A Willing Suspension of Disbelief (Or, Frankenstein's Monster Visits Starbucks)
In his book, RANDOMNESS HAPPENS FOR A REASON, the founder of Illustration Exchange discusses the limits of randomness in the creative process:
The term “willing suspension of disbelief” was coined by the poet Samuel Taylor Coleridge in 1817. Coleridge asked readers to set aside their skeptic glasses to allow a “willing suspension of disbelief,” so they might better engage with his fantasy-filled poems. Of course, we’ve all been captivated by the inked magic of a good page-turner or transported to unexplored dimensions by the bewitching spectacle of the silver screen.
But even as we indulge in one of these flights of fantasy, no one genuinely believes that the guy with the big 'S' on his chest is actually whooshing past skyscrapers, or that they might stumble across Dr. Frankenstein's pet project at Starbucks, sipping a pumpkin spice latte. Instead, for the sake of being taken on the journey, we willingly place our critical thinking on airplane mode, allowing the magic to wash over us.
What we are less cognizant of is that we are often called upon to suspend our disbelief when it comes to how we view the real world. For example, who has ever actually witnessed life springing forth from non-living matter? Given that such an event has never been observed—even in today’s high-tech, billion-dollar labs—it raises the question: What’s the difference between this “story” and the tale of Frankenstein’s life-imparting lightning bolt? As far as we’ve been able to determine, one is just as improbable as the other.
Yet, inexplicably, without blinking an eye, we suspend our critical faculties by accepting the audacious proposition that the diversity of life we witness today was woven by the clumsy fingers of blind, aimless chance. Secular society asks us to allow a “willing suspension of disbelief” so that we might better engage in its fantasy-filled theories about reality—and we have obliged.
... [To] keep the fantasy afloat, modern narrators distort reality on two fronts. They hyper-hyperbolize the creative potential of randomness while adamantly denying the authenticity of the design observed throughout nature. By tweaking the narrative in these two specific ways, it can be claimed that chaos and order not only work towards the same end; they are, in fact, the same thing.
With the help of a little creative storytelling, our critical capacities are disabled so that our brains are no longer capable of discerning the difference between chance and design. Instead, we gaze out at the vast complexities of the natural world and all we see is the byproduct of chaos. Chance and design have become indistinguishable.
But let's not be fooled: Chaos and complexity are not even on speaking terms. By any measure, they are as compatible as fire and ice. Rather than aiding and abetting order and design, entropy is a relentless saboteur, dismantling it with ruthless efficiency. ...
But beyond the realm of our imagination, randomness has real limits. It lacks the knowledge and the finesse to write the intricate DNA codes that distinguish every species inhabiting our blue marble, nor can it produce the fine-tuned complexity found at the molecular, cellular, or systems level of living organisms. Moreover, it fails to explain how these layers of design came to operate in perfect harmony with one another.
The story that’s told of the wonders of a Creation, molded and shaped by random processes, is as fantastic a tale as any penned by Samuel Taylor Coleridge, or anyone else for that matter. Yet, here we are, fully immersed in a fantasy world where chance is deemed more capable than God Himself. That’s because, all too often, we’ve allowed naturalistic assumptions to overshadow common sense. ...
To break this spell, we must shake off the stardust and reclaim our critical faculties. Rather than ascribing superpowers to randomness, we must recognize it for what it truly is: a rudderless, reckless, chaotic force, as incapable of producing the complexities of the human brain as a tornado is of constructing a jumbo jetliner capable of flight.
"in the beginning, God ..." (Genesis 1:1).
"For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him" (Colossians 1:16, ESV).
Playing Hide and Seek With God
According to Brittanica.com, hide-and-seek was [first] described by a Greek writer named Julius Pollux in the 2nd century BCE, which is really taking it way back. He calls the game apodidraskinda and describes it as something nearly identical to today's version of hide-and-seek.
Throughout the history of the childhood game Hide-and-Seek, with its roots believed to date back to ancient Greece [and probably beyond], there has never been a hider who didn’t know they were hiding. After all, the game often requires participants to squeeze into uncomfortable spaces and hold their breath when the seeker gets too close.
Likewise, living in denial of God’s existence takes considerable effort. For example, it is a daunting challenge to avoid the implications of an exquisitely choreographed and infinitely complex universe. Without the hand of God, how could everything materialize from a void of nothingness? And even if that could be explained, how did interdependent layers of complexity and design emerge from simplicity? And even if sense could be made of that, how did life then burst forth from the barren womb of lifeless matter?
Given the contortions required to explain the universe without appealing to a Creator, it’s safe to say that, beneath all the bother, there has never been a hider who didn’t know they were hiding from God.
This includes the eminent evolutionary biologist and professional God-dodger, Richard Dawkins, who provocatively declared, “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” Dawkins candidly acknowledged that living organisms “overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design, as if by a master watchmaker.”
Yet, in a plot twist rivaling an M. Night Shyamalan movie, Dawkins asserts that the breathtaking design we observe in the cosmos isn’t real! This baffling conclusion is based on his contention that God isn’t real either. As the logic goes, if there is no God, then we can’t attribute purpose or intent to anything that we observe in nature.
Naturalists like Dawkins argue that the cosmos only appears to be a masterpiece of design. Thus, it’s not the facts of a well-designed universe that they seek to avoid as much as the Grand Architect to whom those facts point.
Despite the appearance of a well-designed universe, we are asked to believe that the cosmos came about without conscious guidance. In other words, the universe is sending mixed messages.
But let's be real—the only telltale sign a Grand Designer would leave is, well, the appearance of design! To dismiss the idea of a Designer, in the face of the very proof one would expect to find, shows that even the most convincing evidence can be brushed aside when it doesn't fit a predetermined narrative. Even evidence acknowledged as “overwhelming” is inexplicably dismissed.
To avoid replicating this mistake, we must be willing to scrutinize our presuppositions as rigorously as we examine our facts. Otherwise, our assumptions take the driver’s seat, relegating the facts to passenger status.
"For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse" (Romans 1:20, ESV).
"By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible" (Hebrews 11:3, ESV).
"For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him" (Colossians 1:16, ESV).
Of Sea Otters and God's Safe Keeping
Weighing between 40 and 100 pounds, the sea otter is the world's smallest (and maybe most adorable) species of marine mammal, while at the same time being the heaviest member of the weasel family.
Sea otters have voracious appetites and relish eating abalone, clams, and other marine species. With their high metabolism, they consume about 25 percent of their weight in food every day.
While there were once around a million sea otters in the North Pacific, aggressive fur-trade hunting in the early 1900s decimated their numbers to just over a thousand worldwide.
Today, after laws were passed to protect them, it is estimated that there are about 106,000 sea otters. However, they are still categorized as endangered.
What made the pelts of sea otters so valuable that these creatures were nearly hunted to extinction? Unlike other marine mammals, sea otters don't have a layer of blubber to keep them warm. Instead, they have the densest fur in the animal kingdom, ranging from 250,000 to a million hairs per square inch. By comparison, the average human head contains 100,000 hair follicles.
Whether you're as bald as a baby or you have 250,000 hairs per square inch of scalp, God is lovingly concerned with every detail of your life and that every hair of your head is numbered. Jesus said, "Are not two sparrows sold for a copper coin? And not one of them falls to the ground apart from your Father's will. But the very hairs of your head are all numbered" (Matthew 10:29-30, NIV).
In Psalm 139:14 David said, "I praise You becuase I am fearfully and wonderfully made"