The Incoherence of Evolutionary Origins (Part 3)
Read the series so far.
Life not from Earth
It is a universal law which, as all scientific laws, has not witnessed an exception: life does not come from non-life. Yet evolutionists, of the non-theistic sort) must teach that it does. Going further back, ex nihilo nihil fit, out of nothing comes nothing. No one has ever seen or heard of something (i.e. that which has properties and permits predication) coming into existence from nothing (that which has no properties and does not permit predication). Yet evolutionist must adhere to the contradiction of this very basic principle. That is, unless they want to teach the eternity of matter.
Is it a sign of rationality and a coherent system to flout two empirically static principles of science at the very outset of ones thinking? So how do they get around it?
Staying with the life question, one quite popular maneuver is to equivocate on the word “life.” Instead of keeping with a basic definition like “a self-replicating organism” (which is a reductionistic and often imaginary concept itself), they talk about “life” within hypothetical extrapolations where amino acids are formed in an ancient “soup” under propitious chance conditions. In this chance scenario these different amino acids came together in one place, beating off all the enormous odds of ultra-violet destruction and threat of contamination and, voila! “Life.” A self-replicating cellular system? No. Any DNA? No. What was it then? “Well suppose…” So the story (or a version of it) runs. In evolutionism, organic life must come from non-living compounds. So much the worse for the laws of science.
The problems with getting life started, even granted the excessive gratuity of the 20 correct left-handed amino acids which make up basic proteins, would still remain a fantasy. In fact, as geneticist John Sanford, the inventor of the “gene gun” has said, “fill the whole world with proteins, and you would still be no closer to getting life. Because proteins do not equal life.” This is because of the amazing micro-machinery within even the simplest cell; machinery which is told what to do by a “code” far more advanced than any computer software we possess.
Knowing the extremely unlikely chances that life could come about on this planet the way many evolutionists had hoped, eminent scientists like Fred Hoyle, Francis Crick and Carl Sagan believed that it had to start elsewhere and come from outer space. (And the complexity of the cell is known to be yet more wondrous than these men knew.) Of course, claiming life came from outer space isn’t an answer at all (although it might keep the issue of biogenesis off the table for a while longer). We still have to ask, “How did life start some other place in the universe?” Out of sight, out of mind is really all that is being done here; just a rhetorical trick.
This rhetorical trick is performed all the time by evolutionists. They simply put their imaginations forward as some kind of scientific proof. Therefore, they try to put the burden of proof on someone who says, “Well, how did this happen?” They say, “I’m not sure, but I can imagine it happened this way.” If they can imagine it happened that way, then it could have happened that way, couldn’t it? This is what Miller-Urey, or Avida or any other like program is. As Stephen Meyer has said about these information fed extrapolations,
Since the lawlike processes of necessity do not generate new information, these combinatorial models invariably rely upon chance events to do most, if not all the work of producing new information. This problem arises repeatedly for models invoking prebiotic natural selection in conjunction with random events, whether Oparin’s theories or various RNA-world scenarios. Since natural selection “selects” for functional advantage, and since functional advantage ensues only after the result of a successful random search for functional information, combination models invariably rely upon chance rather than selection to produce new information. Yet these theories face formidable probabilistic hurdles, just as pre-chance models do. (Stephen C. Meyer, Signature in the Cell, 331)
Here are some fundamental questions to start with:
- If the chances of a living cell coming from non-living elements (which themselves came from hydrogen and helium!) are staggeringly small, why believe it?
- All living cells contain DNA, but how did the informational instructions (incredibly complex specific code) for each of the cell’s operations come about?
- As every instance of this kind of instructional information ever known comes from minds, why look for it’s cause in mindlessness?
- Why because all amino acids are left-handed must that mean all life is related to a common ancestor? (a variety of the compositional fallacy)
- In the same vein (and the same fallacy), why because different creatures have features which look similar are they necessarily derived from a common source? N.B. These fallacies are built upon the premise that evolution is true—hence begging the question. Do forks and spoons and scissors and whisks have a common ancestor?
- Since evolutionists wrongly predicted there would be much “junk DNA” (see Meyer, Signature, 406-407) and creationists rightly predicted there wouldn’t, why label evolution science and creationism religion?
- How long is it going to be until evolutionists admit that the fossil record, which is the sole source for determining the truth or falsity of evolutionary history, undermines the whole theory?
The math
The mathematics on this is just staggering! Michael Denton is not Christian, doesn’t believe in God, and he doesn’t believe in creationism, but he doesn’t believe in the present neo-Darwinistic view of evolution either. He says that it’s “nonsensical.” Writing about the possibility of life starting by chance, he says:
As it can easily be shown that no more than 10 to the power of 40 possible proteins could have ever existed on earth since its formation [and Denton believes Earth is billions of years old], this means that if protein functions reside in sequences any less probable than 10 to the power of -40 it becomes increasingly unlikely that any functional proteins could ever have been discovered by chance on earth. To get a cell by chance would require at least 100 functional proteins to appear simultaneously in one place; that is 100 simultaneous events, each of an independent probability, which could hardly be more than 10 to the power of -20, giving a maximum combined probability of 10 to the power of -2,000.
