Questions from a Deist

[Rocket]

Hello, I'm a Deist and I've come to ask some questions to some people who believe in the bible(Do you capitalize "bible"?). At the moment I am seriously considering Christianity but I have many qualms with it. I've organized a meeting with a pastor to discuss my problems that I would be unable to discuss in this forum.

#1: Without any secular evidence of the Jesus's life and miracles, how do you justify his existence? (this is a big issue with me becoming a Christian)

#2: Darwinian evolution(If by theistic evolution you are actually talking about Darwinian evolution then by all means do not answer this question. I have no intention of breaking your forums rules) is something that I adhere to in its entirety, is it crucial for Christians to not 'believe' in evolution?

#3: I'm looking for some literature which inspires people toward your religion. I have read a few books in the bible but I haven't read every book. Would you be able to suggest for me anything?

[HisLeast]

#1: Without any secular evidence of the Jesus's life and miracles, how do you justify his existence? (this is a big issue with me becoming a Christian)

#2: Darwinian evolution(If by theistic evolution you are actually talking about Darwinian evolution then by all means do not answer this question. I have no intention of breaking your forums rules) is something that I adhere to in its entirety, is it crucial for Christians to not 'believe' in evolution?

Need time to formulate some answers on these two... so I'll try to get back to you.

#3: I'm looking for some literature which inspires people toward your religion. I have read a few books in the bible but I haven't read every book. Would you be able to suggest for me anything?

I'd suggest Ravi Zacharias. Just do a Youtube search on his name and you'll come up with a good number of hits for his videos. He's a very patient and caring man... none of this "shove it down your throat" or "if you don't like it you can go to hell" kind of stuff. He's also very focused on answering the questions that tug at the hearts of academics.

[mcgyver]

Hello, I'm a Deist and I've come to ask some questions to some people who believe in the bible(Do you capitalize "bible"?). At the moment I am seriously considering Christianity but I have many qualms with it. I've organized a meeting with a pastor to discuss my problems that I would be unable to discuss in this forum.

First of all, Welcome! It's good to have you here asking questions! Hopelfully we can help with some answers.

#1: Without any secular evidence of the Jesus's life and miracles, how do you justify his existence? (this is a big issue with me becoming a Christian)

Actually, the notion that there is no secular evidence to Jesus' life and miracles is a common misconception. There is literally a wealth of literature available for anyone who wishes to look. In fact, there is more evidence extant for Jesus, than there is for the existence of either Plato or Homer.

A partial list of secular writers and historians who refer to Christ and Christianity follows:

Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the Younger, Epictetus, Lucian, Aristides, Galenus, Lampridius, DioCassius, Hinnerius, Libanius, Ammianus, Marcellinus, Eunapius, Zosimus, Mara-bar-Scrapion, Celsus, Porphry, Hierocles....among others.

All of these are non-Christian sources...some openly hostile to Christianity...yet none of them deny either the historicity of Jesus, nor do they deny His miracles...they attribute them to magic or sorcery...but they don't say that they never happened...and that is quite significant IMO.

Then there is the First Apology of Justin Martyr circa AD 160. The significance of this document can not be understated: It is almost universally accepted as a genuine document (even among historians "hostile" to Christianity)...and in this letter addressed: To The Emperor Titus AElius Adrianus Antonius Pius Augustus Caesar, and to his son Verissimus...

He tells Caesar to check the official Roman Records to determine the validity of his (Justin's) claims in reference to the birth, life, death, and ressurection of Jesus Christ. I'm sure that you can immediately grasp the significance of this.

#2: Darwinian evolution(If by theistic evolution you are actually talking about Darwinian evolution then by all means do not answer this question. I have no intention of breaking your forums rules) is something that I adhere to in its entirety, is it crucial for Christians to not 'believe' in evolution?

Although I personally have rejected "Darwinian evolution" (and my course of study was Anthropology...back when dinosaurs roamed the earth ), what is required of Christians is faith and trust in Jesus Christ.

#3: I'm looking for some literature which inspires people toward your religion. I have read a few books in the bible but I haven't read every book. Would you be able to suggest for me anything?

Wow...where to start?

Many good books out there, for sure....as far as the bible I'd start with the gospel of John, as it really lays out who Jesus is and what He's done.

Hope this helps you a bit!

