{"id":4482,"date":"2013-07-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2013-07-03T05:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/apologeticspress.org\/unlike-naturalists-you-creationists-have-a-blind-faith-4704\/"},"modified":"2025-08-28T15:03:23","modified_gmt":"2025-08-28T20:03:23","slug":"unlike-naturalists-you-creationists-have-a-blind-faith-4704","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/apologeticspress.org\/unlike-naturalists-you-creationists-have-a-blind-faith-4704\/","title":{"rendered":"“Unlike Naturalists, You Creationists Have a Blind Faith”"},"content":{"rendered":"

We openly grant that the accusation represented by the title of this article is true, at least for many individuals today. But not for all.<\/p>\n

\u201cBlind Faith\u201d\u2014Many Have It<\/h2>\n

What is \u201cblind faith\u201d? What is meant by the accusation? The idea behind \u201cblind faith\u201d is that a person chooses to believe in something or someone (namely, God) without any supporting evidence. The portrait painted in our minds is that of a person who puts on a blindfold and steps up to a ledge. He cannot see what is beyond the ledge. He has no idea how far down the drop is\u2014whether or not he will plummet to his death, break his legs, or simply fall down. He has no idea if there is water, a trampoline, or rocks at the bottom. He simply decides to believe that he will not die if he jumps off\u2014that he will be safe. He has no evidence, only pure, baseless \u201cfaith.\u201d So, he takes a \u201cleap of faith.\u201d Question: who in their right mind would do such a thing? Whoever has such a faith truly is na\u00efve, an extremely emotionally, rather than rationally, charged individual, and possibly is in need of counseling, or has an agenda for having such a belief system.<\/p>\n

Sadly many people have such a \u201cfaith.\u201d Many people call themselves Christians, and claim to believe in the Bible, but clearly have not read it. They have a \u201cblind faith\u201d which, according to the Law of Rationality (Ruby, 1960, pp. 126-127), is irrational. Their belief in God is not based on the evidence, but is a blind leap into the dark without it<\/strong>. Philosphers call this phenomenon \u201cfideism\u201d (Popkin, 1967, 3:201-202). However, the biblical portrait of faith (Greek, pistis<\/em>\u2014translated equally as faith, belief, trust, or having confidence in; Arndt, et al., 1979, pp. 661-664) is not what some in Christendom have defined it to be nor what Hollywood has portrayed it to be. It is not \u201cbelieving when common sense tells you not to,\u201d as the 1947 movie, Miracle on 34th<\/sup> Street<\/em> suggested (Seaton). It is not a \u201cleap of faith\u201d like Dr. Jones\u2019 actions in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade<\/em> (Spielberg, 1989). The Bible does not advocate a \u201cFeel, don\u2019t think\u201d mentality, like that encouraged by Qui-Gon Jinn in Star Wars<\/em> (Lucas, 1999). Biblical faith is based on evidence (Hebrews 11:1). It is trust\u2014comparable to the trust one has in a parent or friend\u2014that is based on proof. We trust someone when he has proven himself to be trustworthy. When one listens to or reads revelation from God\u2019s Word (i.e., what Bible believers call \u201cspecial revelation\u201d) and the information therein proves to be true, one develops faith in God (Romans 10:17). When one examines the evidence from the created order (i.e., what Bible believers call \u201cgeneral revelation\u201d), and it points to the existence of a supernatural Being as Creator\u2014rather than blind, random, accidental change over time\u2014we learn to trust God based on that evidence.<\/p>\n

In short: The biblical model of faith requires evidence<\/strong>. According to the biblical model, the truth of God can be known<\/strong>\u2014not felt or accepted without proof\u2014and it will set men free (John 8:32). Sincere truth seekers examine what they have been told and investigate its veracity by pondering the evidence, as did the \u201cfair-minded\u201d Bereans of Acts 17:11, before becoming Christians. In fact, God (through Paul in 1 Thessalonians 5:21) tells the creationist that he is expected<\/strong> to prove or test something before believing it\u2014only accepting what has been proven right or good. Do such passages give the impression that the Bible advocates a blind, evidence-less faith?<\/p>\n

Sadly, evidence-based faith is not the faith of many within Christendom. But \u201cdon\u2019t throw the baby out with the bathwater.\u201d Many of us base our view squarely on the evidence<\/strong>\u2014such as the evidence presented below. [NOTE: See Miller<\/a>, 2003a for more on the topic of \u201cblind faith\u201d and the Bible. Also, Miller<\/a>, 2003b.]<\/p>\n

