{"id":29142,"date":"2024-06-01T14:41:52","date_gmt":"2024-06-01T19:41:52","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/apologeticspress.org\/?p=29142"},"modified":"2025-10-02T13:45:31","modified_gmt":"2025-10-02T18:45:31","slug":"is-it-appropriate-to-say-god-did-it","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/apologeticspress.org\/is-it-appropriate-to-say-god-did-it\/","title":{"rendered":"Is It Ever Appropriate to Say \u201cGod Did It\u201d in Response to a Scientific Challenge?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

When a naturalist encounters a scientific challenge he cannot explain naturally, he cannot claim a supernatural explanation to his problem without contradicting his belief in naturalism. Having examined sufficient evidence to be a supernaturalist, a biblical creationist does<\/strong> have the option of claiming a supernatural explanation, but when is it appropriate to do so?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Of course, the most obvious time that it is appropriate to say \u201cGod did it\u201d as a response to a proposed scientific difficulty with Creation is when the Bible explicitly says<\/strong> He did something. From time to time, however, we might come across a new quibble, about which Scripture is silent<\/strong>, and to which we cannot immediately give a reasonable answer. It would be easy to respond to such quibbles by simply saying \u201cGod did it\u201d as our answer to the problem. Such an answer, however, becomes a form of the \u201cGod of the Gaps\u201d argument, where God is inserted to solve a problem (or as proof that God must exist in order for the problem to be solved). As we have shown elsewhere,1<\/sup><\/a> the God of the Gaps Argument is not a good argument to use in favor of God\u2019s existence.2<\/sup><\/a> Quickly using \u201cGod did it\u201d as our explanation for new quibbles could be claiming that God did things that He did not do, bearing false witness against Him (1 Corinthians 15:15; Job 13:7, ESV). It also encourages scientific laziness, when God wants us to study to be able to find and defend the truth (1 Peter 3:15; 2 Timothy 2:15), including doing science and learning about the great things He has done (Psalm 111:2), only drawing conclusions that follow from the evidence we gather (1 Thessalonians 5:21). So, how should we respond to new quibbles about which Scripture is silent?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

First, we should keep in mind that, regardless of the new quibble, there is no single quibble that is capable of disproving the many evidences for the existence of God or the inspiration of the Bible. Those two fundamental planks of our faith still stand on mountains of evidence,3<\/sup><\/a> regardless of any new, for example, Creation or Flood quibbles. Since the Bible is inspired by God, we know that it is true, and it clearly teaches, for example, that a global Flood occurred. So, while we may not immediately have an answer to the new Flood quibble, we know that there is<\/strong> an answer. We should not, therefore, allow it to concern us. Instead, we should study the subject to learn about God and His amazing work in the Flood.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Now, it is true that God can do anything as long as it is in harmony with His perfect nature. So, sometimes the answer to an unknown quibble may be that He did<\/strong> choose to miraculously involve Himself in the process (as He did many times throughout Bible history, according to Scripture), but we should not be too quick to assume that option if there is not scriptural evidence that would suggest it. In some biblical contexts (e.g., Genesis 1), it is clear that God is miraculously involved. So, it would be appropriate to suggest \u201cGod did it\u201d as a possible answer to a quibble (e.g., starlight from distant stars reaching Earth rapidly during Creation week4<\/sup><\/a>).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Concerning Flood-related quibbles, one example of an important textual clue in the Flood narrative that suggests God\u2019s miraculous involvement in the event is found in Genesis 8:1, where the text says that \u201cGod made a wind<\/strong> to pass over the earth\u201d\u2014suggesting that God created a wind that was not a \u201cnatural\u201d wind during the Flood. Creation scientists and Flood critics alike have questioned how anything could have survived the Flood (creatures in the water or on the Ark) due to the amount of heat that was being generated by lava, meteorite activity, and accelerated nuclear decay. Since wind is an extremely effective way to transfer heat from an object (through convection), it is possible that the wind God made was a miraculous one that cooled the Earth during the Flood. While Creation scientists are studying other possible explanations for that particular quibble, Genesis 8:1 provides a prime example of a case where Scripture implicitly provides a Bible believer with justification for suggesting as an answer that \u201cGod did it.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Endnotes<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

1<\/sup><\/a> Kyle Butt (2024), \u201cThe \u2018God of the Gaps\u2019 Argument: A Refutation,\u201d Reason & Revelation<\/em>, 44[2]:2-4, February.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

2<\/sup><\/a> If nothing else because, as science reveals natural answers to various quibbles, God would be viewed as less and less \u201cnecessary\u201d in the Universe.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

3<\/sup><\/a> See, for example, Dave Miller, ed. (2017), Does God Exist?<\/em> (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press) and Kyle Butt (2022), Is the Bible God\u2019s Word? <\/em>(Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

4<\/sup><\/a> Jeff Miller (2019), \u201cDoes Distant Starlight Prove an Old Universe?\u201d Reason & Revelation<\/em>, 39[5]:58-59, May.<\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\n\n

Does God Exist?<\/h2>\n \n
\n
<\/div>\n\n