The 10 Things You Should Know About the Creation vs. Evolution Debate by Ron Rhodes Read Free Book Online

observes this
consistent pattern for a solid hour. All the sudden, the Martian
witnesses a vehicle with flashing red lights and a siren, and
against all that he has thus far observed, the vehicle goes straight
through the red light. "`Aha!' he said, `there must be a higher
law! When you have a flashing light and a loud sound, you
can go through the crossing regardless of what color the light
may be.""'
    This little story illustrates that the natural laws of the universe
can be (and are on occasion) overruled by a higher law. The
universe is not a closed system that prevents God from breaking in with the miraculous. God does not violate the laws of
nature but rather supersedes them with a higher law. God is
over, above, and outside natural law and is not bound by it.
    Scientists may claim that such miracles would disrupt any
possibility of doing real science by removing constancy in the
world. But constancy is in the world because God created the world that way. Miracles are unusual events that involve only a
brief superseding of the natural laws. By definition, they are out
of the norm. If a norm did not exist, miracles would not be possible. As apologists Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli put it, "Unless
there are regularities, there can be no exceptions to them.";'
Miracles are unusual, not commonplace events. A miracle is a
unique event that stands out against the background of ordinary and regular occurrences. The possibility of miracles does
not disrupt the possibility of doing real science because God has
built constancy into the universe via the laws of nature.

    3. David Hume's experience was greatly limited. As noted
previously, Hume argued that a "miracle is a violation of the
laws of nature; and as a firm and unalterable experience has
established these laws, the proof against a miracle, from the very
nature of the fact, is as entire as any argument from experience
can possibly be imagined."34
    The big problem with Hume's conclusion is that "experience" can never confirm his naturalistic viewpoint unless he has
access to all possible experiences in the universe, including those
of the past and the future. Since (finite) Hume does not have
access to this much broader (infinite) body of knowledge, his
conclusion is baseless."
    The reality is that we could trust very little history if we were
to believe only those things which we have personally
observed and experienced! Sadly, though, this is the methodology modernistic critics still hold onto regarding miracles.
    Apologists Norman L. Geisler and Ronald M. Brooks have
noted that Hume essentially equates probability with evidence.
Since people who die typically stay dead, a so-called miracle of
resurrection is impossible. Geisler and Brooks counter, "That
is like saying that you shouldn't believe it if you won the lottery
because of all the thousands of people who lost. It equates
evidence with probability and says that you should never believe that long shots win. "I' A miracle may be a "long shot," and it
may not happen very often, but long shots make good sense
when God is involved in the picture. What is impossible with
man is possible with God (Matthew 19:26).

    4. If God exists, then miracles are possible. The bottom line,
once you get rid of all the fancy philosophical arguments against
miracles, is this: If one admits God may exist, miracles are possible. Paul Little writes, "Once we assume the existence of God,
there is no problem with miracles, because God is by definition all-powerful. "37 Reformed scholar Charles Hodge, in his
Systematic Theology, similarly writes: "If theism [belief in a
personal Creator-God] be once admitted, then it must be admitted that the whole universe, with all that it contains and all the
laws by which it is controlled, must be subject to the will of
God."" As Norman Geisler put it so well, "If there is a God
who can act, then there can be acts of God. The only way to
show that