[tango]

Hello, I'm a Deist and I've come to ask some questions to some people who believe in the bible(Do you capitalize "bible"?). At the moment I am seriously considering Christianity but I have many qualms with it. I've organized a meeting with a pastor to discuss my problems that I would be unable to discuss in this forum.

Hello Rocket, and welcome to our board! As long as you are genuinely seeking answers you are welcome to ask questions here. There are very few things we do not permit in this forum, and if there's anything more private you would like to discuss we have a ladies-only forum, a men-only forum (from your user name I can't tell which you are!) and two private forums where you can either chat to moderators or to the two ministers we have here.

#1: Without any secular evidence of the Jesus's life and miracles, how do you justify his existence? (this is a big issue with me becoming a Christian)

There's actually quite a wealth of secular evidence of the existence of Jesus. You've already had quite a good list of it, so I'll defer to the other answers here.

#2: Darwinian evolution(If by theistic evolution you are actually talking about Darwinian evolution then by all means do not answer this question. I have no intention of breaking your forums rules) is something that I adhere to in its entirety, is it crucial for Christians to not 'believe' in evolution?

If by Darwinian evolution you are talking about the belief that everything evolved out of nothing by sheer chance, I have to admire your faith. To believe in random evolution from nothing requires a vast amount of faith, far more faith IMO than believing in a creator God.

I wrote a blog entry about this which you can read here if you are interested.

If you're talking about adaptation, otherwise known as micro-evolution (i.e. a species adapting to its surroundings) then you won't find any arguments on that front. You can demonstrate micro-evolution in a laboratory.

[Rocket]

Need time to formulate some answers on these two... so I'll try to get back to you.

Sure thing. I'll be keenly awaiting your reply.

I'd suggest Ravi Zacharias. Just do a Youtube search on his name and you'll come up with a good number of hits for his videos. He's a very patient and caring man... none of this "shove it down your throat" or "if you don't like it you can go to hell" kind of stuff. He's also very focused on answering the questions that tug at the hearts of academics.

Thank you. I'll be looking him up some time then.

Actually, the notion that there is no secular evidence to Jesus' life and miracles is a common misconception. There is literally a wealth of literature available for anyone who wishes to look. In fact, there is more evidence extant for Jesus, than there is for the existence of either Plato or Homer.

Homer and Plato never did anything out of the ordinary like Jesus did. Although you are correct that I do scrutinize religious figures more than philosophers and poets.

A partial list of secular writers and historians who refer to Christ and Christianity follows:

Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the Younger, Epictetus, Lucian, Aristides, Galenus, Lampridius, DioCassius, Hinnerius, Libanius, Ammianus, Marcellinus, Eunapius, Zosimus, Mara-bar-Scrapion, Celsus, Porphry, Hierocles....among others.

I don't know about all but I've studied this lightly and a sheer majority of these people hadn't been born until after Jesus's crucifixion. Some of these people were alive after Constantine changed Rome's capitol to Constantinople.

Then there is the First Apology of Justin Martyr circa AD 160. The significance of this document can not be understated: It is almost universally accepted as a genuine document (even among historians "hostile" to Christianity)...and in this letter addressed: To The Emperor Titus AElius Adrianus Antonius Pius Augustus Caesar, and to his son Verissimus...

He tells Caesar to check the official Roman Records to determine the validity of his (Justin's) claims in reference to the birth, life, death, and ressurection of Jesus Christ. I'm sure that you can immediately grasp the significance of this.

I'm going to be reading document after I finish responding to you all. I thought Jesus never had record of birth. I thought that Joseph and Mary were evading Rome when he was very little. But I don't understand this subject as well as you do.

Although I personally have rejected "Darwinian evolution" (and my course of study was Anthropology...back when dinosaurs roamed the earth ), what is required of Christians is faith and trust in Jesus Christ.

Well I trust in much of what he says but, that he existed I'm skeptical, as everyone should be on such a matter.

Hello Rocket, and welcome to our board! As long as you are genuinely seeking answers you are welcome to ask questions here. There are very few things we do not permit in this forum, and if there's anything more private you would like to discuss we have a ladies-only forum, a men-only forum (from your user name I can't tell which you are!) and two private forums where you can either chat to moderators or to the two ministers we have here.

Thank you, but I'm not just answers... I also want the fervor which many of you have with Jesus. Oh and I am male.

I read the rules and I really don't want to be seen as a troll. As a few of my questions may lead you to believe that I'm belittling Christians. Which is something that I'd never do to any religion, but you don't know me yet.

