Posted by
ValiantForTruth on Wednesday, February 02, 2011 10:19:33 AM
It is natural that the origin of the universe should have been one of the most prominent subjects of inquiry among men. Various theories have been presented, not only by those who have been guided by reason only, but even by others to whom revelation has been known but not accepted as authoritative. All theories, however, may be generally reduced to four.
I. That which asserts that matter is the one eternal, self-existent substance from which all else proceeds.
II. That which regards it as an emanation from God.
III. That which maintains that matter is itself eternal, but has been acted upon by God, who has used its substance in the construction of all things, thus giving to them form and life.
IV. That which accords with the Scripture teaching, that the universe has been made absolutely out of nothing, by the active exercise of the will and power of God.
It is the duty of Theology to examine each of these theories, and to set forth the reasons for believing that matter is neither self-existent and independently eternal, nor an emanation from God, nor mere material used by him, but has been created out of nothing.
I. Matter is not the one eternal, self-existent substance from which all else proceeds.
(1.) If it is, then mind is the product of matter, and not matter that of mind.
The universe presents to us both mind and matter. Each of these must exist independently of the other, or the one must have been the production of the other. Which then has been the producing cause? Have the mental powers, which are exhibited by man, been the development of forces inherent in matter, which through various processes have finally attained to self-consciousness, and thought, and purpose, such as we find in man? or is there some infinite mind which has originated all things, both mind and matter?
[...Is it reasonable that mind should have proceeded from matter, and not produced it? So, it is equally unreasonable that matter should be the one originating cause of the universe.]
(2.) The same fact appears from the existence of the laws which control matter. Matter has fixed limitations, within which alone it can act. Its movements, its changes of form, its developments, and indeed all things connected with it are governed by fixed, and, so far as we can see, unchangeable laws. These laws can be examined and known, and made the basis of the action of men.
Is it reasonable that matter has the capacity to establish immutable law governing itself? Or is it more reasonable that these laws have been imposed upon it by a superior intelligence?
(3.) The incapacity of matter to create anything shows that it is not self-existent, and eternal. All that is claimed for matter is the power to develop one form into another. It is even denied that there has been any increase in its original materials since it first began to be. But it is evident that whatever cannot be the cause of existence to others, cannot be the cause of its own existence, or be self-existent.
[Adapted from Abstract of Systematic Theology by James P. Boyce]
What used to be reasonable and self-evident is now denied by the disciples of Darwin. The consensus that all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are revealed in Christ has been exchanged for a lie. The ancient myth that matter is eternal and self-existent and capable of producing mind is now thought reasonable in an age thought to be governed by science. It is ironic that while neo-science preaches autonomous reason and ridicules reason guided by revelation, the neo-scientist has lost his reason and so disdains the fundamentals of scientific discovery that data contrary to theory is suppressed in a defense of vain philosophy. Neo-science is blinded to the truth and functions now as a hindrance to real science.