Evolutionists have got to take the odds (although they often subtract important data to reduce the number). Denton continues:
Recently Hoyle and Wickramasinghe in Evolution from Space provided a similar estimate of the chance of life originating, assuming functional proteins have a probability of 10 to the power of -20: “By itself this small probability could be faced because one must contemplate not just a single shot at obtaining the enzyme, but a very large number of trials such as are supposed to have occurred in an organic soup early in the history of the earth.” The trouble is that there are about 2000 enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in 10 to the power of 20 to the power of 2000; that is 10 to the power of 40,000, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of an organic soup. (Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, 323)
These numbers are closer to nil than quarks and mesons are to nothing. When you are getting this kind of figure, when you think that 10 to the power of 40 possible proteins ever existed, and yet the chances of life originating by chance is 10 to the power of 40,000, you need to give it up. We are way past Disneyland imagination here. We’re in Cuckoo Land.
Again:
the probability that even one of these information-rich molecules arose by chance, let alone the suite of such molecules necessary to maintain or build a minimally complex cell, is so small as to dwarf the probabilistic resources of the entire universe. (Stephen C. Meyer, Signature in the Cell, 222)
Evolution couldn’t get going. The mechanism of evolution is natural selection, but that cannot be part of the equation at this critical juncture. This is nonsense.
Yet according to Hazen and Trefil in the book Science Matters, the first stage chemical evolution, “encompasses the origin of life from non-life.” We have every right to say, “No it doesn’t!”
And we have the National Association of Biology Teachers in the USA writing such things as:
The diversity of life on earth is the outcome of evolution; an unpredictable and natural process of temporal dissent with genetic modification that is affected by natural selection, chance, historical contingencies, and changing environments.
We have a right to ask if that is what the fossil evidence demonstrates. It demonstrates the exact opposite. We have a right to proof that genetic entropy does not far outpace beneficial genetic modification. We have a right to inquire about the circularity of the whole idea of natural selection and its power to effect the macroevolutionary change implied in the statement above.
Even if we allow them every pass, they have not come anywhere near proving macroevolution. We could even go so far as the progressive creationists and allow some form of evolution. Thus, Collins observes:
Let us grant that it is possible that some parts of neo-Darwinism are right. Say that animals today are descended from animals that lived long ago and that there has been some process of evolutionary change. The question is, however, Is the grand theory as a whole worth believing? Well, if it depends on claims that haven’t been proven, we can say that it hasn’t been proven true and if it depends on things that are likely to be false then we can say that the theory is likely to be false. (C. John Collins, Science and Faith: Friends or Foes?, 270-271)
That is putting it mildly.
Paul Henebury Bio
Paul Martin Henebury is a native of Manchester, England and a graduate of London Theological Seminary and Tyndale Theological Seminary (MDiv, PhD). He has been a Church-planter, pastor and a professor of Systematic Theology and Apologetics. He was also editor of the Conservative Theological Journal (later Journal of Dispensational Theology). He is now the President of Telos School of Theology.
Paul, you aver in point 7 that “How long is it going to be until evolutionists admit that the fossil record, which is the sole source for determining the truth or falsity of evolutionary history, undermines the whole theory?” I’m not sure what you mean by it. I have read Meyer’s books and I still don’t get it.
I know dozens of biologists, and about a half-dozen geologists (including 1 paleontologist) personally and rather closely. Now let me assure you that not one of them is a Christian. NOT ONE OF THEM believes or accepts that the fossil record does not reinforce their belief in evolution. In fact they trumpet it day after day. The ONLY research biologists/geologists that agree with your statement work for ICR or AiG (or are very quiet out there in their institutions). What I mean is that science FIRMLY ACCEPTS evolution. They believe the evidence matches they predictions of the theory. So we as Christians can write all the books we want from the outside, but that is never going to change that fact.
I just don’t want the average reader to think that there is a smoking gun out there in the fossil record (that is presently known) that the evolutionists suppress. Evolutionists LOVE the fossil record. It is their Bible.
Mark says,
“I know dozens of biologists, and about a half-dozen geologists (including 1 paleontologist) personally and rather closely. Now let me assure you that not one of them is a Christian. NOT ONE OF THEM believes or accepts that the fossil record does not reinforce their belief in evolution. In fact they trumpet it day after day. The ONLY research biologists/geologists that agree with your statement work for ICR or AiG (or are very quiet out there in their institutions).”
