I admit it! I don’t see things as other people see them. In fact I am partially color-blind. I first discovered this when I was given several charts to view and asked to identify the numbers on the charts. My response was, “What numbers?” That response nixed my congressional appointment to the US Naval Academy! Today, it also causes Mary Jo to question a few of my color schemes when I think two things go together.
However, knowledge of the very fact that there are shades of colors that I can’t see (or, perhaps, see differently than other people see them), makes me understand some of the university students Mary Jo and I speak to. They just can’t fathom that Darwin might be wrong. Even when presented with solid scientific evidence, they reject it because they are “color-blinded” by their worldview, They have been so deeply immersed in evolutionary indoctrination that they are unable to see beyond it.
Some time ago, an extremely long discussion with a university professor lasted beyond midnight. After giving him evidence after evidence for creation and against evolution, I realized that nothing seemed to phase him. I finally asked him, “What evidence would you accept for creation?” He answered, “Absolutely nothing!” (I wish I had asked him that question 5 hours before!)
Like so many students today, he was “color-blind” because of his unquestioning acceptance of the evolutionary interpretation of the evidence. He was blind to any evidence pointing to creation. That became obvious when he revealed the “box” he was constrained in. He said that he had yet to meet a scientist who believed in creation. Mary Jo answered that he had been talking to two all evening. His reply was, “You used to be scientists.”
Hmmmm… Color-blind people may not be able to see some shades of colors, but for me and many others, it actually is a benefit for seeing through camouflage. I can frequently spot a deer in a forest when others can’t see it. The professor’s reply was obviously a “camouflaged deer.” His prevailing mindset was that only naturalistic explanations qualify as science. In his mind, allowing any potential of a Creator or Designer suddenly disqualified us as scientists, regardless of how much evidence pointed toward creation.
An example to illustrate the constraints of this type of thinking would be trying to come up with a naturalistic origin for a beautifully chipped arrowhead. One might propose a naturalistic explanation involving a rock rolling around in a streambed and accidentally taking that shape after millions of years. Even though naturalistic, it is not the correct explanation or even a good explanation since it goes against known dynamics of rock fracturing. Stripped of its “naturalistic camouflage,” the “scientific” explanation looks ridiculous to those who are open to the idea of a craftsman having made it.
Could this argument of “What would you accept as evidence?” be turned back on me? Yes, and it has been. However, I have seen enough evidence for the truth of God’s Word and have experienced enough of His work in my life that I would be a fool to deny it. I am not afraid to admit that faith is an important part of my life; I believe that the scientific evidence affirms this faith.
However, many students and professors cling to convoluted explanations just to avoid the supernatural. They hide behind camouflaged naturalistic arguments to explain the origin and intricate details of life apart from God. They call it “science,” but in reality it is faith. Even though others can see the evidence, they can’t see or won’t allow themselves to see the writing that spells, “G-O-D.” They are “God-Blind” and don’t even know it!
Originally published in the January/February 2010 Think and Believe newsletter.