If by Darwinian evolution you are talking about the belief that everything evolved out of nothing by sheer chance, I have to admire your faith. To believe in random evolution from nothing requires a vast amount of faith, far more faith IMO than believing in a creator God.

I wrote a blog entry about this which you can read here if you are interested.

If you're talking about adaptation, otherwise known as micro-evolution (i.e. a species adapting to its surroundings) then you won't find any arguments on that front. You can demonstrate micro-evolution in a laboratory.

It seems obvious from your blog entry that you have not read much on the subject of evolution. If I may critique your blog entry some time I'd like to show you how exactly you misunderstand Darwinian evolution.

And a final note to everyone that replied. Thank you for giving me some of your time I admire you and your devotion to me and others like me.

[Dani H]

Just for clarification:

Does "deist" mean "I believe in the existence of God, but I don't know what Jesus has to do with anything and before I take up this subject and put my faith in such a person, I want to make sure He's all He's cracked up to be?"

And yes, I capitalize Bible because there is only one, and as such it's the "title of the book" if you get my drift. Of course there are many translations and versions, which may muddle the waters a little bit, but "Bible" is the translation, in toto, of all original documents which it contains (books, letters, and so forth). I know people use the term "bible" these days as pertaining to all sorts of "books of authority of certain subject matters" and so The Bible is THE authority as it pertains to God and the covenant He made with mankind on the basis of the life, death and resurrection of His Son, Jesus Christ.

Hope that's helpful to you in any way.

[Romber]

#2: Darwinian evolution(If by theistic evolution you are actually talking about Darwinian evolution then by all means do not answer this question. I have no intention of breaking your forums rules) is something that I adhere to in its entirety, is it crucial for Christians to not 'believe' in evolution?

No, it is not crucial. There are a few Theistic Evolutionists on this forum. However, you can't possibly believe in pure Darwinian Evolution (Erases any need for God) and be a Christian. Theistic Evolution is the way for you.

[BroRog]

#1: Without any secular evidence of the Jesus's life and miracles, how do you justify his existence? (this is a big issue with me becoming a Christian)

I wouldn't classify evidence as secular and otherwise. Instead, evidence is either credible or not. Not only do I find the Bible to be credible, but I find my friends and mentors to be credible too.

#2: Darwinian evolution (If by theistic evolution you are actually talking about Darwinian evolution then by all means do not answer this question. I have no intention of breaking your forums rules) is something that I adhere to in its entirety, is it crucial for Christians to not 'believe' in evolution?

The only thing that is crucial is to believe the truth no matter where it takes you.

#3: I'm looking for some literature which inspires people toward your religion. I have read a few books in the bible but I haven't read every book. Would you be able to suggest for me anything?

Frankly, in this climate, I would read stuff by Kierkegaard, Michael Polanyi, Thomas Reed.

Thomas Reed argues for an epistemology based on common sense. Michael Polanyi, in his book "Personal Knowledge" argues for tacit knowledge, and Soren Kierkegaard was critical of the Christian Culture that existed during his lifetime.

[tango]

Thank you, but I'm not just answers... I also want the fervor which many of you have with Jesus. Oh and I am male.

I read the rules and I really don't want to be seen as a troll. As a few of my questions may lead you to believe that I'm belittling Christians. Which is something that I'd never do to any religion, but you don't know me yet.

Sure, no problem. I didn't mean to imply that you were a troll, just wanted to state that any genuine seeker with concerns is welcome here.

It seems obvious from your blog entry that you have not read much on the subject of evolution. If I may critique your blog entry some time I'd like to show you how exactly you misunderstand Darwinian evolution.

And a final note to everyone that replied. Thank you for giving me some of your time I admire you and your devotion to me and others like me.

Feel free to critique the blog entry. If you post your thoughts on it in this forum other people can address them more easily. I posted it as a blog entry because it came up a number of times and it was easier for me than having to look up the previous time I posted it.

The key points really are that the idea of natural selection, survival of the fittest, etc, aren't things I dispute. You can demonstrate a species adapting to changing surroundings in a laboratory - I personally wrote some software some 20 years ago that did exactly that. But for a species to become a different species, we don't see evidence of that happening. We can see things that we can interpret but if anyone could conclusively demonstrate a species becoming a different species in a laboratory it would cause a lot of interest.

Of course the other issue with evolution is that it still doesn't answer the question of how life arose in the first place, i.e. how something dead became something living. Again, if science could reproduce that in a laboratory their theories would become much more believable.