But Mark, that is not because they can point to the fossil record and find the evolutionary tree of life depicted in the textbooks. They can’t. It is because they look at the evidence with the assured belief that evolution MUST be true! It is never questioned. If the fossil record shows sudden appearance followed by stasis (which it does), then some kind of saltationist explanation is brought in (or, e.g. punctuated equilibria, which is question-begging as an explanation). If the many gaps are inconveniently pointed out, these will be filled in in time. But evolution is true for these guys and that’s it.
You write, “What I mean is that science FIRMLY ACCEPTS evolution.”
But you have just committed something close to the same error. You presumably do not believe in evolution because you think it untrue, correct? If it’s untrue then it cannot be good science. All scientists may do bad science because “science” is not necessarily the same as “what scientists do.” The problem is methodological cum philosophical naturalism (which I go on to critique).
Finally, after setting out the clear evidence of the ‘Cambrian’ fauna which cuts right across evolutionary predictions and requirements, Meyer, in his latest book, goes on to show how these different body-plans could not arise via evolution. For example,
the kind of mutations the evolutionary process would need to produce new necessary animal body plans - namely beneficial regulatory changes expressed early in development - don’t occur. Whereas, the kind that it doesn’t need - viable genetic mutations in DNA generally expressed late in development - do occur. Or put more succinctly, the kind of mutations we need for major evolutionary change we don’t get; the kind we get we don’t need.” - Stephen C. Meyer, Darwin’s Doubt, 262.
Finally, you again take a backhanded swipe at the scientists at ICR, AiG, etc as if they weren’t doing science. Well, they’re doing it the same as secular scientists when it comes to empirical testing, etc., but not if “science” AS philosophical naturalism and its evolutionary postulations are in view. I am surprised if you’ve read Meyer’s books that you haven’t mentioned his extensive arguments for scientific method in your comments.
Dr. Paul Henebury
I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.
[Paul Henebury]Finally, you again take a backhanded swipe at the scientists at ICR, AiG, etc as if they weren’t doing science. Well, they’re doing it the same as secular scientists when it comes to empirical testing, etc., but not if “science” AS philosophical naturalism and its evolutionary postulations are in view. I am surprised if you’ve read Meyer’s books that you haven’t mentioned his extensive arguments for scientific method in your comments.
Mark can speak for himself, but I took his statement to mean that scientists from ICR or AiG will just be seen as outliers in the scientific community, and although I don’t know this to be true, I would guess that their credibility ranks right up with Pons and Fleischmann among the majority of scientists.
Dave Barnhart
This picture illustrates the implication of the worldview both sides bring to bear on the same evidence. I think this is what Paul is talking about - the issue is really presuppositional:
Here’s another one:
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
“Mark can speak for himself, but I took his statement to mean that scientists from ICR or AiG will just be seen as outliers in the scientific community, and although I don’t know this to be true, I would guess that their credibility ranks right up with Pons and Fleischmann among the majority of scientists.”
You may be right, and I would be happy to credit Mark with that view. But so what if scientists from these organizations are despised? Why should that be worth raising here? I am well aware that my position and that of most Christians would be anathema to secular science. But that is because of their epistemic and metaphysical assumptions: assumptions which, as I noted previously, destroy the scientific enterprise in the first place.
Dr. Paul Henebury
I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.
If it’s untrue then it cannot be good science.
If the answer is a supernatural one, by present definition it cannot be good science. Truth and fact, by scientific definitions are different, and science sees itself with dealing in the latter rather than the former. Science is naturalistic in approach. It does not deal in the supernatural, and science that does is “wrong” as often “regular science”. See geocentric models of the solar system and the like for plenty of examples regarding that.
[Paul Henebury]I am surprised if you’ve read Meyer’s books that you haven’t mentioned his extensive arguments for scientific method in your comments.
Meyers is an Old-earther as myself. He would disagree with most of the AIG and ICR folks as I do also about a young-earth.
Gen.1.1-2.3 was directly given by God and could be seen as a special genre. I have read your counter of the framework position Paul, but am not convinced. The structure of Gen. 1 seems to indicate something else than a blow by blow account.
A verse in Proverbs alludes to ‘God hiding’ exactly ‘how’ He created the universe, but unfortunately the reference escapes me. Waltke mentions it in his work on Proverbs, but I cannot find it now.
"Our faith itself... is not our saviour. We have but one Saviour; and that one Saviour is Jesus Christ our Lord. B.B. Warfield
David, saying “that’s the way science is done” begs the question. As I have said before, science didn’t used to be done that way: e.g. not by Kepler or Boyle or Newton or Faraday or Maxwell; and not by many people today. Moreover, there is nothing about science qua science which necessitates methodological naturalism. But that method is based on an unworkable worldview. Methodological naturalism cannot explain itself as a philosophy of science. You seem to think that giving glory to God should not be part of science (see 1 Cor. 10:31; Matt. 22:37). If it should be I don’t understand your comment. You also appear to think (maybe I am wrong?) that science explains many things - it doesn’t, its describes them. The explanation IS God the Creator and Sustainer.