But We<\/em> Don\u2019t<\/h2>\n

In order for a belief to not be \u201cblind\u201d or irrational, it needs supporting evidence. While the creationist does not claim to hold direct, observable evidence of God, since we cannot taste, touch, see, hear, or smell Him, the indirect evidence\u2014a legitimate source of scientific evidence\u2014is overwhelming. What supporting evidence do creationists put forth? A thorough treatment of this subject is outside the scope of this article, but hundreds of articles and books deal eloquently and credibly with the subject. [NOTE: See www.apologeticspress.org<\/a> for a library of said material.]<\/p>\n

In short, the creationist argues, among other things, that:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. The available evidence contradicts the atheistic model (cf. Miller<\/a>, 2012b; Miller<\/a>, 2013c), which logically leaves theism\u2014the Creation model;<\/li>\n
  2. The fundamental evidence that contradicts the naturalistic model, supports the contentions of the creation model, which never contradicts the scientific evidence;<\/li>\n
  3. The existence and teachings of the laws of science demand a non-material, uncaused Cause for the Universe;<\/li>\n
  4. There are numerous natural evidences in the Universe that exhibit the characteristics of intent, purpose, and complexity, which indicate a Mind behind them. Such attributes testify to the presence of intelligent design<\/strong>, which implies a Designer<\/strong>;<\/li>\n
  5. Objective morality exists, which implies a higher Law that transcends mankind, which in turn demands a supernatural Author;<\/li>\n
  6. A Book exists that contains certain characteristics that can only be explainable if it is what it says it is\u2014the Word of the Creator.\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    These proofs, and many others, provide evidence that demands an explanation and cannot be satiated by naturalistic theories. Only supernatural Creation provides an answer in keeping with the evidence. The Creation model can hardly be deemed unscientific. Its legitimate followers cannot be brushed aside as \u201cblind\u201d believers. Such sweeping accusations are unfair and betray a prejudiced, stereotypical mindset, to say nothing of the fact that such accusations fall victim to the ad hominem<\/em> logical fallacy (\u201cFallacies,\u201d 2012).<\/p>\n

    Actually, Evolutionists Do<\/h2>\n

    In truth, Creation is the reasonable choice\u2014the one not beholden to evidence-less leaps of faith. It is not contingent on the baseless, mythical claim that aliens exist and initiated life on Earth (cf. Miller<\/a>, 2013a); that abiogenesis\u2014like magic from a fictional novel\u2014is somehow possible (cf. Miller<\/a>, 2012b); that non-humans give birth to humans, as they do in the tabloids (cf. Flew and Warren, 1977, pp. 25,45,65); or the fanciful idea that Universes spontaneously pop into existence (cf. Miller<\/a>, 2013c). Indeed, atheistic evolution is simply well-packaged superstition. Creation is the option in keeping with reason and the evidence.<\/p>\n

    While some who call themselves \u201cChristians,\u201d do, indeed, have an unscriptural, blind faith, in truth, the same can be said of the evolutionary community\u2014and more so. Why? (1) Because unlike evolution, the evidence does not contradict Creation but supports it, even though some have accepted Creation without that evidence; (2) because not all<\/strong> creationists hold to a blind faith. Some examine the evidence and draw the reasonable conclusion that a Creator exists. However, all naturalists must<\/strong> have a blind, evidence-less faith, since atheistic evolution is based on certain baseless, unprovable assumptions, including abiogenesis, naturalism, spontaneous generation or the eternality of matter, etc. (cf. Miller<\/a>, 2013b and Kerkut, 1960 for other key, baseless evolutionary assumptions). Belief in those assumptions is purely blind<\/strong>. They (1) are not supported by the evidence, which classifies evolution as irrational; (2) actually contradict the evidence; and (3) even show the naturalist to be engaged in self-contradiction, which he blindly ignores when confronted with the evidence of his contradictions (cf. Miller<\/a>, 2012a). It seems clear that it is the evolutionist\u2014not the creationist\u2014who holds to a blind faith.<\/p>\n

    Consider the following timeless quotes from various prominent evolutionists concerning the character of the naturalist\u2019s faith:<\/p>\n