[Rocket]

Just for clarification:...

Deism is the belief in an impersonal god who created the universe(and or its laws) or a god that set about the laws in which created(and or govern) the universe. Some believe in an after life others don't but the only universal belief we have is that there is or once was an impersonal god.

Most Deists become one after having experience with a religion for quite some time and have become disenchanted by the personal aspect or the orthodox nature of organised religion.

For me I'm trying to believe in Christ but I evidently want to make the most informed decision possible.(And I need it to be the most informed, for without evidence I cannot process truth from fable)

And yes, I capitalize Bible because there is only one, and as such it's the "title of the book" if you get my drift. Of course there are many translations and versions, which may muddle the waters a little bit, but "Bible" is the translation, in toto, of all original documents which it contains (books, letters, and so forth). I know people use the term "bible" these days as pertaining to all sorts of "books of authority of certain subject matters" and so The Bible is THE authority as it pertains to God and the covenant He made with mankind on the basis of the life, death and resurrection of His Son, Jesus Christ.

Fair point. I just don't want to offend anyone, I generally don't capitalize omnibuses but I'll start doing so.

No, it is not crucial. There are a few Theistic Evolutionists on this forum. However, you can't possibly believe in pure Darwinian Evolution (Erases any need for God) and be a Christian. Theistic Evolution is the way for you.

Actually, no I think that Darwinian evolution is evidence of a god. I'm going to be writing a more in depth answer to this in a critique of tango's blog entry.

Feel free to critique the blog entry...

I will be doing so.

I wouldn't classify evidence as secular and otherwise. Instead, evidence is either credible or not. Not only do I find the Bible to be credible, but I find my friends and mentors to be credible too.

The only thing that is crucial is to believe the truth no matter where it takes you.

For religion however I feel evidence needs to be secular to hold merit. Otherwise their is too much bias to hold it to be credible.

Thank you to everyone who's posted and given support so far. This is a very hard thing for me.

[Dani H]

You know, I can really relate to where you're coming from, and thank you for clarifying. I was raised in a traditional church setting and at some point grew disenchanted and quit going. During that time I was probably a deist, according to your definition. Actually, during the whole time while I was in church as a child, too, if you want to get technical. I certainly wasn't born again nor was God near to me. He was always "afar off" and "out there somewhere" as far as I was concerned, and so obedience or relationship with Him wasn't something I really concerned myself with, because sometimes I would pray and sometimes I wouldn't, and sometimes I would see answers and sometimes I wouldn't, so it all seemed very arbitrary and nothing I wanted to base my life on. The notion of God always remained in the back of my head, somewhere, during those years though.

I appreciate your honesty and forthrightness, because these are all very personal things, but I can tell you right now that you're safe here. Nobody here was born perfect nor did we all have this incredible relationship with God as soon as we were born, so you're no different from any of us, and we can certainly relate.

I remained a seeker for a number of years, until finally in June 1992, it pleased God to reveal His Son to me (which happened not by way of the Bible, but another book written by a Christian that spoke to me directly where I was), and that's when the missing pieces finally fell into place and things haven't been the same since. Instead of stumbling around in the darkness and bumping into things all the time, Somebody turned on the light switch and I could finally see! Whew.

So you can dig up any sort of information you want, and I do think that's important, because who the heck wants to place their life and eternal well-being into a figment of someone else's imagination? In the end, though, be aware that revelation has everything to do with it, and that God is able to do so, when He knows it's time, and He will meet you right where you are. Salvation is a serious thing and not something to be treated lightly, and so I appreciate your approach to it. Just be advised that we can oftentimes complicate something that is meant to be very straightforward and simple. But I'm certainly rooting for you (and by "rooting" I mean "praying").

[ServantofTruth]

Is it logical to you that a creator God, would make all things, set up laws of science/ nature then walk away, or sit back and watch?

Did God leave anyone in charge?

Would a God steer his creation if it went wrong? Give it a helping hand?

Does you God know how to Love?

If his created people know how to love, I assume he must? If they know how to forgive, I suppose God must? If they know right from wrong, even if they often don't do it, I assume God must know right from wrong?

So do you believe that God is watching?

I'll tell you how I found faith. I bought a bible and started reading. No christian friends, no church. As I read I saw/ connected with a mind greater than all the clever human's I had read. I was also reading Steven Hawkins at the time. He must confuse himself.