Alex, these posts are not about YEC and I usually cite OEC’s for that reason. John Lennox’s interpretation of Genesis 1 is the best OEC presentation I have seen. He dismisses the Framework view because it answers nothing: e.g. you can’t have birds without first having a sky for them to fly in. Thus, it is logically uninteresting. Whatever, can’t we just discuss the post?
Dr. Paul Henebury
I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.
Paul, shall we erect an orthodox religious board that oversees the conclusions of the scientists?
Of course science could demonstrate more humility in what it purports to be able to explain (and I think it does explain things; there are some explanations that can be discovered prior to the ultimate Explanation, although you may be making a semantic distinction that I am not), but it’s a fallen world.
My point is that science does much well without being captive to Christian orthodoxy. Let the believers recognize God’s glory in what science reports even as they reject what they must to let God be true. And let us not be surprised when mainstream scientists look askance at scientists who go off the reservation to keep their findings in line with their personal theological understandings.
It is pretty sad when Christians would discourage other Christians from applying the truths of the Word of God in every area of live. If a Christian wants to study the world that God made, and apply what he already knows is true, he is doing an illegitimate study according to some folks. Sad indeed.
The problem is that we as Christians view an absolute right and wrong exists, because we view Scripture as an absolute view on Truth. The fact is that science is never absolutely right or wrong. Science is a framework that has been developed to explain observations or questions that a scientist may have. That framework (or model) is validated only as long as it continues to hold true for the observations that are noticed or continues to answer the question. That validation is confirmed by a consensus of scientists who are versed and respected in their field. Once a consensus is no longer maintained (or never obtained) or the model/framework does not agree with the observation, science disregards to the model/framework and continues to work on a proper model/framework. Science is constantly changing. In fact it is changing every day. What was true yesterday is not true tomorrow. We want to pin down evolution as some perfectly worked out model that scientist are considering the “truth”. And that is not the case. Evolution isn’t even a single theory. It is a very broad description of tons of smaller sub-theories that are changing rapidly.
The fact that a few Christian scientists, some with weak credentials are questioning the established science and have found some brand new issue or rehashing false assumptions is going to change science, we are kidding ourselves. The fact that a majority needs to agree with it, has already weakened the Christian scientists beliefs.
This is how it works. I am a scientist and have worked in both pure research as well as established principles. I believe in YEC. But I am not naive to ever believe that so-called Christian science will ever change any scientists mind on evolution. I am a YEC because the Bible teaches it. I have been friends with many evolutionary scientists and even some that are very influential in the community. Without a doubt everyone of them have said that if evidence is found and new models are confirmed to fit the new observations that they would abandon current scientific thinking. They would not recognize a God, though, because the concept of God is not science, that is something for religion.
While I appreciate Paul’s article above, first, it is easy to poke holes into evolutionist. Most evolutionists know and will confirm that there are numerous holes in evolution. The fact still remains that to the scientific community, it is the best framework to date. The most significant literature on the fossil record, and the models and frameworks built on the fossil record support the science communities ideas on evolution. Most, if not all, major institutions that are recognized in this area, such as the The American Geological Society and the Paleontological Society have clearly stated that the fossil record supports evolution. The fact that we can name a few scientists who may show something different, doesn’t invalidate the science behind the fossil record. It is estimated, based on polls, that anywhere from between 95% (at the lowest poll) to more than 99.9% of scientists believe in evolution. Again, I think it is naive that a room filled with 1,000 scientist, who are not stupid by any stretch of the imagination, there is 1 individual who holds the “real knowledge” of the truth, and that they alone have been able to see the data, and found out that the other 999 are flawed, and not only are they flawed, but despite their best efforts they are unable to see or agree with this individuals model.
David,
All science begins with an hypothesis. Then it experiments and observes to test the hypothesis. The problem with your statement is that secular science rejects out of hand the hypothesis that “God created” even though creation scientists have repeatedly shown that it is the best hypothesis to explain the facts. Secularists don’t reject the hypothesis “God created” on the basis of the facts but on the basis of their preconceived assumptions that there is no God and no supernatural influences are at work that explain natural phenomena. Both sides have the same facts with which to work, but each side begins with a different belief, a faith in their assumptions and hypothesis. This belief orients the observer, providing the lens through which the facts are viewed. This why the discussion regarding worldview is fundamental and why Christians need not ever accept the dichotomy that secularists want to place between so-called science and faith. Evolutionary science is just as much (I would argue even more since the facts don’t fit their theories) a faith a YEC is.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
[dgszweda]Not all science starts with a hypothesis. Much starts purely with an observation. Something is seen and it needs to be explained.
Observation tells us that information always derives from intelligence. Since science rejects this most plainly observable reality, there must be something else going on.
