Inspired by Faith and Science

I read an article that claimed evolution could not be a fact, because you can't scientifically prove a thing that you can't observe. I guess I'd end up arguing against both halves of that statement.

I can't observe the Roman invasion of Britain, but I can scientifically validate it from the evidence left behind - translation of documents, history of legal structures, layout of roads, the ruins of villas and baths, etc.

I can't observe evolution, but I can scientifically validate it from the evidence left behind - the statistics and coincidence of genes, the blind spot in the eye, the similarity of structures across species, etc.

I can't observe God, but I can... certainly see the evidence for His presence in history, in science and in my life. I am, and will always be both grateful and amazed that He who created it all, who beyond doubt knows everything far better than I can imagine, should care for me.

I guess it all boils down to what you call a fact and how willing you are to test what you believe against what can be observed.

Whatever you believe, the Bible's a pretty ancient document, and at least as good a historical document as any other that we use - better than most. There's incredible agreement between all the different document fragments. There are huge numbers of fragments and consistent contemporary references in other sources. There's considerable archeological and other historical evidence for many of the names and events - evidence for the validity of names and modes of behavior - evidence for timelines and chronology...

True, there are many names and events that can't (yet) be validated. There are for any historical document. Archeology works kind of like looking for needles in haystacks - when you've found a few you should probably believe there are more rather than assuming the ones you found were just coincidence.

True, there are events that are hard to explain. It's only recently that scientists realized the Bible account of the River Jordan running dry really corresponded with known mudslides at Adamah during earthquakes. Even more recently they've found how a north-east wind could make the Gulf of Aqaba (otherwise known as the Red Sea in Greek, or Reed Sea in Hebrew) run dry. (They even found fresh-water reeds at the north end of the sea, justifying it's Hebrew name.) We don't know it all, and likely never will, just as we don't know all of any other history, or science.

But, equally true, real people wrote these books an awfully long time ago. They got enough things right for their descriptions to sound like eye-witness accounts. And they include enough coincidences to leave the reader wondering... did all this happen just at the right time by chance, or by the hand of God.

Yes, it matters to me that the Bible is history, because the history and science convince me the Bible's God is real. My only alternative is faith in so many coincidences I'd have to invent a god to explain them away.

Has anyone ever said that to you? If you answer "What stuff?" they'll say "Myths like that," as if you're supposed to agree that the Bible's a myth. But there are no other creation "myths" that agree so closely with science, no "history myths" that agree so well with archeology, no "rule-book myths" that would so convincingly result in a healthy tribe, and no collection of historical documents so large, complete, well-researched and ancient as the Bible.

I believe in "that stuff," and the science behind it convinces me it's not a myth.
I believe in "that God," because I'd have to believe in way too many coincidences if I didn't.

Has anyone ever said that to you? And what about "I can't imagine how an eye could evolve."

Both statements are fine - they just tell you what the speaker can or can't imagine. But when they're used to draw conclusions -

I can't imagine how a Christian can believe in evolution, therefore people who believe in evolution can't be Christian (or haven't thought it through)...
I can't imagine how an eye could evolve, therefore it must have been created fully-formed... -

that's where the logic breaks down. Just because someone can't imagine something doesn't make it not true. Some of us CAN imagine how the eye could evolve. Some of us even have trouble imagining how (or why) God would have created it fully formed and put the nerves on the wrong side. And some of us are just as convinced that Genesis 1 describes evolution as others are that it doesn't.

Some of us even find the correlation between Genesis 1, written more than 2,000 years ago, and the discoveries of modern science so amazing we have to believe in God. What other eye-witness could have told the writers that plants came before sunshine came before fish and birds came before animals came before man?