The essence of this chapter is Girzone’s struggle with deciding whether creation speaks to and necessitates the existence of a Creator. This is not so much an academic struggle, as a personal struggle. Girzone was not attempting so much to quell the scientific criticism against creation as to deal with his own questionings. Still, the chapter provides insightful commentary that is worth pondering for all.
Girzone seems to accept the idea that the earth evolved (pg. 14) but still sees this occurring under the guidance and through the creative action of God. As support for this controversial view (among Christians) he states, “God cannot contradict in revelation what He has placed in nature.” (pg. 15) He denotes the evidence for eohippus to horse as being essentially unassailable but then quavers a bit, indicating that too many gaps exist within the amphibian lines and reporting on Morgan’s experiments at Columbia University with fruit flies which failed to show significant genetic adaptation under a large quantity of induced environments and circumstances.
In the end, while Girzone cannot prove that there is a God he feels that, “As far as the mind is concerned, psychologically it can feel satisfied that God exists even though the technical evidence is not conclusive and points only to the necessity of God’s existence.” (pg. 17) He argues earlier (pg. 12) that even scientists are forced to rely upon faith – a point I would agree with (oops, bad grammar, ohh well).
Girzone sums up his evidence for the existence of God, “So, my own mantra is reduced to a simple observation. I know there is a God, because the world exists, and I know it is real, and not an illusion, because I perceive it with my senses and I can analyze it with my intelligence, which I also am conscious exists.” (pg. 18) Not an unreasonable argument, imho. Girzone then continues for the next three pages to relay several miraculous incidents he experienced during his lifetime – further evidence for the existence and involvement of the divine (pp. 19-21).
I am sure that some will be quick to point out the flaws and the weaknesses in these arguments – that Girzone was unable to prove the existence of God – but I fall upon the same defense Girzone seems to rely upon – none of us can prove our points, at some point we must rely upon faith in something (others, experience, revelation, perception, history, etc.) – and with Girzone, I side that the evidence points towards a Creator God.