Not Enough Faith

There is a perception among believers and skeptics alike that faith and science are enemies. I have to disagree. Anything you believe requires faith, whether it is God or "Science." My problem is I don't have enough faith to believe a lot of what is passing for "science" these days. Consider the following questions and the responses from a strictly materialistic science perspective versus a theistic perspective. Ask yourself, "Which is more reasonable?"

Question	Materialism	Theism
Why is there anything instead of nothing?	We don't know. Apparently everything came from nothing.	An eternal, uncaused God made everything.
How did life originate?	It came from inorganic matter that became organic that became complex organisms by chance.	The complexity of life came from an intelligent Designer.

The theists are the ones described as "faith-based" and "anti-reason" while the materialists tell us that everything came from nothing by chance ... but they can't be sure. They find that answer more satisfying; I think it is evasive, ignoring the obvious.

Skeptics like to complain about the "God of the Gaps" fallacy. The idea is that whenever we come across some fact that can't be explained, all we have to do is say, "Well, God did it." We find a gap in our scientific knowledge and we simply fill it with God. I can understand the complaint. If the "God did it" claim is the end of the study, then it is not helpful. Modern scientific endeavors were originally predicated on the Christian belief that we have a God who is rational and, so, we should be able to examine His creation and figure out how He thinks about these things. It is "thinking God's thoughts after Him." So halting that effort with a simple "God did it" isn't helping, even if it's accurate. Unfortunately, the skeptics don't seem to notice that they use the same argument. When they discover something they can't explain, they simply retort "Science will figure it out." It's their own "god of the gaps" (without the capital "G" for god). We believe God did it; they believe their god, Science, will reveal it. But for them it is not possible that God did it, so they cannot allow for that answer. They have the same problem. I say, "I've considered the two options and decided that a theistic answer makes more sense." They say, "We will not allow a theistic answer, so we'll have to make sense without it." Which is more reasonable?

I don't have that kind of faith. When I look at what clearly appears to be designed (even they can't avoid using that language) and say, "The best explanation for that is it's designed," their "we don't know, but it has to be from nothing by chance and science will show us how some day" seems like more confidence in a less reasonable position than I know how to muster.