“Not all science starts with a hypothesis. Much starts purely with an observation. Something is seen and it needs to be explained. I understand that secular science rejects a God, that is because God does not fit within the realm of any science, Christian or Secular. God is not a being that can be seen, hypothesized or tested. In fact apart from what God has revealed about himself, we would have no ability to know Him. I have no problem injecting God into this discussion. But our standing is significantly stronger when we take God out the scienticial part of this equation and we stop calling it Creation Science. We believe in a God who is beyond understanding, exists outside of our reality and is all powerful. Science does not have the framework as a study to include this.”
I understand your point but am curious as to how Jesus fits into this view. To say “God is not a being that can be seen” scientists have to disregard Jesus who is the manifest revelation of God. Jesus is declared by Scripture to be the creator and sustainer of all things. Jesus also did visibly manifested and recorded miracles which authenticate His complete authority over the created realm. How is it then that a scientist can claim that “God does not fit within the realm of any science?” Just curious as to your scientific explanation of Jesus.
Listen, don’t get me wrong here. I am an ardent defender of a literal 6 day 24 hour creation and a young earth. I am truly not defending secular science. I am just trying to explain from their viewpoint, and in general how science operates, especially from a secular viewpoint. There is a logic to what they do, despite the fact that it is contrary to Scriptures, and ultimately leads to the wrong conclusion. We do have to at least acknowledge that science and religion operate on two different planes. Granted, at one point in the final revelation God will reveal the true agreement between the two. It won’t be by man though.
Kirk, Jesus was a man, science would say. It is a historical documented proof that a man, as explained in the Bible, named Jesus existed. This is a tough one to deny. But the only real discussion of a Christ is in Scripture. This is where Christ is revealed. He is only a footnote in history, and therefore science has no reason to acknowledge him in any preferential way, except that a rabal rouser existed in Galilee during this time named Cristus.
[Chip Van Emmerik]… secular science rejects out of hand the hypothesis that “God created” even though creation scientists have repeatedly shown that it is the best hypothesis to explain the facts.
Yes, but that hypothesis cannot be falsified. And the ability to be falsified is a pre-requisite for the acceptance and testing of an hypothesis. Faith acceptance removes a belief from the realm of science. What we as believers of creation do is more an apologetic. We fit the observations to our pre-determined narrative.
[DavidO]Chip Van Emmerik wrote:
… secular science rejects out of hand the hypothesis that “God created” even though creation scientists have repeatedly shown that it is the best hypothesis to explain the facts.Yes, but that hypothesis cannot be falsified. And the ability to be falsified is a pre-requisite for the acceptance and testing of an hypothesis. Faith acceptance removes a belief from the realm of science. What we as believers of creation do is more an apologetic. We fit the observations to our pre-determined narrative.
Yes, Christians will always start with a presupposition. There is a God, and that God has revealed himself truthfully in the Holy Scriptures. That is our presupposition. Despite what creation scientists will tell you, secular science starts with a very limited or no presuppositions at all. And at the end of the day, that is not bad, nor does it decrease our standing. What it does show is that man, left to himself, without God and the Bible, is unable to determine truth. The presupposition validates itself. Why creation science argues that if secular science would just look at the data a little bit better, and try a little bit harder, they would be able to see exactly what we have already known and learned from God’s Word, baffles me. And in many ways, I find that a very dangerous possibility to how we view revelation. The people of Galilee saw the very Living Word and chose not to believe. Even one of his disciples chose not to believe. We will not win people over to God through science or a better argument to the data. It is only when we place the context of creation into fabric of the Gospel and the Holy Spirit convicts that we will win that individual over.
Dave,
You are simply wrong. This is the party line that secular scientists try to sell, but it is absolutely false. Of course secular scientists begin with presuppositions. Probably the most important is that only the natural realm matters. Furthermore, I don’t think that I can convince anyone to believe God, no matter what evidence I provide. On the other hand, I refuse to allow them to shackle me with their deficient paradigm. It baffles me when Christians allow the unsaved world to dictate the rules of engagement by ruling God out of bounds at the onset. There’s an old bumper sticker that seems applicable here.
Know God; Know truth.
No God; no truth.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
Speaking for myself, it is not that “it is only the natural realm that matters”, rather IT IS ONLY THE NATURAL REALM THAT I CAN MEASURE. To do science is to measure the natural realm. To invoke revelation knowledge is to, pardon me, NOT do science. That doesn’t make invoking revelation by default wrong…it just means it in not science. Now, I will say that most people INVOKE REVELATION KNOWLEDGE WAY TOO EARLY. They are uncomfortable with the results of science, so many plug their ears and start saying “I believe the Bible rather than man” so they don’t have to deal with observation. Or worse, they read all-too-often off-base and quite frankly “kooky” “creation science” books and articles and think they are getting “Godly science”.
In my humble opinion, following the principles of science will lead to incongruities with natural theory assuming (as I do by faith) that God supernaturally created the universe. But once again, those incongruities are higher up so to speak than most people accept.
