Critique One - Part Three - An Eternal Choice

Mr. Russell spoke briefly concerning the Natural Law Argument and the Argument from Design as continued support for why he chose not to follow Jesus. He indicated that advances in science had convinced him that chance was a better explanation for why things are exactly the way they are than is the Biblical creation account. Mr. Russell admittedlly spent a short amount of time on this point because of the vast amount of detail involved. Likewise, my comments in response will be brief. There are only two points i'd like to present for consideration.

First, science is an explanatory agent. Science is observation. We believe something to be true, we devise a way to test that explanation and observe the results of the test then make a judgement to the validity of the first premise. Therefore, if science were perfected then we would have an explanation for how everything in the universe works. We quickly see the limitation here. Science can never explain why things are the way they are because we cannot observe origins. True scientists would admit as much. This means that science can have nothing to say about origins, only untestable, unobservable premises. This is why I believe advances in science only make clearer the case for creation. The more we discover, the more difficult it is to explain the intricate details by time and chance. If one looks at just two recent proposals for intellegent design, namely irreducible complexity and specified complexity (look briefly at the make-up and operation of blood clotting and DNA, for example) one would easily see that the passage of time makes ideas of chance as moving beyond the limits of plausibility.

"I am told that that sort of view is depressing, and people will sometimes tell you that if they believed that they would not be able to go on living. Do not believe it; it is all nonsense. Nobody really worries much about what is going to happen millions of years hence. Even if they think they are worrying much about that, they are really deceiving themselves...although it is of course a gloomy view to suppose that life will die out...it is not such as to render life miserable." I am glad Mr. Russell at least recognizes that people have real problems with the outworkings of his views, although he quickly dismisses those individuals concerns. We cannot waive our hand at the reality that people are miserable. If one holds that everything came to be via time and chance then there is nothing to hope for. Death is the end. We'd have to consider whether considering anything important (origin, meaning, morality, destiny) was worth consideration. The Bible is clear that man is immortal, and will spend an eternity in one place or the other. This gives the Christian an unswerving hope no matter the situation, and the skeptic despondency and hopelessness even in the best of times.

Mr. Russell has missed the logical conclusion of his arguments against natural law and design. If we are all here as a result of time and chance, then man is just an accident, an unexplainable phenomena in the universe. If this is the case, then why should I as an accident care one whit what another accident thinks about anything? In other words, Mr. Russell's worldview discourages anyone from even considering his worldview. What Mr. Russell rejects, and disciples of Christ offer, is the peace, contentment, joy and hope that comes with belief that we are created in the very image of God, for the glory of God who makes available salvation, justification, sanctification and an eternal home in His presence through faith in Jesus Christ. It is a choice each of us must make.