I'd say just read the gospels to begin with. Tell us if you disagree with anything that happens and especially with the words that Jesus taught. Few people do! Matthew chapters 5-7 for example. Don't think you'll find much to argue with.

A great teacher? A prophet/ seer? Or more. BTW it's not your mind that needs convincing, it's your heart. Love to you today, SofTy.

[Romber]

Actually, no I think that Darwinian evolution is evidence of a god. I'm going to be writing a more in depth answer to this in a critique of tango's blog entry.

Yes, good point. If you don't mind, can you link me the critique you have of your critique when your done?

[BroRog]

For religion however I feel evidence needs to be secular to hold merit. Otherwise their is too much bias to hold it to be credible.

I understand. But consider this. I have noticed a philosophical movement in our society, and I think worldwide, which places science and the scientific method as the sole source of credible knowledge. This has made it difficult to dialog about subjects that fall outside the purview of science, especially subjects having a basis in history.

About 10 or 15 years ago, it was fairly common to debate the historicity of the Gospels and especially the book of Luke and Acts as Luke was very careful to give the names and places associated with the travels of Paul the Apostle. The critics of our faith challenged the historicity of the Bible.

Now, however, debates about the faith are almost exclusively science based in which the main argument seems to center around issue of empiricism and repeatability. One doesn't believe in miracles, for instance, because one can not see one being performed, or one can not falsify the miracle in a laboratory under controlled conditions.

The point is, I think, that debates centered on the historicity of the Bible have fallen off because even secular history itself is falling away as a valid means to knowledge. The lament of intellectuals today is that "history" is written by the victors of war, almost irretrievably biased toward the victor, nothing but the propaganda of the powerful, and no where near an objective record of what really happened.

And so you might see the difficulty we face today to believe what historians have recorded for the benefit of future generations. If one accepts that empiricism is the only valid means to knowledge, then the Bible, and all other histories, and philosophies are not even going to be at the table of ideas or get a hearing, let alone a fair hearing.

So, as you continue in your quest for truth, you might want to consider whether science is truly the only way to knowledge or not.

[Rocket]

Feel free to critique the blog entry. If you post your thoughts on it in this forum other people can address them more easily. I posted it as a blog entry because it came up a number of times and it was easier for me than having to look up the previous time I posted it.

The key points really are that the idea of natural selection, survival of the fittest, etc, aren't things I dispute. You can demonstrate a species adapting to changing surroundings in a laboratory - I personally wrote some software some 20 years ago that did exactly that. But for a species to become a different species, we don't see evidence of that happening. We can see things that we can interpret but if anyone could conclusively demonstrate a species becoming a different species in a laboratory it would cause a lot of interest.

Of course the other issue with evolution is that it still doesn't answer the question of how life arose in the first place, i.e. how something dead became something living. Again, if science could reproduce that in a laboratory their theories would become much more believable.

Evolution is the origin of species. Abogenesis is the origin of life. We have a ridiculous amount of evidence supporting evolution.

OK, I didn't know where to post this critique but here seems like an ample place to do so.

>>>>Quite frankly I don't think you understand how evolution works and how it relates to religion. While you make a valid argument that the adoption of evolution would destroy the Christian faith, in practice however this does not happen. I'm going to be using an example on how you're mislead on the Church dieing out if people were to accept Darwinian evolution. The example is the Roman Catholic faith, I know that this forum is for people of the Prodastant faith and the only reason I am meantioning this is as an example.

Pope John Paul II, in an address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on October 22, 1996, deplored interpreting the Bible's texts as scientific statements rather than religious teachings, adding:

"New scientific knowledge has led us to realize that the theory of evolution is no longer a mere hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory."

From this you can see that the Catholic faith no longer believes that the book Genesis is historical, it is to be interpreted as a religious text not one holding any merit in science. I don't think that the Catholic faith is going anywhere soon just because it adopted this viewpoint toward science, I think that it was strengthend by this adoption.

I believe that you think that Darwinian evolution attempts to explain the origin of life. The theory of evolution makes no such claim(Abiogenesis is the study on the origin of life), it is mearly an explaination of the origin of species. This "point of singularity" has other theories in which you should be attacking, not evolution. Personally I do not understand how life originated so I trust the people who've dedicated their lives to understanding it. I will not cover the origin of life in this critiqe.

