Why an Atheist Thinks the Shroud of Turin is the Real Deal

Miller, Kenneth R.

The creationist opponents . . . claim that the existence of life, the appearance of new species, and, most especially, the origins of mankind have not and cannot be explained by evolution or any other natural process. By denying the self-sufficiency of nature, they look for God (or at least a "designer") in the deficiencies of science. The trouble is that science, given enough time, generally explains even the most baffling things. As a matter of strategy, creationists would be well-advised to avoid telling scientists what they will never be able to figure out. History is against them. In a general way, we really do understand how nature works. . . . Evolu-tion really does explain the very things that its critics say it does not. Claims disputing the antiquity of the earth, the validity of the fossil record, and the suffi-ciency of evolutionary mechanisms vanish upon close inspection. Even to the most fervent anti-evolutionists, the pattern should be clear - their favorite "gaps" are filling up: the molecular mechanisms of evolution are now well-understood, and the historical record of evo-lution becomes more compelling with each passing season. . . . If we accept a lack of scientific explanation as proof for God's existence, simple logic would dic-tate that we would have to regard a successful scientif-ic explanation as an argument against God. That's why creationist reasoning, ultimately, is much more dan-gerous to religion than to science. . . . By arguing, as creationists do, that nature cannot be self-sufficient in the formation of new species, the creationists forge a logical link between the limits of natural processes to accomplish biological change and the existence of a designer (God). In other words, they show the propo-nents of atheism exactly how to disprove the existence of God - show that evolution works, and it's time to tear down the temple. This is an offer that the enemies of religion are all too happy to accept.

Putting it bluntly, the creationists have sought God in darkness. What we have not found and do not yet un-derstand becomes their best - indeed their only - evi-dence for the divine. As a Christian, I find the flow of this logic particularly depressing. Not only does it teach us to fear the acquisition of knowledge (which might at any time disprove belief), but it suggests that God dwells only in the shadows of our understanding. I suggest that, if God is real, we should be able to find him somewhere else - in the bright light of human knowledge, spiritual and scientific.