Sorry buddy, apparently no one wants to talk about incongruities in evolution.
[Chip Van Emmerik]Dave,
You are simply wrong. This is the party line that secular scientists try to sell, but it is absolutely false. Of course secular scientists begin with presuppositions. Probably the most important is that only the natural realm matters. Furthermore, I don’t think that I can convince anyone to believe God, no matter what evidence I provide. On the other hand, I refuse to allow them to shackle me with their deficient paradigm. It baffles me when Christians allow the unsaved world to dictate the rules of engagement by ruling God out of bounds at the onset. There’s an old bumper sticker that seems applicable here.
Know God; Know truth.
No God; no truth.
First Chip, it is not a presupposition that you outline above. It is the barrier of science. Science deals with the natural realm, religion deals with the supernatural realm. It is not a deficient paradigm, it is a paradigm that has strict limits. Why on earth would you ever think that Science would be able to clearly explain how a supernatural God created matter out of nothing. Not only does this break every scientific law, but there are no science that will show this. John Lennox, states this is the biggest benefit of Christians. We aren’t crazy and say that science explains creation (even though atheist try to corner us into a corner to try to get us to explain our beliefs in science), we say that creation was a supernatural event.
I don’t allow the unsaved world to dictate the rules of engagement. In fact, I would say that I am one of the few that throw those concepts off. It is AiG, and other institutions that are trying to argue creation using the same rules of engagement that the unsaved world tries to use to explain how creation is a better explanation than science. What I refuse to do is to be held to those rules. Let science answer the physical realm and I will let Scripture clearly articulate the Truth on those things that it speaks of. God is there from the beginning, I don’t need to try to get God to fit into Science. I will let God stand clearly on his own, despite science.
Chip,
I would also add, because I have seen many quote here, that when Ken Ham quotes “Creationists and evolutionists, Christians and non-Christians, all have the same evidence—the same facts”,I do not believe it is accurate. We do not have the same facts. In fact, I would say that we may be the only ones with true fact. We have Scripture, which we believe is accurate in whole. We believe this holds true no matter what anything else indicates. Many creation scientists will indicate that we have two different axioms. Ken Ham states, Creationists believe that God created the universe and that secular scientists believe that God did not create the universe, and therefore this is the conundrum. The issue is that science only deals with things that can be tested. God cannot be tested and therefore does not fall into the realm of science.
Now I know Chip that you may think that this is needless arguing, but I truly believe that what we are seeing and what will continue to happen is that we have seriously mixed up science and religion, and that not only will this muddled mess continue to not help anyone, I believe that we are seriously not spending time focusing on the differences between the two and the theological constructs.
I taught a 10 week course at our church on Biblical Creation (notice it wasn’t on Creation Science). The entire course focused purely on why it was important for us as Christians to not only understand how Creation is taught in Scripture, but also why a correct understanding of Creation is critical to the Gospel. How it actually ties together what we see throughout the OT and the NT. It was taught to about 100 highly educated people, many were college kids, some working on degrees in science, and only one individual understood the importance of these things to the overall understanding of Scripture. Most all had their faith in Creation rooted in a lot of very old and poor creation science. They resoundly said after the course that they were never taught this and that it was very eye opening. Most wanted to continue to keep trying to argue against evolution by trying to throw up scientific arguments. Many were very poor or incorrect arguments, and felt that our best course was to continue down that path. I feel that we need to leave Science in the realm of what it is useful for, and focus on teaching our children what the differences are between science and religion, why those differences are there, how to interact with those difference and to truly understand why a correct view of Creation is important in having a correct view of Scripture. We will not convince evolutionist to rethink their beliefs because of our outstanding science arguments, but I do feel that we can draw people to the Gospel and ultimately to the Truth if we truly teach the Scriptures.
Found this succinct and pertinent from Team Pyro
Challenge: Prove that Christ is ultimate truth — without quoting Bible verses.
Response: First, prove that reason is ultimate truth — without giving reasons.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
I shall be addressing methodological naturalism and presuppositions further on - at least briefly.
Dr. Paul Henebury
I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.
[Chip Van Emmerik]Found this succinct and pertinent from Team Pyro
Challenge: Prove that Christ is ultimate truth — without quoting Bible verses.
Response: First, prove that reason is ultimate truth — without giving reasons.
I like this a lot. I would expect most of us would. There is something bigger than man’s reason. That is why I am surprised that so many in the creation debate insist on trying to defend their position with man’s reasoning. They try to get in the ring with scientists and debate science with them and they look foolish as a result. They don’t have to do that. If they really believe that man’s reason is an inferior way of getting the truth, why not just punt on trying to debate on that level?