When you say "something came of nothing" are you trying to say that life came from nothing or that the universe came from nothing? I don't think I've ever heard anyone say that the universe came from nothing and neither life. The big bang theory sets about a very good explanation which reqires nothing being produced out of nowhere(the theory does not break any physical law and is backed up by alot of evidence and observations). However if you talk to any physicist they will tell you that they honestly don't know whether the big bang is right or wrong. No one should make that type of assumption on matters that are currently beyond our grasp. I could go futher into this but I wont, I've still got to tackle how the eye is made through evolution.

"Then we must assume that living matter appeared spontaneously from non-living matter(never duplicated in a laboratory)", yes it has never been replicated in a laboratory. Gravity has never been replicated in a laboritory(you're going to pick this one to pieces I know, that's why I selected it). Gravity has around the same amount of evidence than Darwinian evolution, yet you're not attacking the lack of science being able to replicate it. But the compisition of our bodies screams reducing atmosphere, guess what was happening before, during and after the estimated first spark of life? But I'm going into Abogenisis again so no more of that.

"We have to believe, with no evidence at all, that fully functioning organs could develop almost instantly", evolution requires thousands of millions of generations to be able to explain the current complexity of life. With the Earth being around 4.5 billion years old(and life springing to life around 2.2 billion years ago), it is ample enough time for this to occur. Millions of generations is not instantly at all, the first self replicating molecule would be much, much less complex than the single cell organisms we see today.

"For example, vision requires some kind of visual receptors, an optic nerve, and an area of the brain to process the signals (this is even before any form of focussing mechanism comes into play). A retina is no use without an optic nerve, an optic nerve is useless without a retina, and so on. So a working eye would have to appear in a single generation, otherwise it would serve no purpose and be "evolved out".", I was hoping you wouldn't bring up the eye because Darwin said this was the one of the four problems with evolution. I quote from 'The Origin of Species':

"...is it possible that an animal having, for instance, the structure and habits of a bat, could have been formed by the modification of some animal with wholly different habits? Can we believe that natural selection could produce, on the one hand, organs of trifling importance, such as the tail of a giraffe, which serves as a fly-flapper, and, on the other hand, organs of such wonderful structure, as the eye, of which we hardly as yet fully understand the inimitable perfection?"

Short answer, yes. Long answer is given in the same chapter of the book(Darwin was just bluffing so that the final blow to his critiques would be inflicted in a moment of weakness). Quite obviously you haven't read the original theory of evolution but heres an explanation of how a primitive eye was formed:
1. Skin cells are normally slightly photosensitive, the first step is making them slightly more photosensitive. Now the organism is able to tell whether light is falling on the area of these more sensitive cells.
2. The skin cells that are more photosensitive will be subject to a slight impression akin to a dimple. Now the organism will be able to tell approximately where the light is comming from.
3. The small indent will become deeper, untill it will look like a circle or an oval with a pinhole to let light in. Now the organism will be able to tell with much better accuracy where the light is coming from and will be able to see a very poor picture.
4. A privative lens will be formed by mucus expelled from these cells which will build in the pinhole of the privative eye. This lens will be able to focus light much better than the simple pinhole and the organism will be able to make out a slightly better picture.

There, you have a pinhole eye. Each step which I've said here exists in at least one genies in the animal kingdom. We did not suddenly mutate an optic nerve, a retina, a lense or anything we currently possess in our eyes. Our eyes are the end product of millions of years of evolution.

"We would also have to accept that related species appeared at the same time. We can see how insects pollinate flowers - in the absence of insects then flowers are not pollinated, and in the absence of flowers insects have no food source. So how would a plant know to produce a flower unless it knew there was something there that would pollinate it? If it was ahead of the evolutionary curve the flower would serve no purpose and die, if it were behind the curve then the insects would have been and gone, and the flower would serve no purpose.", co-evolution is a hard subject to explain if you don't know basic evolution. I am not going to explain it here in a critique as I know you know not basic evolution thus far, but I hope you read on it and teach yourself about it.

It actually requires no faith to believe in Darwinian evolution, as we have got fathoms of evidence supporting the theory. If you had read the basic theory on evolution, one will be able to deduct how everything was made from an organism with a few cells right up to the most complex organisms today. Nothing in evolution comes fast, it takes a long time. All empirical evidence we've found supports the theory. If it didn't it would no longer be a theory.

There is a reason for me picking gravity, I want you to research and question. Not just gravity, everything.