same time God receives no glory for that charity. Therefore, when I help those in need, I must make certain the gifts go toward wholesome things and not toward alcohol, tobacco, and drugs. I live in a panhandler district, and am approached quite often by beggars. To just give my money to them is foolish and possibly harmful. I always ask them what the money is for. If they say food or clothing, I will go with them and buy what is needed. As for helping starving children and giving God the glory, I have not been able to participate in that type of giving. Just to give to a charitable organization, hoping children are helped, I, at this time, will not participate. And at the same time, my heart actually goes out with many tears to these misfortunate children that I see on TV.