The bifurcation of science and religion, knowledge and belief, facts and faith, continues to baffle me. Of course there are differences between them, but some in this thread have the idea that “ne’er the twain shall meet.” This is entirely modernistic, but also—as Paul pointed out—completely foreign to the many Christian scientists from history as well as many contemporary Christian scientists. It is impossible to divorce one’s view of the world (worldview) from one’s study of the world.
-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)
Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA
Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University
[Greg Long]The bifurcation of science and religion, knowledge and belief, facts and faith, continues to baffle me. Of course there are differences between them, but some in this thread have the idea that “ne’er the twain shall meet.” This is entirely modernistic, but also—as Paul pointed out—completely foreign to the many Christian scientists from history as well as many contemporary Christian scientists. It is impossible to divorce one’s view of the world (worldview) from one’s study of the world.
It is not that ne’er the twain shall meet, it is understanding the limits of each and using the right ones for the right discussions. We wouldn’t ask religion to answer all science questions and we wouldn’t ask science to answer all religious questions. Creation science is consumed with this idea that somehow we can merge both. That since we have the Bible and the same facts regarding science that somehow if we try hard enough we can come up with the right answer scientifically to the origins. And that secular scientist don’t have the Bible, so their science will always be flawed. I don’t think we are compelled to strain at this. The fact is that secular scientist and creation scientist are just as clouded to many of the facts relating to Creation. Only those elements that the Bible clearly articulates in regards to Creation is all that we know more than secular scientists. And while many would then assume that this now gives us a unique advantage to explaining creation scientifically, the only thing it does is give us a unique advantage as to what the Bible states. This is clearly proved out in the fact that nearly every single scientific explanation to creation that creation scientists have proposed from the Scopes Trial to the 90’s is incorrect (even reputable creation science organizations agree). And given time, the explanations proposed by creation scientists today will become incorrect. Why? because as creation scientists continue to provide better arguments to secular science, secular science is changing just as fast. And even the models that secular scientists propose are becoming outdated just as quick. What hasn’t changed since the Scopes trial to the 90’s? Scripture. Still the exact same truth, and is entirely impervious to changes in any scientific models. So our confidence should rest on Scripture. And the science we should leave to scientist.
What I would like someone to answer to me is, what value do we see in continuing to chase every single evolutionary argument with a competing creation science argument, when the entire creation event was a miracle that took place outside of the models of science? Why can’t the Bible stand entirely on its own? What sufficiency does Scripture lack that requires us to create sub-branch of creation science?
It is impossible to divorce one’s view of the world (worldview) from one’s study of the world.
Yet secular scientists do it all the time. There is no cogent basis for doing science at all outside of a Biblical world view – no reason that the future should be like the past, no explanation for scientific laws that they use, no reason that mathematics should work so perfectly to allow scientific research, and so on. We know there is a creator that never changes and who holds all things together by the word of his power and so we can point to God and give a rational explanation for why science is even possible. But random naturalism has no real answer for these things at all and so whenever a secular scientist does his job, he must do so on the basis of a Biblical worldview, whether he admits so or not.
I agree with David. It is by faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, not science.
Andy, now we’re just talking past one another. I certainly don’t believe—and I don’t recall anyone else on this thread arguing for—the idea that we understand that this world was created by God because science proves it. Of course I ultimately accept that on faith.
What we’re arguing against is this notion that creation scientists (or, in the view of some, creation so-called “scientists”) are on some kind of worthless fool’s errand that makes no contribution to our understanding of the world around us, and that all the proof and evidence is on the side of REAL scientists who are able to keep focused on the facts without allowing any kind of emotion, belief, or religion to distort their search for truth.
-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)
Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA
Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University
[dgszweda]Greg Long wrote:
The bifurcation of science and religion, knowledge and belief, facts and faith, continues to baffle me. Of course there are differences between them, but some in this thread have the idea that “ne’er the twain shall meet.” This is entirely modernistic, but also—as Paul pointed out—completely foreign to the many Christian scientists from history as well as many contemporary Christian scientists. It is impossible to divorce one’s view of the world (worldview) from one’s study of the world.
It is not that ne’er the twain shall meet, it is understanding the limits of each and using the right ones for the right discussions. We wouldn’t ask religion to answer all science questions and we wouldn’t ask science to answer all religious questions. Creation science is consumed with this idea that somehow we can merge both. That since we have the Bible and the same facts regarding science that somehow if we try hard enough we can come up with the right answer scientifically to the origins. And that secular scientist don’t have the Bible, so their science will always be flawed. I don’t think we are compelled to strain at this. The fact is that secular scientist and creation scientist are just as clouded to many of the facts relating to Creation. Only those elements that the Bible clearly articulates in regards to Creation is all that we know more than secular scientists. And while many would then assume that this now gives us a unique advantage to explaining creation scientifically, the only thing it does is give us a unique advantage as to what the Bible states. This is clearly proved out in the fact that nearly every single scientific explanation to creation that creation scientists have proposed from the Scopes Trial to the 90’s is incorrect (even reputable creation science organizations agree). And given time, the explanations proposed by creation scientists today will become incorrect. Why? because as creation scientists continue to provide better arguments to secular science, secular science is changing just as fast. And even the models that secular scientists propose are becoming outdated just as quick. What hasn’t changed since the Scopes trial to the 90’s? Scripture. Still the exact same truth, and is entirely impervious to changes in any scientific models. So our confidence should rest on Scripture. And the science we should leave to scientist.
