Christians should learn to reason and to think correctly in analyzing the Christian faith. The church lives in an age of skepticism, an age that denies the Genesis account of Creation and the denial of a Supreme Being. The words of Jesus are appropriate for citation today as it was in His day:  “Why don’t you judge for yourselves what is right?” (Luke 12:57).  This admonition applies to both believers and unbelievers alike. Peter later reflected the words of Jesus when he wrote: “But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect” (1 Peter 3:15). If the church today had applied this principle of rational thinking, there would not be so many unbelievers today. It goes almost without saying that right reason should precede belief itself.

            One witnesses dialogue between believer and unbelievers on Mar’s Hill (Acts 17:16-34). There still needs to be exchange of ideas today. Millions today are unconvinced of the Deity of Christ and all that flows from belief in Him—supernatural conception, Resurrection, and miracles. Thousands upon thousands of so-called Christians are also indifferent toward spiritual things, but this disregard is nothing but unbelief, whether one professes faith in God or not. How can the church deal with such mental inertia, or passivity when it comes to the defense of the faith? If Christians wish to win men and women to Christ, they must enter into rational talk as to their belief in God and the Deity of Christ. Numerous individuals today are kept away from the church because of the chilling influences of modern doubt advanced in secular schools and universities. In today’s society, children are taught evolution in the first grade.

            As believers, Christians affirm that unbelief is demonstrably unreasonable. When Christians read books by atheists who deny the creation account in the Book of Genesis, one cannot help but recall the words of Jesus to the religous leaders: You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel” (Matthew 23:24). Many present-day scientists and teachers strain out a gnat, but, at the same time are willing to swallow a camel. Whatever the difficulties of Christian belief are, one is acutely aware that the difficulites of unbelief are still greater. If one rejects Christianity because miracles seem incredible, one must stand in awe at the miracles that unbelief is compelled to assert, which miracles, according to their assertions, are far more incredible. Refusal to accept belief in God and His creation commits one to even greater difficulties. It goes almost without saying that the rejection of Christian truth becomes correspondingly more irrational, or illogical.

            Why should one reject the Incarnation brought about by miraculous conception and the Resurrection of Jesus from the dead by God, and, at the same time, affirm the so-called miracle of the origin of the universe from an atheist’s perspective—nothing created something. Should one reject Christianity because the supernatural in Christianity is burdened with difficulties to the so-called scientific mind? When one takes away the supernatural in Christianity, what is left behind is no longer Christianity.  If one advances the notion that the supernatural in Christianity is regarded as incredible, it is demonstrably more incredible without the supernatural intervention of Deity. Unbelief on the part of the atheist can only uphold its objections to Christian miracles by accepting an even  greater and grosser miracle—nothing created something. There is absolutely no rationality to this system, a system of its own making.

            As one contemplates this universe, one is conscious that the present universe had a start, or beginning, somewhere. Should one agree to the miracle of creation by a Creator or should one consent to the greater and all-embracing so-called miracle that some primordial nebulous allowed a multitude of atoms with their inherent forces and energies to create life as it is known today, that is to say, which atoms stood apart from one another and that were not evenly distributed to rearrange themselves in such a way that they were able to change the shapeless into the shapely, and the simple into the more and more complex until the highest complexity reached its full development of living matter. For one to find staggering difficulties with the biblical creation account and to accept that differentiated atoms created the world as is known today is truly to vault over a mountain and fall headlong over a straw.

As stated above, many modern scientists and teachers strain out a gnat, but, at the same time are willing to swallow a camel. When one comes to the universe, one cannot but wonder which is the greater miracle—belief in God or to believe that nothing created something. Yes, the greater miracle is to believe that matter made itself, that is to say, nothing created something out of nothing. For one to postulate that atoms—all being exactly alike—proceeded to make themselves into different things, which are entirely different from each other is incredible. How did atoms develop into Carbon, Hydrogen, Nitrogen, Oxygen, and so on? Did the atoms endow themselves with all these potentialities? One wonders how these original atoms self-differentiated themselves to move into other forms of atoms. Did the atoms rearrange, or revampt, themselves  through the function of mindless, or unintelligent, chance?

            Since the world is made up of atoms, one cannot help but ask the question: did the atoms rework themselves by sheer force or energy through a self-created power, that is to say, through a mindless and senseless and aimless force? Did the unlike come out of the like? Did that which is shapely come out of the shapeless? Did the useful come out of the useless? Finally, did the living come out of the lifeless?  Is this marvelous universe with its beauty and all its forms of life simply a result of blind chance? When one speaks of the differentiation of atoms, one observes the vegetable and animal kingdoms—set apart atoms in observation. In this world, one perceives order in the arrangement of atoms. Was there no guidance in the arranging of atoms in the creation of the animal and plant kingdom. Did the blind chance of atoms create men and women as well as all known living creatures on the face of the earth. Can one truthfully postulate, or speculate, that cells separated themselves into the human, vegetable and animal kingdom without any outside guidance? For one to accept this philosophy of blind chance is to swallow a camel (evolution) after straining out a gnat (Christianity with its miracles).

            The modern world concept of evolution is an unverifiable assumption of dogmatic beliefs. When one denies God and His creation, one indeed accepts outrageous assumptions. In the judgment of this author (Dallas Burdette), the atheistical background is so nonsensical that one finds it difficult to see how anyone can put it into words. It is a greater miracle to believe that haphazard collisions of mindless atoms through aeons  of time created both male and female, the plant kingdom, and the animal kingdom. For the evolutionist or athesist to cry out against biblical creation by Deity is to recall the words of Jesus: “You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye” (Matthew 7:5).