What I would like someone to answer to me is, what value do we see in continuing to chase every single evolutionary argument with a competing creation science argument, when the entire creation event was a miracle that took place outside of the models of science? Why can’t the Bible stand entirely on its own? What sufficiency does Scripture lack that requires us to create sub-branch of creation science?
Outstanding post! Gets right at several key points in the discussion.
[Greg Long]Andy, now we’re just talking past one another. I certainly don’t believe—and I don’t recall anyone else on this thread arguing for—the idea that we understand that this world was created by God because science proves it. Of course I ultimately accept that on faith.
What we’re arguing against is this notion that creation scientists (or, in the view of some, creation so-called “scientists”) are on some kind of worthless fool’s errand that makes no contribution to our understanding of the world around us, and that all the proof and evidence is on the side of REAL scientists who are able to keep focused on the facts without allowing any kind of emotion, belief, or religion to distort their search for truth.
This I would agree with. I feel that the efforts put in by creation scientists to cast every evolutionary scientist argument into a Biblical Worldview light is foolish. Why would I say that. Let’s just look at one example. How much time did we spend educating our kids in Christian colleges, Christian churches, Christian schools about how the canopy theory was a very valid description for the flood. And not only that, but we used Bible verses to further provide Biblical proof to this claim. Where is that argument now? In the foolish bin. And that isn’t the only one. There are between 250-300 key arguments outlined by creation scientists as to better explanations for evolutionary arguments that are in the same bin. And not put in the pin by so-called secular scientists. But put in the foolish bin by the key reputable creation science organizations today. Now lets step back and see how many people in our churches can clearly articulate a solid defense as to why there must be a historical Adam. I would dare say that there are more people in our churches who are versed in and still use the Canopy theory, than can articulate the theological construction and implications around a historical Adam. Both are clear discussions around why a literal creation account is true, but one provides significant more value to us as Christians, the other? in the foolish bin!
Now I say none of that to say that Christians cannot be scientists who practice science. I was clearly one of them and I contributed some good to the scientific community despite my clearly held belief in a literal reading of creation.
[AndyE]Actually Andy, they don’t. That is one of the primary points I have been trying to make. Their worldview dictates their starting position, their presuppositions and assumptions which dictate how they “do science” just as surely as the creationist’s worldview orients him in his research.It is impossible to divorce one’s view of the world (worldview) from one’s study of the world.
Yet secular scientists do it all the time. There is no cogent basis for doing science at all outside of a Biblical world view – no reason that the future should be like the past, no explanation for scientific laws that they use, no reason that mathematics should work so perfectly to allow scientific research, and so on. We know there is a creator that never changes and who holds all things together by the word of his power and so we can point to God and give a rational explanation for why science is even possible. But random naturalism has no real answer for these things at all and so whenever a secular scientist does his job, he must do so on the basis of a Biblical worldview, whether he admits so or not.
I agree with David. It is by faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, not science.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
Chip,
Their worldview is completely incoherent and does not give them any basis to do science at all. They must “borrow capital” from the Biblical worldview for them to perform any scientific endeavor. They suppress that truth, to be sure, and they go about their business as if there is no God, but they are able to make technological and biological advances because the reality of the biblical worldview undergirds their whole scientific activity. It is because of this that both believers and unbelievers are able to do sound scientific research and contribute to society in the amazing ways that they do.
On the other hand, I actually do understand what you are trying to say. They don’t believe in God and so they seek naturalistic explanations for life, the universe, and the origin of the species. This is certainly wrongheaded and results in incorrect conclusions.
The problem, though, is that believing scientists can’t use science effectively as an apologetic against secular evolutionary dogma because (1) supernatural events are non-repeatable, (2) the conclusions of science are constantly changing due to the progressive natural of scientific understanding, (3) God created things such as man and the universe in a mature functioning state that requires a non-existent backstory (just like the wine Jesus created would have looked and tasted like it came from plants that never actually existed), and (4) we don’t know how the global supernatural events of the curse and the flood affected the state of the earth and data we are now able to gather from it.
So, to Greg, I’m not saying that unbelieving scientists are the only REAL scientists or that they work without prejudice, but I do think the “facts” or data that scientists have at their disposal are not reliable (for reasons mentioned above) to answer the questions that creation scientists or evolutionary scientists want them to answer. That is why our creationist apologetic needs to be faith based or word based, just like the scriptures tell us.
Discussion